You say that people aren't 'economic goods' but surely the free labor market espoused by libertarian economics treats them as such, and to heavily restrict immigration would be to interfere with the free markets and thus contradict libertarian ideology.

No it doesn't. Even if your ideal is a free market in labor, using the state to import laborers and arbitrage foreign labor markets doesn't meet that standard. Laborers aren't labor, and labor isn't a good. It's a service. As a service, it can't be imported absent the person who performs it. The product of the service is the good, and the good can be imported without importing the laborer -- which is why I gave the example of buying Chinese goods from Walmart. To conflate the laborer with the product of labor is thus a bait and switch (not to mention total a bastardization of Austro-libertarian economics), as I already pointed out.

I think some far-right nationalists claim to be 'libertarian' simply because it sounds a lot better than 'nationalist' or 'facist'. In reality their ideology is as far from libertarianism as possible. It's about PR and marketing more than anything else.

This is just a string of pejoratives. Are you implying that you can refute an argument by reclassifying it? Am I supposed to accept your tacit moral condemnation as an argument? Because it's not, and the objective of this article is not to argue over the definitions and criteria of classifications. Rather, it deals with the practical application of a certain set of principles and arguments that are classified as "libertarian" rather than "fascist" or "nationalist". Your contention is therefore totally non-responsive to what I wrote.