Logic shows an "if - elseif - else" branching, if you respect everyone's free will, and treat everyone as equal.
From an axiomatically neutral standpoint, I am OBLIGED TO OFFER COEXISTENCE FIRST, hence...
Default stance ("if"branch) is COEXIST, which literally means Exist Together. (This is where we arrive first.) If this is REJECTED, BASED ON ONE'S FREE WILL, we move on, this brach is FALSE.
Next branch is SEGREGATE, and the reason is, that by refusal of "existence together", one has either refused "existence", or refused "together". Since refusal of existence excludes applying one's own free will to choose, the "elseif" branch can only be SEGREGATE, axiomatically.
If one does not choose to take the first two branches, as if the SEGREGATE ON ONE'S OWN VOLITION, then, and only then, I am enabled to attempt forcefully expelling the one who refused coexistence and also refused to segregate peacefully. From here, it becomes legitimate self-defense in an XOR relation of existence of me or the other one. This axiomatically defines a state, where my life/existence is threatened. By this logic it is easy to see, the "else" branch can not be anything else than APPLY ALL MEANS NECESSARY, EVEN DEADLY FORCE UPON ENCOUNTERING RESISTANCE TO DEPORTATION, AS A LAST RESORT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE SELF-PRESERVATION. (Self preservation being the only legitimate way to take a life.)
This logic is rooted in reality itself, so it is above all laws of humankind.
I would really like to see someone that can provide legit counter-reasoning...