It may be useful to link to your (@DeadBuddha) earlier thread about this:
We discovered there that nibbāna is said to be “produced”.“given rise to”/“given birth to” (AN6.57, DN33) It is also specifically said to have a condition (paccaya) and cause (hetu) (SN35.118). So it is not unproduced and uncaused at all! 
The problem is with the translation ‘unconditioned’ (or even ‘unfabricated’) for asankhata. Nibbāna—which in the discourses is consistently defined as the ending/ceasing of the defilement or as the ending of existence (aka parinibbāna), which is not some sort of pre-existing state—is caused by the practice of the eightfold path. So it has the path as condition. It is produced and given rise to by the path.
Asankhata means “without (a-) anything produced/created/fabricated (sankhata)”, not “unconditioned” and also not really “unfabricated”. Hence Norman translated asankhata as ‘without formed things’. Unconditioned would be something like apaccaya, but as said, nibbāna is said to be dependent on a paccaya.
The prefix a- in asankhata merely indicates the absence of sankhatas, not the presence of some unconditoned/unfabricated something. Just like asoka means ‘without sorrow’.
So arahants have escaped the defilements, but not by attaining some “unfabricated” pre-existing state, but because they are without (a-) defilements. In other words, they caused/produced the absence of those things.
That is how I see it.