A lot to unpack indeed.
Does the byzantine legal immigration process really deter criminals, or does the market it creates for coyotes draw more criminals to the border than otherwise might exist? Sure, we all know the sales pitch for immigration and border control, but does it really work as advertised?
I would argue the red tape and bureaucracy surrounding legal immigration impeded those who want employment instead of protecting us from welfare leeches, even if we assume welfare is a valid government service. Again, so much focus is on making darn sure these foreigners are productive. If the welfare state is the problem, strike the root.
Again, the "free rider problem" is created by government monopoly services and taxpayer funding. If A robs B and gives a portion to C, why does B blame C? In fact, this jogs my memory. It seems I wrote that same argument several years ago on the beta platform.
Nationalism and collective guilt are ideas a lot of people believe in. That doesn't mean they're right. Blowback is a consequence of what "our" government has been doing for decades. I haven't forgotten 9/11. This risk doesn't justify militarized borders or a surveillance state, though, it's a signal we need to stop pretending the government represents us, or else demand they start representing our interests by ending their meddling abroad.
I agree, don't be a criminal, and don't be a leech. But government is a criminal organization that leeches off us, and there's nothing unique about foreigners in criminality or leech-like behavior. In fact, I'd rather have Mexicans than Californians for neighbors. National distinctions don't really hold weight for your reasoning.
You claim to want "reasonable" border control. Who decides "reasonable?" This reminds me of the people who insist they just want "common-sense gun control." It mean something only in your own mind, and is far from a universal or rational measure.
I am an anarchist. I reject the legitimacy of political authority, not because I want chaos, but because the veneer of order government offers is chaos and violence in reality. My goal is to spur advocates for immigration control to reconsider their premises when they argue it is beneficial or necessary to advocate for state power.
Prior to World War I, there was relatively little border control. People could travel and trade freely across most of the world. There was also little need for wrangling the tax cattle when no one paid income tax. I suggest immigration has nothing to do with safety of the citizenry, and everything to do with tax revenue. The threat of immigrants leeching off the services and benefits programs set up by government may be just another way to manipulate public approval and drive people into pointless partisanship over the wrong questions.