Yes I am very much aware of this. Very many people are not aware. I was always aware that there are potential problems from immigration and that these things are all interconnected and there's this and that concern. However, there are two main problems that come prior to all of that shit from a legal and ethical standpoint:

(1) order of operations (when and how do we achieve a better policy for the border that stands more appropriately?)

Do we sacrifice our principles to achieve this one outcome we consider to be better than where we are now? No. Contradiction. That is impossible because by being evil, you have made the world a worse place. There are lots of variables at play and to suppose oneself omniscient enough to know the exact order things need to be done in a way that supersedes basic moral principles is always fallacious.

(2) whose fucking border is it?

Government property is illegitimate, typically having been acquired entirely by force. "What should be done with government control of the border" is asking what should a thief do with the loot in his possession which he has usurped. Some way put it in an investment account in a foreign country, aa this will benefit them, others say buy gold from a local shop and melt it down to avoid being traced, as this will benefit both the thief and the local area. I say that these are both fine options in as much as the thief keeps the loot, but the RIGHT thing to do, far moreso than any of these other things, is to return control of the loot to its rightful owner.

We can theorize all we want about this vs that policy of restricted immigration, but until it is done by a voluntary republic or by a rightful owner of a border wall, it is not analogous to the situation at hand in a manner sufficient to justify whatever arbitrary policy you think is best, at the cost of anyone else's rights, or leastways at the cost of other, more achievable natural law-respecting goals.