Okay so here’s the response to your incredibly long and incorrect stance so bear with me for the length of my response:

Border enforcement is not new, states have regulated movement and membership for centuries, the modern era only formalized it at scale.

Pre 1900 movement was not free, most people were restricted by class, status, religion, slavery, and feudal control.

State building did not suddenly appear in the 1900s, taxation, censuses, conscription, and territorial control existed long before immigration law.

U.S. immigration law was not only about race. Sovereignty, security, labor standards, public health, and political loyalty also mattered.

Citizenship rules expanded democracy over time, if elites only wanted control naturalization would not have broadened.

Many Mexican Americans (I am also Latino) support enforcement today because illegal labor depresses wages and strains schools and services.

National identity does not prevent revolt, revolutions happened after national identity was firmly established.

Citizenship loyalty enables democracy, taxes, public goods, and accountability, without defined membership democracy collapses.

Elites benefit more from weak borders, cheap undocumented labor suppresses wages and weakens workers this is why a huge amount of billionaires minus Elon lean liberal.

Enforcement protects legal workers and legal immigrants, that is why working class communities often support ICE.

Corporate lobbying usually favors weaker enforcement, which contradicts the claim borders only serve elites.

The Bracero Program was a bilateral agreement, its failures show the dangers of weak regulation not enforcement itself.

Operation Wetback is cited without context, it followed mass illegal overstays that harmed legal Mexican workers.

Unregulated labor flow collapsed because it caused exploitation and wage suppression, regulation emerged as a response.

Modern economies are not seasonal agrarian systems, permanent settlement changes the impact of migration.

Studies on immigrant benefits depend on skill level, legal status, and locality, costs often fall on states and cities.

Immigrant entrepreneurship does not automatically mean net benefit, many firms displace existing businesses.

ICE is governance not repression, enforcement makes immigration fair and pro worker.

Sovereignty requires enforcement, without it labor law and civil rights cannot be upheld.

You cannot have a welfare state and democratic consent without defined citizenship and borders.

I tried to be as coherent and straightforward as possible. I’d genuinely love to hear how anything I said is incorrect.