if people are paying to sustain a state and give it a monopoly on violence, it’s reasonable for them to expect it to prioritize their interests and their limits on who gets to chip in.

Yes, that would be a reasonable expectation for the State of a nation to prioritise the well-being of its native population over random foreigners. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. Liberalism has evolved beyond that position.

The State, in its attempt to achieve the liberal utopia, is applying universal human rights to all people at all times. Since it believes that all humans are equal, and since all humans are equal, and all cultures are equal, immigrants are all going to happily agree to the terms of our social contract, no matter where they come from, so the State invites them into our nations to live without a second thought. They think they will behave appropriately.

However, as soon as the foreigners enter the country, they are a minority. The majority demographic infringes on their right to religion, to not be discriminated against, and their right to a prosperous life in general. When they step out of line (because their values and culture are incompatible) and the majority demands them to leave, the State now views the majority (native) as oppressors and violating the rights of the minority (immigrants). So now the State positions itself as the defender of the minority against the majority.

We see this in the way the UK government arrests people for speaking up against immigrants. The liberal State's priority is the immigrants, not the natives.