Rules are rules and if you don't follow them, the country doesn't want you.

It's a different conversation when you talk about the consequences of such policies, but that's what the country decided and those are the rules.

Uh, yeah, the "native" population of a country is more deserving to be in their country regardless of circumstance than an illegal immigrant, that's how countries work. Legal immigrants are also deserving. The citizenry of a country get to have those discussions about how they want their country to run, not other countries. The citizens not paying taxes, shoplifting, and breaking the law should be prosecuted for those crimes, the same as someone breaking immigration laws. It's not a good thing when any government picks and chooses which laws don't apply to which people, because it's not usually the poor and the immigrant that benefits. Based on your apparent support for unlimited and unregulated immigration, I will assume you also claim to be anti-colonial and I'll assume you disagree with countries meddling with or toppling other governments.

The US illegally flooded Texas with both legal and illegal immigrants, who didn't integrate into the Mexican culture, kept isolated, and tried to impose their values on Mexico (hint: slavery was a "value"). They eventually caused a rebellion, and flipped the territory to join the US in the end. Europe sent a lot of illegal immigrants all over the world to impose their values on the countries they pulled into their empires. China flooded Tibet with immigrants to the same effect as Texas. The western world had a habit for not liking when a part of a countries citizens would try to impose socialist or communist values on everyone else in that country; I'll assume you wouldn't support the foreign intervention that happened to stop those movements, believing that those countries should get to make they determination themselves. I'll even go out on a limb and assume you condem Israeli settlers illegally immigrating into the West Bank and Gaza.

All severe examples of worst case scenarios and weaponized immigration, but why does territorial sovereignty apply in these cases while not applying to the current mass immigration happening worldwide right now. The intent may be different, 99.99% of illegal immigration across the Southern US border and across the Mediterranean is more "benign" economic migration, but laws should still apply. It is hypocritical to condem border and immigration enforcement in the US and EU, while then condemning border and immigration violation by Russia, China, and Israel. Countries can't exist without enforceable borders, and enforcement should be consistently and fairly applied based on rule of law.