when there are legitimate reasons for restricting freedom of movement

but most of them relate to extant state actors and the people they use as catspaws

I feel like there’s some lesson here about self-perpetuating problems, but I’m not enough of an anarchist to word it good

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Can we go to the beach?
Croatia: Absolutely fucking not

This has been one of the anarchic ideas I have questions about.

Let’s say we have a burgeoning anarchic society. We’ve solved issues with intracommunity violence, production, and distribution. We’ve managed to negotiate peace with neighboring states so they aren’t a direct threat anymore. It’s the anarchist paradise we always wanted and things are going great.

However, one of these non-hostile states nearby gets involved in a war with another state. They end up losing and things get bad. Millions of refugees end up fleeing into the anarchist territory, far more than can easily be accommodated with existing systems. Furthermore, most of these people have been indoctrinated into thinking anarchists are violent, dangerous weirdos and don’t have any interest in our new society. They just want to keep doing their authoritarian capitalism but in a place that isn’t on fire.

I’m not saying borders are the best solution to this problem but it is clearly a problem that is possible or even likely to occur in the future. How would an anarchist society solve this issue? Isn’t there a danger that a wave of too many people with anti-anarchist ideology might risk the destruction of an anarchist society?