If you go to the very bottom of Table A1 in this paper there is a footnote that indicates a few caterpillar species in the table, marked by a double cross symbol, were excluded due to being non-native:
L. dispar was indeed found in the study but excluded from analysis – the species is listed in the upper third of the second page of Table A1:
Also in the table but excluded for the same reason were Ancylis comptana (Tortricidae) and Caloptilia azaleela (Gracillariidae). I take note of what you mention about Atteva aurea being on the species list and am not sure why it would not be excluded from analysis if those others were.
The enemy release hypothesis definitely has some good support but just as a nudge in another direction, here is an example of a countervailing finding:
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/14-2158.1
I agree that seeing invasives’ success and then declaring them superior to natives on that basis would be problematic. To be clear, I am not arguing for that position (perhaps the writers cited by the OP were). I do think that in ecosystems already heavily damaged by past colonialist human activity, exotic species may have a short-term adaptability advantage compared to most natives who have never experienced that kind of disturbance. This doesn’t make them morally superior, just better adapted to conditions they’ve seen before but natives haven’t. We certainly don’t have to like that fact, but nor do we have to hate it.
As for the question of parallels to human migration, I think there’s room for acknowledging similarities with both immigration and colonialism. In both cases the new arrival changes things and the old guard confronts the reality of the change. People seem to need to talk about these things by including a bad guy and a victim in the story, and while malevolence is sometimes clearly present (smallpox blankets, treaty violations, etc.), it seems to me the truth is at other times more murky. Can we ascribe intent to a plant? If buckthorn has malicious intent (as the allelopathy story about it goes), and we feel justified in eradicating it because of that, does that mean that someone should’ve killed off the supremacist colonists in North America before they spread too much? The analogy with immigration may break down at some point, but I would say the one with colonialism does too. That doesn’t mean the parallels aren’t relevant (I am quite convinced they are very important actually), just that there’s a limit to what we can understand with them.
On the related note of what gets called anthropomorphizing, I would ask, what specifically are the interior qualities we are scientifically sure humans have that plants do not? I don’t think anyone can prove a plant has a soul, but neither can anyone prove a plant doesn’t have one, and we don’t let a little thing like proof keep us from ascribing soulfulness to ourselves. I don’t want to wander too far off topic here but I do think it’s a relevant line of inquiry.
I hear you re: overzealous/monopolize, I’ve been there in convo with others.
Who are you saying is persisting with an ignorant view? Are you referring to the gardenrant author?