Regarding question 1, yes you can always ensure the image is closed.  You prove the strong Whitney by perturbing a generic map $M \to \mathbb R^{2m}$ to an immersion, and then doing a local double-point creation/destruction technique called the Whitney trick.  So instead of using any smooth map $M \to \mathbb R^{2m}$, start with a proper map -- one where the pre-image of compact sets is compact.   You can then inductively perturb the map on an exhausting collection of compact submanifolds of $M$, making the map into an immersion that is also proper.  

Regarding question 2, generally speaking if a manifold is not compact the embedding problem is *easier*, not harder.  Think of how your manifold is built via handle attachments.  You can construct the embedding in $\mathbb R^4$ quite directly.  Think of $\mathbb R^4$ with its standard height function $x \longmapsto |x|^2$, and assume the Morse function on $M$ is proper and takes values in $\{ x \in \mathbb R : x > 0 \}$. Then I claim you can embed $M$ in $\mathbb R^4$ so that the Morse function is the restriction of the standard Morse function.  The idea is every $0$-handle corresponds to creating an split unknot component in the level-sets, etc.  

edit: The level sets of the standard morse function on $\mathbb R^4$ consists of spheres of various radius.  So when you pass through a critical point (as the radius increases) either you are creating an split unknot component, doing a connect-sum operation between components (or the reverse, or a self-connect-sum), or you are deleting a split unknot component.  By a split unknot component, I'm referring to the situation where you have a link in the $3$-sphere.  A component is *split* if there is an embedded 2-sphere that contains only that component, and no other components of the link.   So a split unknot component means that component bounds an embedded disc that's disjoint from the other components. 

Regarding your last question, the Whitney embedding theorem isn't written up in many places since all the key ideas appear in the proof of the h-cobordism theorem.  So Milnor's notes are an archetypal source.  But Adachi's *Embeddings and Immersions* in the Translations of the AMS series is one of the few places where it occurs in its original context.  You can find the book on Ranicki's webpage.