Ten years ago they beat MIT. Today, it's complicated (2014)

See, you can make the argument that "this is how it's organized" all you want, but when the outcomes don't make sense it just morphs into "why is it organized like this".

Then provide 0 medical services, CPS services, police services, or legal system services. If you have someone here illegally, especially a child, being targeted by a predator, it sucks. Really bad. But to offer them any services paid for by the American people is supporting their illegal residency.

I find that most people who push for the view of not supporting legal residency in cases such as school care or even medical care are still willing to do so when you talk about the illegal resident being the target of a predator. This makes me think that either they don't fully accept their own logic or that there is something else at play that they didn't expand upon.

Kicking a person out of the only country they've ever known is pretty harsh when they've done nothing wrong. The inheritance analogy falls pretty flat for this. Consider instead if the law said that children of murderers must be imprisoned along with their parents. If you came across the child of a murderer who had yet to be apprehended, would you report them?

Also, unless there's a law specifically against it, there's nothing to prevent colleges from admitting or giving scholarships to people who have broken laws. You generally have to go out of your way to find out what someone has done. A college that only accepted people who hadn't broken any laws wouldn't be admitting most high school students.

Excluding people doesn't happen automatically - you have to actually make an effort to do it.

The article you've cited addresses immigration in general, not low-skill immigration by itself. This could support argument in favor of a selective immigration policy, not massive immigration of low-skill workers from developing countries.

Back when the U.S. constitution was written, visas did not exists, and getting permission to immigrate was uncommon. You could literally walk into most countries without any papers. As such, the enumerated powers of Congress actually only contains the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). Nothing about restricting immigration.

The US did not regulate immigration at all until the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). The Act was challenged in the courts, and the SCOTUS ruled that Congress' power to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" meant that it could also exclude people from entering the country – which is quite a stretch. For more, see: http://openborders.info/blog/immigration-

Popular opinion at the time was that Chinese and other Asian people were unfit to be part of American society, and the SCOTUS was willing to stretch the meaning of those words in the Constitution to grant Congress the new powers necessary to exclude them.

The problem is that a law is or is not constitutional based on numerous other factors such as popular opinion. The truth is that the SCOTUS is partially impacted by the will of the people at any given time (to say nothing of the entire issue of the political nature of the SCOTUS). Crying foul is one way to modify the will of the people. In some cases, what is constitutional is even explicitly tied to external factors (such as obscenity tests which in part depend upon current morals of the community).

If they did mean to create different laws they felt differently about, I left them an opening to do such in my last question.

Yes, I am Mexican and I agree 100% with you.

So, I would be extremelly happy to see that every time an illegal Mexican immigrant was caught in the US, before throwing him/her to the other side of the fence, and investigation was open to persecute and file criminal charges to every American national that said "screw it, I dont like that law" and gave an illegal job (at below-market wages) to the illegal immigrant.

I would be even more happy if other American nationials that were deprived by those illegal practices of honest livelihoods would start class-action civil lawsuits against the fat cats that lined their pockets with the sweat and blood of "wetback" labor. That would make my day!

But, you know... here in the real world, I would settle for you, sokoloff, to admit that whatever stability that those particular rules provide to American society is derived more from the discretionality to apply the same laws to some class of people but not to others. There is an old joke about democracy being 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner tonight. I don't think that is precisely the case here, but there's a kernel of truth hidden there as well.

As you've said say you are not an expert on immigration rules; I can give you a super-quick summary: in 1965, they changed the law to allow non-Europeans to immigrate. But they made it so extremely restrictive that practically no one could immigrate legally. Their objective was to ensure the ethnic composition ("whiteness") of the United States didn't change significantly. Which is why I don't see a family coming here seeking a better life as morally wrong.