On the second, I have little sympathy for the category of people who intentionally break a law and then cry foul when that is discovered and addressed.
So homosexuals put in prison because homosexuality is illegal in places (including the US not even 20 years ago)... no sympathy for them? OR... do you think not all laws are equal and that there are bad laws?
For bad but constitutional laws, we have a process for challenging and changing them. While they're in effect, I believe that if you're going to break them publicly, you should not expect to escape consequences.
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).
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.
If they did mean to create different laws they felt differently about, I left them an opening to do such in my last question.
There is no visa for unskilled people like the parents of the dreams in the movie. Even skilled people have a very hard time getting a US visa (more than any other country).
I don't think it is morally wrong for people to move another country seeking a better life, even if that country by a thin majority is unwelcoming of them (by making it impossible for them to immigrate legally).
I find your lack of sympathy repugnant.
That doesn't mean that, once discovered, the kids are entitled to residency or citizenship.
The young adults in question were born as non-US citizens and immigrated illegally (stipulated/agreed that this was not by their choice) to the US. Many years later, this is discovered. Now, the question is, "what to do about it?"
None of the above facts support a claim to US citizenship nor US permanent residency under the current immigration laws (as I understand them).
Whether it should is a different question. I _am_ in favor of a thoughtfully designed amnesty program for people who have lived peaceably and productively in our country for some extended period of time. I am also in favor of thoughtfully designed immigration program for people likely to live peaceably and productively in our country.
A key element to my support is that these policies be thoughtfully designed by experts (ie. not by me, and not in an internet chat room) and that it be enforced (in both directions) when violations or qualifications are discovered. I believe there are some natural limits to how many people we want in the United States, and as one of the preferred nations (as measured by net immigration), we do need some policies, ie: open borders are not the default option.
I'm entirely open for reconsidering (and am nowhere near an expert on) the first point (what our immigration policies are/ought to be).
I'm fairly unwavering on the second. When someone says, "ah, screw it, I don't like that law, so I'm not going to follow it," they put themselves at peril of being discovered and prosecuted.
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.
To answer your specific Jim Crow law question, prior to the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendment, yes, I would support those chartered with the enforcement of those laws while seeking to change the law at the legislative level. (These are morally repugnant laws to be clear; the choice is between an orderly society with some bad consequences, or an anarchic society with different bad consequences. I choose order.)
After the 14th Amendment, those laws are unconstitutional, and I do not support the enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
Those states who had Jim Crow laws or even plantation owners who bought and sold humans; I can't understand it and can't support it, but it clearly was the majority point of view at that time and place.
This issue is running up against the fundamental challenge of democratic society: how to have a government that expresses and supports the will of the majority of its citizens without unduly restricting the freedom of those citizens who find themselves in the minority.
Why not a little of column A and a little of column B?
>I can't understand it and can't support it
Most people economically support slavery, albeit through a few layers of companies supplying companies. In the last 24 hours I ate a piece of chocolate from Nestle which I paid for, thus adding to demand that goes all the way back to child slaves harvesting chocolate.
I would have helped slaves escape from slave states into free states, and would have harbored them in my home (and whatever property I owned) in total defiance and violation of the law. And I would've been willing to go to jail for it.
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.
On your last paragraph, I do admit to parts of that (not necessarily whether it's more than 50%, but otherwise I agree), and that selective prosecution is a good thing in some areas (no sense ticketing someone for 56 in a 55 on a clear, dry, sunny day with light traffic). See also my last comment at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11103596
So aren't we already in an unfair anarchic system, so what then is the problem when people cry foul that the system violates its own principles to give benefit to those least needing aid while strictly enforcing itself on those who most need help?
It saddens me how blue collar Americans can get so incensed at "Juan, the wetback", but never stop one minute to think that the one who is screwing them both is "Johnny 'Honest J' Howell".