The illegal immigrants obviously understood it was a risk when they came, and any country is entitled to enforce its border security.
Practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants.
And deporting illegal immigrants doesn't bar you from trying again to enter as a legal immigrant.
My friend pointed out that U.S. immigration law - and its history - is basically institutionalized racism. Take a look at the countries in the Visa Waiver Program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program
Notice a pattern? Basically, if you're white (or Japanese or South Korean), we have no problem with you being in the country. If you're any other ethnicity, fuck you. Canada gets completely visa-free entry, but Mexico gets nothing.
If you look at the history of immigration laws, almost all of them had an explicit racial bias to them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ("free white persons of good character")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 ("aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews, and severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians")
It did get somewhat better with the acts of 1952 and 1965, which set up the current occupation/skills-based system instead of blanket national bans, but even they had some clauses that are pretty embarrassing in hindsight (eg. the 1952 McCarran act banned anyone suspected of associating with Communist, which among others included Michel Foucault, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pablo Neruda, and Pierre Trudeau).
It's very hard to argue for these from a framework of justice and individual liberty, because they all operate under the assumption that incidental characteristics like where someone is born and what color their skin is are more important than motivational characteristics like do they want to be in the U.S, do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. If you believe in judging people based on what they do rather than who they are, it's a pretty tough argument that the illegal Mexican immigrant who works 14 hours a day cleaning toilets so she can give a better life to her children is less deserving of being an American than the guy who runs a website spreading hate.
If you had to leave the US forever, which of these places would you most and least want to move to? What would be your ranking of desirability? Canada, Mexico, Australia, Hong Kong, Lagos, Costa Rica, Belize.
For me, I would most want to move to Canada and least Lagos. I'd also prefer Costa Rica over Belize. And Australia over Hong Kong over Belize over Lagos.
What makes Australia and Hong Kong more desirable than Lagos and Belize? What makes Canada more desirable than Mexico? Why do all the liberals who hate Trump threaten to move to Canada and not Mexico? It's not the geography. It's not like Canada has better weather. It's the people. (People will say it is things like the government dysfunction or the culture or the language, but of course, those are just properties of a group of people, not the land).
We're more likely to have liberal immigration policies with regards from countries that we see as desirable places to live. That is because 1) being desirable places, most people in those countries won't want to leave, and thus we won't be overwhelmed by their numbers. 2) since those people have made their country a desirable place, if large numbers of those people move here, it won't decrease our quality of life. I won't fear a decrease in government quality or cultural alienation if a large number of Canadians move to the United States.
In other words, country of origin is heuristic that will correlate with do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. Could we find a better heuristic? Maybe. Do you have any ideas?
Also, let's suppose our immigration system limits permanent residence intake to N people per year. Because all people are equal, why is it any better to accept N people from all nations instead of N people from fewer nations? Either way you're still depriving the same number of people the ability to live here. Unless you think people from country X are more worthy than country Y, you should regard substituting a Y person with an X as a morally neutral act. It makes practical sense to invite people we like the most, which for example might mean people that are not interested in enslaving humanity or who associate with that crowd.
True fact: When I moved to Norway, there wasn't a customs guard on duty when I got off the plane here. The passport was quickly stamped at the layover in Copenhagen, and that is the single stamp in it. I'm sure there are electronic records of my other travels within Europe: Only once have I had any checks getting into a country, and that was more because I was flying back from Amsterdam and they picked me to search for drugs.
It would have been somewhat easy for me to just come here, honestly. I didn't and went through immigration instead.
People within the EU can pretty freely find work in any country and live there as well, and outside the refugee crisis, I think this likely cuts down on illegal immigration.
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp...
And I can't speak for your one example, because that could have been a case of negligent border security. I could just as easily give an example of a person traveling to another country and having a lot of difficulty at customs, with them questioning why you are there, and forcing you to provide justification.
And also, if you happened to go to Norway as you say, staying there illegally, would you have felt justified to just live there indefinitely? Or do you agree the country has a right to deport you because you are illegally there and abusing the systems in that country.
I never actually considered it for myself, honestly. If I'm not working, yet not needing unnecessary assistance (except through trauma, nature's wrath, and so forth), I'm not sure there is an issue. It isn't about being justified or not, just that you don't have the level of interaction to really require much formality.
I'm not sure I can answer your question to your satisfaction, however. I'm a supporter of open borders, with minimal requirements to live somewhere legally (without getting all rights as citizens). I think health care, for example, is a human right and everyone should have it. Same with shelter and food. Beyond that, it is hard to "abuse" a system. Deportation should generally be used as a last resort (violent crime - first resort). Some other things are hard to abuse, and other things - consuming, paying taxes assuming quasi-legal work - contribute to society. To me, the proper response for most folks is to get them legal in a simple manner.
For the record, however, I've drained more resources than I've contributed at this point. Language classes were provided free of charge as was the civics class. I have health care on par with a Norwegian due to my immigration status. These things aren't actually drains on the system, though, they actually help folks adjust and a healthy population is a benefit for the government. I've not yet worked to contribute more.