Degs: If the U.S. had no right to enforce the laws, would the cases have even been brought? No. These are the only significant immigration cases on record, and if they denied the U.S.'s fundamental right to enforce its immigration laws, that would have come out (especially in the first one, which regarded asylum). It didn't. In the face of SCOTUS silence, I have to assume then that immigration laws on the books are constitutional.

If you'll note, I rejected the idea of a national I.D. card. I don't want one and I stand firmly opposed not only to developing one, but to the strictures put on state driver's licenses with the "true ID" law, that turn drivers licenses into national I.D. cards. What I said was, I see no easy solution to the problem that wouldn't involve them, and I believe we are forced to the solutions that are not easy.

The state has a compelling interest in controlling its own borders, and to levy taxes on those working here. Much of the work done by illegals is done on a cash basis -- it is part of the underground economy. Controlling that alone would be a compelling interest to the feds.

You are wrong about inciting a riot. Language that invokes a direct action is prohibited. "The government should be overthrown" is ok. "You, go overthrow the government," might not be. Yes, of course I can provide the court cases if you desire.