There are many answers to this question, that have been rehashed elsewhere. Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in the future of their lands than noncitizens, to the protection of shared cultural heritage, to social cohesion borne of cultural integration and higher-trust societies, etc.
But I'm genuinely interested in answers to my questions devoid of appeal to emotion, not deflection to other questions.
> Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in the future of their lands than noncitizens
An illegal immigrant from a poor country sells everything, and by a stroke of luck is successful in coming to the US. Then they spend some time there (say 15 years).
Surely they have more to lose than a legal qualified immigrant (now a citizen) that spent some 8 years jumping through the hoops? The qualified immigrant could just pick a country at random and have reasonable chance of starting over, while the minimum wage illegal can't do the same (and so has to hope the country doesn't crap itself).
>protection of shared cultural heritage
How much cultural heritage does a white protestant factory worker share with an illegal Chinese immigrant?
Is it more or less than they share with legal Chinese programmer who had recently been granted a citizenship?
The Government is elected by the people, who have specific rights under the Consitution. Once you start letting other cultures, many of whom are hostile to US Culture walk freely across the border, the country won't last very long. You're seeing it play out in Germany, Sweden and other places where mass migrations has disrupted cultures and created pockets of lawlessness because the people have no affinity for their new governments. You might think they would be the most grateful people on earth, but that naive perspective assumes they were all really 'refugees' and that they all can simply forget their old cultures as soon as they cross the border.
>You're seeing it play out in Germany, Sweden and other places where mass migrations has disrupted cultures and created pockets of lawlessness because the people have no affinity for their new governments.
Next you are going to tell me there are no-go zones in European cities, right?
By US Culture my simple definition is the respect of the current laws of the US. The left doesn't respect some laws like immigration, so it's quite logical that they are for the mass influx of others who don't respect them either. That's how cultures change, quickly.
Not sure on "no-go zones", but did you see some jouralists got assaulted [0] when they went to investigate the crazy claims of violent muslim immigrants in Sweden?
>By US Culture my simple definition is the respect of the current laws of the US. The left doesn't respect some laws like immigration, so it's quite logical that they are for the mass influx of others who don't respect them either. That's how cultures change, quickly.
I doubt that the "left doesn't respect some laws like immigration". (I doubt that there even exists such a group as "the left" but that's for another discussion)
There are only people who don't come in contact with illegals very often, people who come into contact with them but don't know about their status, and then the people who employ them while knowing their status (and it would make sense to solve the issue there). After all, who would come to the US illegally when no one would give them a job?
>jouralists got assaulted
Yes, I've seen that clip. It still doesn't indicate a wider long-term issue.
