Paper Title

But the example wrenches the idea out of its context. I didn't say that everyone who is smarter than you are lives outside the boundaries of the United States, or is a non-citizen. Yet once you've taken the step you take here, national identity and the State's power over its borders suddenly become important elements in the analysis, though they have nothing directly to do with the subject.

I don't understand this sentence. Are genetics and religion rational explanations, and there are no others? Are genetics and religion explanations at all? Do you mean genetics explains where you are because you are the genetic descendant of someone else who provided heritable advantages? What does religion explain? That God wanted you instead of some other people to have your advantages?

What I do believe, however, is that the ‘American’ identity—the one linked to my rights, residence, and quadrennial hockey interest—is secondary to my identity as a man who wants to live righteously.

But some citizens are born on the other side of the border, and grow up there. Are they then "different" in the same way that immigrants are different? If so, then the test of difference between immigrants and citizens won't work very well; while, if not, the whole idea of the difference collapses back into white supremacy.

Border’s originate from natural land formations, wars, conquests and/or agreements whereby two or more groups of people decide that they are different in some unresolvable respect, and they therefore they should live apart.

Surely you're historically literate enough to recognize that no one ever asks the people who live along the borders, and that they play no significant role in any sovereign's choice?

Easily enough, these separated groups cultivate divergent cultures, languages, customs, political traditions, and so on.

Are you sure? The line between the French and German languages in Europe has been mostly unchanged in location for a thousand years, but the borders of the states and dynastic entities have rolled over and back dozens of times, smartly.

Excuse me? That depends who you are and how you are situated with respect to "contemporary struggles across the world." That's not how Partition is viewed between India and Pakistan, or the events of 1947, 1956, 1967, 1973, etc. are seen in the arc from Damascus to Cairo. It might be more accurate to say that the wars of past generations are more pressing than contemporary events.

This is impractical, whether relevant or not. Until the day before yesterday, no state in the world thought that governments should inhibit population growth. Even the infinitesimal proportion of governments concerned with fulfilling their responsibilities didn't do so by limiting the size of the army. The United States, in particular, has been a beneficiary of constant demographic expansion.

This needs to be made much clearer. I don't know what it means.

Your "of" is supposed to be "to," I suppose. But this is merely the same basic political mistake again: that only the centralization of authority enables sustainable decision-making. This isn't established, it's just uncritically supposed.

I think you mean "capable of adoption" rather than "adaptable." I don't know why judgment clouded by history of entitlement can't go anywhere productive; my experience is that clouded judgment can be found just about everywhere, so either it is produced comprehensively in situ or it can move just fine. I thought the point of the rule of law was that it made government platforms less flawed and self-serving than the individuals that run them (isn't this "the government of laws and not of men"?)

I think you mean "subtly" rather than "subtlety." A spell-checker seems to be substituting for actual copy-editing. This is a capital offense. Couldn't you have left the platform altogether out here? How about: "We could solve some of our problems with immigration enforcement if we gave up trying to stop people at the border and deport them after they arrive"? That seems to be what you meant by the existing sentence, which is a bit longer and incomparably uglier.

No. No sane government actually attempts to eliminate tax payers. The logic underlying workplace enforcement is the unproven conviction that immigrants without working papers displace citizen workers, and the entirely obvious proposition that increasing the supply of labor drives down the wages of unskilled and semi-skilled workers.

Why not just say that employers like vulnerable workers who are easy to underpay and exploit because they are afraid of government and law enforcement authorities?

Now there's a make-weight argument if ever I heard one. So? Raising the legal drinking age to 21 does the same thing. And?

The latter measures are only comparable if you don't want to put "illegal" immigrants out of the country. To such people, deportation is helpful, and every step towards deportation is therefore helpful too, while all the "midnight basketball" in the world is unhelpful because it leaves the "illegal" immigrants here. If you want to contest that point of view you must meet it directly, and if you don't want to contest that point of view you can't pretend to be persuading anybody.

Surely, the avoidance of the phrase "final solution" would not have been difficult, and the benefit would be clear.

It seems to me the essay has two basic problems: if it is about immigration law it should not begin with a point tangent to its outer curves, and it should not be presenting an argument against individual enforcement without a clear answer for those who believe that people "jumping the line" should be excluded. If, on the other hand, immigration law is an "example" only, as the second paragraph states, the discussion is at once too technical and too inconclusive to establish any proposition that could be played back into your original enclosing argument.