The Founders revolted from England in part because the King refused to maintain open borders. Read the Declaration of Independence:
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither"The Founders (and present-day law) distinguished between immigration (entering the country) and naturalization (the ability to vote and hold office). Thus, the Constitution has VERY strict rules on naturalization, but none at all on immigration. In fact, there are NO federal laws restricting immigration until the 1875 Page Act, which embodied Darwinian eugenics to keep out the yellow Asian hordes.
The only mention of immigration in the Constitution refers to the importation of slaves, the only mention of deportation (not immigration, btw - immigration is never mentioned) in federal law is the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In reaction to the A&S laws, Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration) and James Madison (author of the Constitution) started the first federal nullification movement, wherein the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring those specific federal laws invalid within their states. That is, Jefferson and Madison specifically and explicitly created those respective states as "sanctuary" states.
So, Trump's entire riff on this is actually a violation of the Founders' vision and constitutional law as embodied by the Founders for the first century of this country's history. The Page Act was passed in response to Darwin's work, and Trump has long been a proud eugenicist (as has virtually every President between Teddy Roosevelt and Trump, inclusive, with the sole exceptions of Reagan and GW Bush).
As the Cato Institute points out, the history is quite, QUITE clear.
You are backing a Progressive Darwinian eugenics argument.
Yours is the argument of a damned liberal, not an argument in line with the Founders' vision.
If you want to argue that times change, and the Constitution must change with it, that's Woodrow Wilson's argument. That's a Progressive argument.
Either you are for Original Intent (tm) or you aren't.
Choose.
