You use just enough tidbits to make one think you are a lawyer. Perhaps you are. I hope not.
If there is one thing about which we are not discussing, its discrimination -- per se or otherwise. Discrimination -- as the term is properly applied in a legal context --plays no role in this discussion at all. Now -- if states were only requiring proof of lawful residency from certain groups with immutable characteristics, then we would be discussing discrimination.
Mine is not a "scheme" to "circumvent" the Constitution. Frankly, the Constitution has already been circumvented by the weak and shameful reasoning of Plyler v. Dough. I don't dispute what the law is, I just agree with the writer that Plyler is ripe to be overturned, and is based on faulty principles. I also agree that the only way to address the problem is through the Court itself.
I'm happy you do know that discrimination is being used as a term of art. However, for this hypo, the fact that the state is requiring proof of lawful residency in this country IS in fact the discrimation. Immigration status enjoys a higher level of judicial scrutiny given its mention in the constitution. To those that feel immigration should be addressed by the states should direct their words and their efforts at congress, and ask they give them that power, rather than hope in vain that the court is going to overturn Plyler v. Doe.