You are missing my point...again.
Ive suggested that philosophy be logically consistent within itself. If you disagree with that position...find me a reputable and influencial philosopher who disagrees with that. At no point have I advocated pseudo-scientific 'philosophy', or as you refer to...as scientism.
I think logic and analysis is good. I like logic and reason. We want to use logic when we formulate public policy. I like to think rationally. If you disagree...then you are quite different than most of the physicists I have known.
But the basis of this discussion is not philosophy. That is YOUR schtick. Im trying to formulate a rational public policy.
Ok,sure, but you don't need science for that.
I'm merely stating what I believe the correct course of action is in the face of a highly irrational public policy.
We let them them in but won't legally recognize their presence nor do we bother to remove them. We strangle business owners with burdensome regulation but then turn a blind eye when they evade the regulation by hiring illegals. We prohibit the public schools from refusing them admission and force others pay for their schooling. But then we refuse them admission to college on the grounds that we can't force others to pay for their education.
How in the name of Sam Adams and Patrick Henry did we reach a point where you can't attend college, hold a job, etc. without government approval and a government issued serial number? How on Earth is it possible that the law both prohibits these people's presence AND REQUIRES ME TO PAY FOR IT.
If you're looking for self consistent public policy you won't find it by enforcing the laws currently on the books.