This will not be prevented by calcifying our own society, however.
As to your original question, the Scriptures record the commandments which include the admonition that their author is the Lord, our God, and that he requires us not to have strange gods before him. Now Zeus is a fantasy and so is the old hummingbird god of Cactus Rock (now Mexico City) and so are all the other pagan gods mere myth. The meaning of the commandment is not to worship our sins and vanities instead of God Himself. In this context, the law of any specific nation or state or locality is also not a god. In those things not immoral in and of themselves or not immoral as occurring in the specific prevailing circumstances, we are enjoined by Romans to obey even the governments of the likes of Hitler or Stalin: (Don't block fire hydrants. Don't spit on the sidewalk. Register your dog. Or whatever.] We ought, for the same reason and others, to obey those laws which prohibit intrinsically evil conduct: Do not Murder. Do not Steal.
Let us not get carried away, however, to believe that immigration is inherently evil, even if prohibited by statute. Immigration and emigration, without the imprimatur of statute or regulation, were going on long before there existed these United States and will continue long afterward.
The same controversy that arose when Christians (Catholics) went to their deaths in the Colisseum rather than sacrifice to Caligula or Nero or Diocletian or their like is the underlying controversy here. Neither the government nor the law is any sort of god much less one which may take the place of the real thing. If I have made myself sufficiently clear, then you understand that my mind will not be changed. You may follow your conscience as you choose. You may not compel mine.
Please show where ANYONE on this thread has said such. Another strawman. I hope you donated a lot of money to JimRob, because you sure are wasting a lot of his bandwidth with useless, irrelevant posts.
13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
So it is legal under Arizona law to allow agents to protect land from trespass and vandalism, and to use physical force to halt such. Your turn, what can YOU produce from the Arizona code here?
So if the Pope was molesting children, that would be OK with you?
13-1503. Criminal trespass in the second degree; classification
A. A person commits criminal trespass in the second degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in or on any nonresidential structure or in any fenced commercial yard.
B. Criminal trespass in the second degree is a class 2 misdemeanor.
13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification
A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:
1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.
2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.
B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.