As to abortion, talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words. Do the right thing beats say the right thing anytime.
If you haven't found posts as to substance on the thread by me, you cannot or will not read. I have spent a lot of time over the last three days doing precisely that and the fact that those posts do not thrill those terriblky concerned about the doings on our border with Mexico does not mean that the arguments and facts have not been posted.
The constitution passes itself on to future generations if the nation lasts. We have no obligation to resist any and all constitutional changes. What we need to do is see to it that the constitution is changed only according to the methods prescribed therein and then only wisely. No one died and left SCOTUS as a permanent ongoing constitutional convention without need for ratification.
Responsible just begs further definition. Whence derives these obligations.? Your definition suggests that one may not be a conservative and a citizen of any country but ours (which is pure nonsense although we enjoy greater freedom than most).
There is no constitutional provision regarding "invasion" particularly of the non-military sort. We had no immigration laws whatsoever for many years after the rereal of the Alien and Sedition Laws of the 1790s which destroyed the Federalist Party and cost John Adams the presidency despite his lack of enthusiasm. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were encouraging the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to suggest dire action unlkess the Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed.
It is certainly conservative to demand that the government itself adhere to the limitations of power placed upon it (that being the entire point of the Bill of Rights) by said document. I gather that you mean that a conservative should uphold and obey the demands that the constitution places on government. Most of the demands, if that is a proper word, are negative as in the Bill of Rights. Many of the rest have to do with exercises of discretion such as the grant of legislative power to Congress subject to the limitations of the Bill of Rights and of the constitution generally or the grant of the power of commander-in-chief to the president. Congress may pass or not pass the proposed tax cuts in its discretion. Congress must enact budgets which, as money bills, must begin the House (although this is often violated). The president may send military troops into action in Albania or he may not. It is up to him. The Fifth Amendment is a restraint on the federal government and provides due process of law to persons.
If you agree that those crossing the border are persons, then a conservative would, in your definition and objectively, demand that government provide due process to "illegals."
If that is not your demand, then you are not a conservative according to your own definition, nor are you upholding the constitution since you are rejecting a very important part of it that resulted from the War Between the States at rather high cost in blood. Whether you are a conservative so defined or not, the Fifth Amendment still restrains the federal government nonetheless. The Fourteenth Amendment likewise restrains state governments and their subsidiary regional, county and municipal governments. That's the law.
Class dismissed!
Your immigration lawyerese is about to hit a dead end on what "is", is and what "person" is. The Constitution gives the government the ability and obligation to support a military to repel invasions. You will not be allowed to play games with the definition of "invasion" invasion is, a) an entering or begin entered by an attacking military force. b) an intruding upon others. The day has come and gone for you immigration lawyers to continue to be allowed to play your word games.
There is ample due process given to illegals, and I am quite familiar with much of the process, as I used to help out friends of mine who have a law practice in immigration law (and who are real lawyers, as opposed to some who say the law should not be enforced). That's not the point - the point is, the government is refusing to act against those who clearly have been identified as such. Once again, you attempt to obfuscate the issue by claiming we seek new law when the old law is more than sufficient - what is lacking is the will to enforce such.