Legal q' to experts: By which law would this U.S. immigration practice be considered illegal?

[jomei69]

Trying to find out recently retired baseball star Duque Hernandez age, I just read this on Wikipedia:

"....[3] The U.S. Coast Guard interdicted Hernandez, his companion Noris Bosch, another baseball player named Alberto Hernandez (no relation) and five others in Bahamian waters, delivering the entire party to Bahamian authorities in Freeport, who confined them in a detention center for illegal immigrants pending eventual repatriation to Cuba, the usual outcome of such cases.[4] However, after lobbying by sports agent Mark Cubas and representatives of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF), then-Attorney General Janet Reno eventually offered both Hernándezes and Bosch a special status known as "humanitarian parole" that would allow them to enter the U.S., based on (1) what were judged to be realistic fears of persecution should they be returned to Cuba and (2) their status as exceptionally talented athletes, a class of person that — like exceptionally talented people in other professions — can qualify for special admission to the U.S. under State Department rules."

I can certainly understand humanitarian parole or whichever other name it would go by, but, doesn't the U.S. giving "preference to exceptionally talented people" make it something completely discriminatory and doesn't it not send a message that other humans are less worth?

Is this illegal, or at least considered unethical by laws within the U.S. or around the world?

P.S. I have just looked up "wet foot, dry foot" law implemented during Clinton in 1995, two years previous to Duque's arrival. But, it probably doesn't have to do w/ my original question, since I have heard over the years that a lot of preference is giving certain individuals.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Hern%C3%A1ndez

[scirwode]

It's not discriminatory or illegal. "Exceptionally talented" doesn't refer only to those with exceptional athletic ability, it also refers to those with other abilities. An exceptionally talented surgeon could qualify, or a writer, or soldier. Because those abilities require much more work than they do natural aptitude, it's only discriminating on the basis of merit, which many laws do. Laws that say you can't practice medicine without a license, then go on to require passing exams and medical school in order to get a license discriminate, but not illegally. All laws discriminate in some way, but "discrimination" isn't bad. The basis for discrimination could be very bad, though. If the law only restricted its operation to those with European ancestry, then it would be bad, as it would if it only applied to men.