The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is littered with special immigration doctrines that depart from mainstream constitutional norms. This Article reconciles these doctrines of “immigration exceptionalism” across constitutional dimensions. Historically, courts and commentators have considered whether immigration warrants exceptional treatment as pertains to rights, federalism, or separation of powers—attempting to silo each doctrinal setting. This Article rejects that approach and demonstrates how the Court’s immigration doctrines dynamically interact with each other, and with politics, in ways that affect the whole system. By simultaneously accounting for all three settings, our model captures a set of normative tradeoffs that context-specific appraisals have dangerously missed. For better and worse, the doctrines of immigration exceptionalism operate very differently in combination than they do in isolation. Our expanded frame offers insights on controversies arising at the intersection of constitutional dimensions, including United States v. Texas, Arizona v. United States, and President Trump’s immigration executive orders.