The arguments that the country needs immigrants are substantially correct. However, we need to combine a greater openness to LEGAL immigrants with a systematic and effective crackdown on illegals and those who abet them. (Starting with “sanctuary cities” that flout US immigration law – they are criminals, not governments, and only governments are permitted to collect taxes.)

There is precisely one group of illegal immigrants I have any sympathy at all for. They are people who did not really COME here, but rather, WERE BROUGHT here as children – and have since grown up here and become productive law-abiding (aside from an inherited immigration problem) adults. They never had a foothold in adult society anywhere other than here. If we can construct a reasonable and reasonably-enforceable definition, I’d say give these people an exemption.

Other than that probably-small group, any process for legalizing illegals MUST involve at least one of two components: (1) They pay a quite substantial penalty, and/or (2) they leave the country, wait their turn, and STAY OUT of the country until their turn comes up.

Oh and isn’t this shameful how they have to sneak these sorts of things by “in the dead of night?” The RealID Act, a program that if carried out will have large ramifications for everyone, was done as a rider on an Iraq war spending bill by Sensenbrenner after failing to pass the Senate. It is sad when our legislators legislate this way. But the Paleos only decry these “dead of night” operations only when they disagree with the action; if they agree they like it. I oppose it always.

E-verify began as a program called “Basic Pilot”. I suppose they renamed it because it was problematic, and several large companies were raided by INS that did require Basic Pilot. I suspect we’ll need a better system before requiring such a thing.

> So, do we allow illegals to have amnesty only if they are filling a need for farmers, hotels, and meat packing plants? I would much prefer streamlining the legalization process than give lawbreakers a free pass just because we want cheap produce.

I agree, but demogoguery being what it is, I think most in this folder would rather not streamline the legal process and give a free pass to lawbreakers. They hope keeping the status quo will improve their chances of convincing everyone that a crisis is at hand (card to use at election time) and that immigration (legal and illegal) is polluting our culture.

The laws do need to be changed, as I’ve said. And you’re wishing one particular law violation made one a criminal, regardless of what the law says, correct? I didn’t make it a misdemeanor, our legislators did. They can change its status any time they wish.

This is absurd. People respect reasonable laws. Anyone that has tried to adopt foreign children or marry foreign spouses knows that our immigration laws are broken. And that encourages disrespect, and also lack of enforcement of laws that are incoherent. But the Paleos don’t want any legal changes, yet they want enforcement. Bureaucratic mess as security doesn’t work. There is a long wait time not because they are checking you out; they gave visas to the 9/11 hijackers after 9/11 remember? And it is a function of government to have laws that work.

BTW, as far as I’m concerned Canada is a 3rd world toilet. Their health care system sucks so bad their citizens have to cross into the US (against Canadian law?) to get a doctor to treat them. It’s sad.

Ed: And you’re begging the question. As we all know, US citizens break this law without remorse on a wide scale and employ illegal immigrants, and that is why illegals come here. Unless you want to say that to break one law is the same as breaking them all, Dan is being consistent. Crossing the border is a misdemeanor, BTW. Attempts to criminalize it in Congress have failed miserably. So why do otherwise law-abiding Americans break this one law with impunity, like no time since the massive law-breaking of the Prohibition era laws?

…including immigration, residency and employment laws! (You contradict yourself, Dan…)