re: #105 elbruce

If there’s a problem, then enact another amnesty. Standing on principle - “they’re breaking the law, we shouldn’t encourage that!” - puts you in opposition to Reagan, who did the same thing. Now, it’s a valid comeback to point out that Reagan’s amnesty didn’t do anything in the long run, since we’re right back at the point that led him to do it. Which simply proves that we need amnesty in combination with relaxed immigration requirements at the same time.

The “get to the back of the line” argument doesn’t work because under current U.S. law, anybody who has ever been in the U.S. illegally can never apply for U.S. citizenship.

All of this “we aren’t doing enough illegal immigration enforcement” BS is a complete and utter lie. The Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services does an excellent job of preventing and catching illegal immigrants in our country. They stop, catch and return hundreds or thousands every day. Saying that just because there are illegal immigrants it means that the federal government isn’t doing their jobs is like saying that because there’s crime it means the police aren’t doing their jobs.

The pro-business, economic-conservative wing of the right wing is well aware that without migrant labor from Mexico, economic production throughout the central and southwestern United States just doesn’t add up. When push comes to shove, we simple cannot keep many industries above water without them. So making them all instantly disappear is out of the question even if it were practically possible.

That leaves two alternatives: 1) keep everything the way it is, allowing substandard pay and working conditions since the whole industry is illegal, or 2) grant citizenship and make future citizenship easier so we don’t have to do an amnesty grant again 20 years from now. The number-crunching pro-business conservatives would prefer option 1. Since that’s a horiffic thing to say out loud, they’re going to continue to let the screaming teabagger wingnuts howl about option 0 (“get every last one of them out right now!”) knowing that it is impossible, both in terms of practicality and economic desireability.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to have a “law of return” that says that anyone, anywhere, who doesn’t have a criminal record, may come to the U.S. and be granted citizenship? Why mess around with any sort of brakes on immigration? This policy cuts to the chase.