The President Trump Immigration Thread

[T.Lex]

Only those crossing from Mexico? Not other borders or points of entry?

You'd rather explore the bounds of my concession?

Asking that people abide by the law of the land is not "cruelty". These are individuals who have abused the good faith of a nation to which they were invited, and their length of unlawful stay should not prevent remedial action being taken by the authorities. One cannot be said to be "law abiding" while flouting the law.

Most Americans, other than saints such as yourself, do not abide by every single law.

Even setting that aside, unless one is of the "sins of the father visited upon the children type," deporting people who have long-established families here (and are otherwise law abiding) is not fair. Really, by any measure. It is cruel, because it doesn't have to be that way.

Our system historically has allowed for mercy, our system can allow for it, and it should allow for it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Stealing money is a crime.

Holding the money after you stole it is not a crime.

For purposes of INGO camaraderie, I'll concede that the Mexican border crossers deserve sent back to whatever ****hole they're from.

What I'm trying to address - and it will need to be addressed - are the millions (rough numbers, but statistically meaningful) that are the more difficult cases. People who entered legally (didn't commit a crime) but over-stayed or are working beyond the scope of their visas (admittedly, unlawful). And have been doing so long enough, and are otherwise law abiding, that even INGO would accept that sending them "back" would be morally wrong.

But then, in my optimism, I sometimes underestimate INGO's cruelty.

I reject that we are obligated to solve a "problem" for these people that is of their own creation simply because they've been cunning enough to continue breaking the law longer than their compatriots.

Knowing that they were here illegally, they opted to start a family anyhow. That is shame on them...

Another way to look at it is that any life that they have here, they STOLE from another immigrant who might otherwise have been here legally.

 

[OakRiver]

You've equivocated illegal entry with a dizzying array of terrible crimes. You may not realize it, so I'm trying to let you know.

You: Illegally immigrating is a crime of moral turpitude.
Rape is a crime of moral turpitude.
Illegally immigrating is equivalent to rape.

I have equivocated nothing, and made that abundantly clear.

In the US, we have millions of people in a legal gray area. For as lucrative as that may be for various segments of the population, it is not good policy. I think we should, as a country, try to resolve it.

What is this legal grey area of which you speak?

You'd rather explore the bounds of my concession?

Given your concerns about the precision of language I believe that to be fair, yes.

Most Americans, other than saints such as yourself, do not abide by every single law.

Yet another attempt at distorting what I have said. I would appreciate if you would tackle the arguments made than attempting to tackle who has made them

Even setting that aside, unless one is of the "sins of the father visited upon the children type," deporting people who have long-established families here (and are otherwise law abiding) is not fair. Really, by any measure. It is cruel, because it doesn't have to be that way.

Our system historically has allowed for mercy, our system can allow for it, and it should allow for it.

You are moving the goalposts here in an effort to make your point. First you spoke about the individuals and now you attempt to appeal to emotion because of the affect on families.

Let me be clear, whatever the consequences to the families it has been the direct result of the actions of the illegal immigrant and their disdain for the law of the land. The blame as it were rests firmly on their shoulders. It was they who chose to break the law, it was they who invited the consequences of their illegal actions. In addition to this either their partner was aware of their unlawful status to remain in the country and was a willing to accept that, or the illegal immigrant decided to withhold a materially significant fact from their partner.

It does not have to be that way, in that you are correct. But it is that way because people have chosen to break the law. I have no problem with these people being removed from the United States and being allowed to apply for entry and then offered a path to citizenship because of their family ties. I will even waive a penalty (i.e. the legal penalties of exclusion from the US for 3yrs/5yrs/lifetime) to those individuals but it is irresponsible to allow people to benefit from their unlawful behavior.

 

[Twangbanger]

Nobody has explained _why_ we need to amnesty-in-place the people already here, who knowingly entered or stayed illegally.

Why contort our policy into a gift to them which creates the expectation of further gifts, and encourages even more people to come through our porous border and enter our ill-considered welfare state?

They chose a "gray" existence in America. All I'm advocating is to let them have precisely what they've knowingly chosen. Why do we owe them an iota more?

 

[T.Lex]

I have equivocated nothing, and made that abundantly clear.

Did you not posit that illegal entry was a crime of moral turpitude?

What is this legal grey area of which you speak?

Being legal subject to deportation, but not being deported, but supporting oneself, one's family, and contributing to the local economy.

Yet another attempt at distorting what I have said. I would appreciate if you would tackle the arguments made than attempting to tackle who has made them

It matters not to me who makes what arguments. In fact, only rarely do I even keep track of that. I take your point to be that by "being" illegal, people are marked with a scarlet letter that requires exacting punishment.

That's certainly a common position, so I can't say its unreasonable. I do find it narrow, and when applied, cruel.

You are moving the goalposts here in an effort to make your point. First you spoke about the individuals and now you attempt to appeal to emotion because of the affect on families.

Wait. Are families not composed of individuals? Speaking of precision in language, I'm not moving the goalposts, I thought there was a common understanding that when I talked about people who'd "put down roots" and "married American citizens" that I was talking about families.

I could have been more explicit about that, I suppose. If that's the case, I do apologize for not doing so.

Let me be clear, whatever the consequences to the families it has been the direct result of the actions of the illegal immigrant and their disdain for the law of the land. The blame as it were rests firmly on their shoulders. It was they who chose to break the law, it was they who invited the consequences of their illegal actions. In addition to this either their partner was aware of their unlawful status to remain in the country and was a willing to accept that, or the illegal immigrant decided to withhold a materially significant fact from their partner.

So, too, the kids?

It does not have to be that way, in that you are correct. But it is that way because people have chosen to break the law. I have no problem with these people being removed from the United States and being allowed to apply for entry and then offered a path to citizenship because of their family ties. I will even waive a penalty (i.e. the legal penalties of exclusion from the US for 3yrs/5yrs/lifetime) to those individuals but it is irresponsible to allow people to benefit from their unlawful behavior.

Dilution of responsibility is tempting. It is easy to say that "the system should do this" when the consequences are remote from you. We can agree to disagree on the morality of it.

What we should be able to agree upon is that it is not politically feasible to achieve such a system.

Nobody has explained _why_ we need to amnesty-in-place the people already here, who knowingly entered or stayed illegally.

Why contort our policy into a gift to them which creates the expectation of further gifts, and encourages even more people to come through our porous border and enter our ill-considered welfare state?

They chose a "gray" existence in America. All I'm advocating is to let them have precisely what they've knowingly chosen. Why do we owe them an iota more?

This is an extension of my last line in response to OakRiver. If we are going to solve this, then let's solve all of it. Piecemeal solutions on this will continue to not work.

Politically - and this is simply the reality - amnesty will have to be part of it.

 

[BugI02]

...
In the US, we have millions of people in a legal gray area. For as lucrative as that may be for various segments of the population, it is not good policy. I think we should, as a country, try to resolve it.

43% of those who could be bothered to vote are trying to resolve it. Its just that you refuse to countenance our preferred solution

 

[Twangbanger]

...This is an extension of my last line in response to OakRiver. If we are going to solve this, then let's solve all of it. Piecemeal solutions on this will continue to not work.

Politically - and this is simply the reality - amnesty will have to be part of it.

But this is just proof by assertion. You did not explain "why."

Please be specific.

 

[OakRiver]

Did you not posit that illegal entry was a crime of moral turpitude?

I am uncertain how I can make my position any clearer than I have already done, if you are not content with the clear answers so far then that is your choice. You have been given your answer on multiple occasions.

Have you explained yet how one can enter a country illegally and not be an illegal immigrant?

Being legal subject to deportation, but not being deported, but supporting oneself, one's family, and contributing to the local economy.

That is not a "legal grey area". Legally that person has no right to be in the country. The fact that they have not yet been removed does not change their lawful status from anything other than being here unlawfully. Any attempt to characterize that person's presence as anything other than illegitimate in the eyes of the law is a distortion of the truth.

It matters not to me who makes what arguments. In fact, only rarely do I even keep track of that. I take your point to be that by "being" illegal, people are marked with a scarlet letter that requires exacting punishment.

That's certainly a common position, so I can't say its unreasonable. I do find it narrow, and when applied, cruel.

Expecting the law to be applied correctly to those who flout it is not "cruel" by any objective standard.

Wait. Are families not composed of individuals? Speaking of precision in language, I'm not moving the goalposts, I thought there was a common understanding that when I talked about people who'd "put down roots" and "married American citizens" that I was talking about families.

I could have been more explicit about that, I suppose. If that's the case, I do apologize for not doing so.

A family unit is a collection of individuals. An individual is just that, an individual. You asked about those individuals here unlawfully. That was the discussion that we were having until you shifted the scope of your argument (the aforementioned goal post moving). If you want precision of language from others it is good form to practice it yourself.

And it is possible for one to put down roots in a community without marrying or starting a family.

So, too, the kids?

Any there here illegally also?

Dilution of responsibility is tempting. It is easy to say that "the system should do this" when the consequences are remote from you. We can agree to disagree on the morality of it.

Yet another logical fallacy as you continue to appeal to emotion. The fact of the matter remains that the legal consequences are the direct result of someone breaking the law. The responsibility begins and ends there.

Who said the consequences are remote from me?

What we should be able to agree upon is that it is not politically feasible to achieve such a system.

Why would I agree to this position?

Politically - and this is simply the reality - amnesty will have to be part of it.

How so? How did the last amnesty impact illegal immigration levels?

 

[KG1]

Never argue with lawyers. They are ingrained with arguing any given point to the death.

 

[BugI02]

...[snip]
Being legal subject to deportation, but not being deported, but supporting oneself, one's family, and contributing to the local economy.
[snip]

Is this really an 'eyes wide open' assessment of the situation?

Welfare Use by Legal and Illegal Immigrant Households | Center for Immigration Studies

View attachment 53221

 

[T.Lex]

But this is just proof by assertion. You did not explain "why."

Please be specific.

As to what? As to why it is a political stinkbomb? Because there is no consensus among the US electorate as to what to do about it. It is a political problem; it will require a political solution.

Judging by history, such a political solution will require amnesty. Horsetrading is horsetrading. A wall-it-up-and-deport-everyone will not pass Congress. History supports that assertion. What evidence do you have that such an approach would pass?

I am uncertain how I can make my position any clearer than I have already done, if you are not content with the clear answers so far then that is your choice. You have been given your answer on multiple occasions.

So let's try a different approach. To you, which is worse: illegal entry or rape?

(Yes, that's a setup to a terrible joke.)

Have you explained yet how one can enter a country illegally and not be an illegal immigrant?

Well, yes. I've never argued what you're asking. "Illegal immigrant" apparently means far more to you than just entering illegally. I believe you include entering legally, but staying illegally. Which is not what you asked.

That is not a "legal grey area". Legally that person has no right to be in the country. The fact that they have not yet been removed does not change their lawful status from anything other than being here unlawfully. Any attempt to characterize that person's presence as anything other than illegitimate in the eyes of the law is a distortion of the truth.

Are you familiar with the notion of a statute of limitations (a slightly different thing is a statute of repose)? Basically every crime has one, except murder. That someone can commit a crime, and get away with it, is unconscionable to you?

Expecting the law to be applied correctly to those who flout it is not "cruel" by any objective standard.

A family unit is a collection of individuals. An individual is just that, an individual. You asked about those individuals here unlawfully. That was the discussion that we were having until you shifted the scope of your argument (the aforementioned goal post moving). If you want precision of language from others it is good form to practice it yourself.

And it is possible for one to put down roots in a community without marrying or starting a family.

The I apologize for not fully fleshing out the concept for you to understand.

Do you think it cruel to deport individuals who have kids who are citizens and who have not done anything illegal since entering the country, which they entered legally at the time?

Any there here illegally also?

No, generally they are born here.

Yet another logical fallacy as you continue to appeal to emotion. The fact of the matter remains that the legal consequences are the direct result of someone breaking the law. The responsibility begins and ends there.

That's not what the law said a few years ago, not really what it says now.

Who said the consequences are remote from me?

You'd be willing to explain to the family what is being done to them and put them on the train?

Why would I agree to this position?

Because it is true.

How so? How did the last amnesty impact illegal immigration levels?

From what I can tell, it didn't. The rate seems tied more to economic performance. I recall reading that during/after the 2008 crash, illegal immigration plummeted.

 

[Twangbanger]

...As to what? As to why it is a political stinkbomb? Because there is no consensus among the US electorate as to what to do about it. It is a political problem; it will require a political solution.

Judging by history, such a political solution will require amnesty. Horsetrading is horsetrading. A wall-it-up-and-deport-everyone will not pass Congress. History supports that assertion. What evidence do you have that such an approach would pass?...

But you're shifting the goalposts in your dialogue with me, because I did not say to "wall-it-up-and-deport-everyone." You know that. I'm advocating to let the existing illegals stay here, for the rest of their natural lives, and live out the remainder of their days in America, according to the same set of conditions they chose to accept when they came (or overstayed).

Furthermore, no serious comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress has included Mass Deportation as a component. The trade which has been offered (eg. the CIRA bill of 2007) is Amnesty in exchange for a Wall. Mass Deportation is not a serious part of the equation, and you know that also.

To minimize distraction: pretend you woke up tomorrow in a world where nobody was asking for a wall, or deportation. Why is Amnesty imperative to you? I'm simply asking you to forget about the Wall, forget about deportation, forget all the distractions "your side" throws in to muck up the waters, and simply tell me: why is Amnesty imperative to you?

For my part, I do not want Amnesty, because I believe (rightly or wrongly) that it will encourage more illegals to come. (Which is a result you and I both have said we don't want). I don't want people to be able to exceed our immigration quotas, then buy their way to legality after the fact. If they're going to pay a price to be here, I want that price to be living as the proverbial "gray man," as an object lesson to those who might be tempted to follow them. I believe once you start selling indulgences to the guilty and letting them buy their way up to par, there is simply no end to that.

Leave the ones that are here.

Make it excruciatingly difficult for more to follow them.

...Including dashing any hope they may have of buying their way to legality "for time served," after they're here.

 

[T.Lex]

But you're shifting the goalposts in your dialogue with me, because I did not say to "wall-it-up-and-deport-everyone." You know that.

That's true. I did lump you in with others. I apologize for that.

Furthermore, no serious comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress has included Mass Deportation as a component. The trade which has been offered (eg. the CIRA bill of 2007) is Amnesty in exchange for a Wall. Mass Deportation is not a serious part of the equation, and you know that also.

I also know several reason why.
1) We can't afford mass deportations.
2) It would have ruined any chance of a majority vote (I think the tide has shifted somewhat on this).
3) Related to 2, almost any legislator voting for it would've had a hard time getting re-elected.

To minimize distraction: pretend you woke up tomorrow in a world where nobody was asking for a wall, or deportation. Why is Amnesty imperative to you? I'm simply asking you to forget about the Wall, forget about deportation, forget all the distractions "your side" throws in to muck up the waters, and simply tell me: why is Amnesty imperative to you?

Because, for people meeting a certain set of criteria, I believe it is the right thing to do.

For my part, I do not want Amnesty, because I believe (rightly or wrongly) that it will encourage more illegals to come. (Which is a result you and I both have said we don't want).

I've seen no evidence that amnesty impacts the rate of illegal entry. If you are aware of that, I'm open to it.

I don't want people to be able to exceed our immigration quotas, then buy their way to legality after the fact. If they're going to pay a price to be here, I want that price to be living as the proverbial "gray man," as an object lesson to those who might be tempted to follow them. I believe once you start selling indulgences to the guilty and letting them buy their way up to par, there is simply no end to that.

Leave the ones that are here.

Make it excruciatingly difficult for more to follow them.

...Including dashing any hope they may have of buying their way to legality "for time served," after they're here.

So here's a thought: if we are drastically increasing work visas, what's the philosophical reason for denying them to people who are already here? They won't be "benefiting." Its just an address. I believe you mentioned upthread that one track could be for citizenship. Particularly where the person is married to a US citizen or has US citizen children, why exclude them from the pool of available work visas?

 

[OakRiver]

Well, yes. I've never argued what you're asking. "Illegal immigrant" apparently means far more to you than just entering illegally. I believe you include entering legally, but staying illegally. Which is not what you asked.

You attempted to make an artificial distinction as though illegal entry and illegal immigration could be considered as wholly separate topics. While I admit that it is possible to enter the country lawfully and later acquire illegal status I also pointed out that anyone entering the country illegally was de facto an illegal immigrant.

Are you familiar with the notion of a statute of limitations (a slightly different thing is a statute of repose)? Basically every crime has one, except murder. That someone can commit a crime, and get away with it, is unconscionable to you?

I am very aware of the statute of limitations. You appear to be confusing the commission of a crime, which is typically a fixed point in time once mens rea and actus reus converge (strict liability offences aside), with a breach of immigration law which is an ongoing illegal activity which only terminates when the offender leaves the country or adjusts status. Also as a crime is by it's nature a matter of criminal law, and immigration law is generally more administrative in nature your comparison is false.
What is the statute of limitations on illegally remaining in the United States?

Do you think it cruel to deport individuals who have kids who are citizens and who have not done anything illegal since entering the country, which they entered legally at the time?

No more cruel than jailing a parent who has broken the law.

No, generally they are born here.

So if they are born here and are citizens why would you ask what should happen with them?

That's not what the law said a few years ago, not really what it says now.

The law says that people who break immigration law bear no responsibility for their actions?

You'd be willing to explain to the family what is being done to them and put them on the train?

Another lazy appeal to emotion.

Because it is true.

A statement wholly unsupported by evidence.

From what I can tell, it didn't. The rate seems tied more to economic performance. I recall reading that during/after the 2008 crash, illegal immigration plummeted.

Because as I said at the outset these are economic migrants. We already have a system for those workers to enter this country lawfully.
Prior amnesties only serve to give hope to those who enter the country unlawfully that if they continue to run down the clock they will be allowed to stay. That sends the wrong message.

 

[OakRiver]

Furthermore, no serious comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress has included Mass Deportation as a component. The trade which has been offered (eg. the CIRA bill of 2007) is Amnesty in exchange for a Wall. Mass Deportation is not a serious part of the equation, and you know that also.

Mass deportation is not necessary. As I've already said the majority of illegal immigrants are economic migrants. Remove the benefit to employers to hire them and they will remove themselves. We saw this happen in 2008 with the economic downturn.

 

[Woobie]

I see no reason disadvantage the people who chose to come here legally, and waited for the opportunity to do so.

 

[Libertarian01]

To my line of thinking the political problem stems from how each of us thinks and prioritizes our important issues internally, and thus applies our internal priorities upon our legislatures.

I believe that most illegal immigrants are good, decent people simply looking to make a better life for themselves. Whether they are escaping horrible crime and/or poverty from south of the border or overstaying their student visa because returning to their home country in the middle east would mean entering a country with an extremely high unemployment rate doesn't matter. They are here, without malice, illegally.

I also believe that we have created a welfare state that has been designed to function within certain parameters. So much money is extracted through taxation to pay for certain programs that are being overburdened due to an imbalance in revenues v/s expenses.

Along with the welfare state being overburdened an influx of workers and simply people causes an imbalance to our entire economic system. This can be done by tempting employers to pay illegals under the table, thus depressing wages for citizens or legal immigrants OR by simply bringing in higher numbers and depressing probabilities of employment doesn't matter. This also causes problems in health care, education, transportation, etc. The uncontrolled influx causes economic harm toe the political body (ie. the USA.)

One side focuses on the human story of escaping horrible conditions.

One side focuses on the pure economic harm produced.

Each side is morally right.

Each side is morally wrong.

By each side focusing on only one side of the story they are being callous and cruel to the other. This is what I consider immoral if taken far enough.

When we are faced with an issue that has bad implications no matter which way we decide it becomes much more difficult to address, and thus exponentially more difficult to reach anything near consensus.

For my part I tend to focus on the numbers side, which leads me to believe that with our without malice illegal immigration is a problem that must be addressed, for only by maintaining our economic strength can we ever hope to help those in need that we wish to help. However, I also know that I do not want to cause horrible harm to someone based upon numbers alone. Therefore I find myself on unsettled ground.

In my mind we will never have King Solomon to solve this dilemma. We will be left with the least repugnant solution. Alas, we have yet to find it.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Woobie]

I'll bet if we ended the prohibition on drugs, we could be more open with our southern border. But we waste a lot of energy worrying about what chemicals they are bringing across with them. Heck, if we did that, some of our illegals would go home.

I just see the amnesty argument as a rule of law issue. Which is why I am troubled that a lawyer would take a stand against the rule of law. I have no problem changing the law or immigration policy to accept more of our southern neighbors. But we need to enforce the laws we have currently, and repeal the ones that are wrong. Telling all the people waiting in line to hold on, first we are taking these people over here who decided the line wasn't for them, isn't just.

 

[Twangbanger]

...So here's a thought: if we are drastically increasing work visas, what's the philosophical reason for denying them to people who are already here? They won't be "benefiting." Its just an address. I believe you mentioned upthread that one track could be for citizenship. Particularly where the person is married to a US citizen or has US citizen children, why exclude them from the pool of available work visas?

(It wasn't me.)

 

[T.Lex]

You attempted to make an artificial distinction as though illegal entry and illegal immigration could be considered as wholly separate topics.

They can be, and are.

I am very aware of the statute of limitations. You appear to be confusing the commission of a crime, which is typically a fixed point in time once mens rea and actus reus converge (strict liability offences aside), with a breach of immigration law which is an ongoing illegal activity which only terminates when the offender leaves the country or adjusts status.

My point is that you are a proponent of one approach. It is not the only approach. Nor is it a particularly helpful approach, IMHO, to actually resolving the issue.

Also as a crime is by it's nature a matter of criminal law, and immigration law is generally more administrative in nature your comparison is false.
What is the statute of limitations on illegally remaining in the United States?

I believe the earlier amnesty applied to individuals who could prove they'd been here for 5 years. So, 5 years is what it used to be.

A similar approach could be taken again, but with different numbers. Statutes of limitations are... by definition... creatures of statute.

And as long as you're labeling immigration matters as administrative, remind me what administrative rule violations end in prison terms.

The law says that people who break immigration law bear no responsibility for their actions?

The prior law allowed for people to pay a fine and enter a path to citizenship. Current law allows for the DACA people and other hardships cases to remain in the US. So, yes, the law allows for that. Just like almost every other non-violent offense.

Another lazy appeal to emotion.

Emotion is not fallacy, unless you're Vulcan. Emotions are quite real. And important.

A statement wholly unsupported by evidence.

You believe it is politically possible to reform immigration without amnesty? What evidence have you of your assertion?

Because as I said at the outset these are economic migrants. We already have a system for those workers to enter this country lawfully.
Prior amnesties only serve to give hope to those who enter the country unlawfully that if they continue to run down the clock they will be allowed to stay. That sends the wrong message.

Speaking of rhetoric, there was no apparent reduction in the rate of illegal immigration post-amnesty (other than the economic collapse). How do you explain that?

Mass deportation is not necessary. As I've already said the majority of illegal immigrants are economic migrants. Remove the benefit to employers to hire them and they will remove themselves. We saw this happen in 2008 with the economic downturn.

Point of clarification: are you saying the actual number of illegal immigrants went down, or that the rate slowed down during the collapse? Or something different?

Also, among my examples that you haven't fully addressed are the examples where the employers are not aware that the person is illegal. They have a valid SSN and have worked since their lawful arrival. How can we punish the employer in that example?

To my line of thinking the political problem stems from how each of us thinks and prioritizes our important issues internally, and thus applies our internal priorities upon our legislatures.

You say "problem," I say "republic."

For my part I tend to focus on the numbers side, which leads me to believe that with our without malice illegal immigration is a problem that must be addressed, for only by maintaining our economic strength can we ever hope to help those in need that we wish to help. However, I also know that I do not want to cause horrible harm to someone based upon numbers alone. Therefore I find myself on unsettled ground.

In my mind we will never have King Solomon to solve this dilemma. We will be left with the least repugnant solution. Alas, we have yet to find it.

I agree. That's why I think it unfair and unwise to reject the amnesty angle.

I just see the amnesty argument as a rule of law issue. Which is why I am troubled that a lawyer would take a stand against the rule of law. I have no problem changing the law or immigration policy to accept more of our southern neighbors. But we need to enforce the laws we have currently, and repeal the ones that are wrong. Telling all the people waiting in line to hold on, first we are taking these people over here who decided the line wasn't for them, isn't just.

So this is something that deserves clarification of my position, and this is probably a matter of perspective.

First, laws change every year. In fact, our General Assembly is working changing dozens of laws almost as we write these posts. For me, knowing that laws can change, it is about discussing how to change the laws to implement effective policies. Rare is the person more rule-oriented than I. The system is the solution. Process, process, process.

Second, the current (and recent past) laws and policies aren't working. Something needs to be done.

Third, I cannot escape the human element. I'm not advocating, and haven't, blanket amnesty. There are classes of INGO-defined illegal immigrants that I believe worthy of amnesty. People who deserve to be citizens of the US, have proven themselves worthy of it, but because of a byzantine legal system are lumped together with drug smugglers, human traffickers, and their ilk.

That's not fair, nor right.

Finally, as someone with some experience in behind-the-scenes politics, I don't see a political solution without some form of amnesty. So we can either try to mold it into something acceptable, or ***** about how nothing ever changes.

(It wasn't me.)

Are you sure?

Ok, but would you oppose something like that? People with US citizen spouses living in the US could have equal access to work visas, so they can work here legally, then adjusting status to permanent resident/citizen based on the (legitimate) marriage.