[speekinout]

That's an argument for a guest-worker program that people in other countries can take advantage of. It's not an argument for making the program available to illegals here. That does nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry, and the mere proposing of it does plenty to encourage it.

Having a way for people to come here legally does do a lot to stop illegal entry. How could you possibly argue otherwise?
And isn't it important to find out who the current illegals are, and to do something about them? How do you propose we do that?

If you really think that securing the land border would be ineffective at doing anything about the problem, does this mean you'd favor eliminating the Border Patrol altogether?

That's silly. Just as it is silly to think that our only border problem is the land border between the US and Mexico. We have the Canadian border, all of our coasts, and the problem of people overstaying their visas.
I wonder if you're only concerned about Mexicans, who mostly come here to work, instead of illegal immigrants who come here to either do harm to us, or to take advantage of our welfare system.

[inquest]

Having a way for people to come here legally does do a lot to stop illegal entry. How could you possibly argue otherwise?

I didn't argue otherwise. What I argued was that making the program available to illegals here does nothing to stop illegal entry, and proposing it encourages it.

[If you really think that securing the land border would be ineffective at doing anything about the problem, does this mean you'd favor eliminating the Border Patrol altogether?]

That's silly.

So can I take that as a no?