So you are saying whomever gets into America should not turned back to their nation of origin. They should be rewarded with jobs and sometimes citizenship.
"So you are saying whomever gets into America should not turned back to their nation of origin. They should be rewarded with jobs and sometimes citizenship."
I can turn it around, and say that you're saying America should become a proto-police state, with high taxes to subsidize its deportation police, an entity that beats down the doors of Hispanics and drags Elian Gonzalez-style illegal family members out of the country.
Only provide amnesty to those illegals who plan on becoming patriotic Americans. If you're a foreigner living here illegally and you don't plan on working on some legal visa, then deport. But a blanket deportation of 11 million illegals would not only create a logistics nightmare, that again the pro-deport crowd ravenously ignores addressing, it also would lose so much good will among the (legalized and growing via high birth rate) Hispanic American voter block (after all, it would be their homes that would get their doors kicked in to find those 11 million illegals and hurl them back to Mexico), that such a policy basically concede the next generation of political power to Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton. And God knows what type of legal precedent such a massive and probably violent deportation would create when our political enemies come into power, a precedent they would use to their own advantage.
There are three issues to be dealt with, and not only are these three problems not only NOT mutually inclusive, but their solutions are not mutually inclusive either. 1) Border Security. 2) Future Illegal Immigration. 3.) Current illegals (namely Hispanics) in the U.S. When it comes to priority, issue 1 comes first, because that involves securing this country from future terrorist attack. Issue 2 is important because it refers to recolonization of the U.S., and the sacrifice of American values to foreign values. Issue 3 is important, but by matter of degree, the least of the problems. Americans are firmly entrenched behind the conservative solutions for problems 1 and 2. Those are doable. The Deportation solution for Problem 3 is less doable, and should not bring down the hopes for the more pressing issues.
Securing the borders from Al Qaeda and deporting 11 million people are not mutually inclusive. Enforcing a new immigration law--a new one is needed, because the old one was never enforced and thus discredited--and kicking out current illegals are not mutually inclusive. We can do one, and not the other, in both instances. It is more important to find a political solution that guarantees the border is secure, than one that tries to hitch a less attainable goal of mass deportation to that wagon. It is more important to prevent future illegal immigration, that it is to worry about those who are already here. 11 million naturalized learning-to-speak English Americans won't bring this country down. But 111 million Spanish speaking illegals after another 20 years of the status quo--the result of liberals not wanting to do anything about immigration and conservatives asking too much to get a workable plan to save this country--will. Again, its about priorities--are you more interested in guaranteeing that a wall is built and that future illegals are hampered from coming here, or are you more interested in the politically unviable and unexecutable policy of mass deportation? Not only are they not mutually inclusive, these issues are starting to become mutually exclusive.
A law is only a law if its enforced. We have not enforced the immigration laws for God knows how long. Trying to retroactively enforce them won't fix the problem--the image of the current immigration law has already been wiped between the cracks and thrown into the toilet. A fresh start is needed on immigration, beginning with the wall. This country--yes, this country--has routinely had its share of law skirting, heck the country came from a common law culture and the west was settled by squatters who "stole" land from either absentee landlords or a government that wasn't enforcing its hard-to-enforce property laws. After that period of "lawlessness", the common sense of common law took hold, and such land was recognized by the courts, and the formerly illegally owned property of the squatters became legally recognized private property. Subsequent squatting (ie, a new illegal squatter taking the land of a formerly illegal now legal squatter) would then be illegal, despite the apparent spirit of "hypocrisy" in such an edict.
A similair situation could happen now with current illegals. Because the immigration law has not been enforced, we don't blame those who saw the law as a paper tiger, and don't hold their desire to live in the greatest country in the world against against them--unless they plan on remaining Mexicans, then the U.S. deports. We adapt the law and make it stronger and enforcable, we have a wall to protect us from terrorists and future colonization, we've created 11 million tax payers (unemployment among illegals is less than among naturalized Americans, think of the tax revenues we can gain to help finace the GWOT and pay off the debt), and we have not only stayed even with Hispanics politically, but we could use the Naturalization process to indoctrinate the illegals into American values.