My examples illustrate that there are degrees of crime and some laws (or policy) is. So the answer to your question would be yes.
If protective tariffs were good enough for the Founding Fathers, they're good enough for me.
Then from your response I gather we agree that "Many of the same fringers who complain about expansive government want government to restrict immigration to prop up inflates wages for unskilled Americans and raise taxes on imported goods."
You just said the economy was improving. Yet the immigration issue has never received so much attention as it has now. According to your formulation, this should not be so.
Yes, you are correct I said the economy is improving and the anti-immigration sentiment is at it's zenith. In science class we learned that some reactions require time.
Just like the one that happened after 1986?
no. Where has the administration been willing to comprehensively crack down on employers of illegals?
The Justice department went after Walmart last summer. It has increased money for border and instituted reform for verifying identification document. He has done what can be done with the resources and policy structure of previous administrations. Dubya wanted to resolve immigration earlier but political reality made logical long term reform impractical after 9-11. Now that we have assessed the situation Dubya is proposing his plan, a public debate is now occurring and will be followed with legislation and policy.
Will that desire just suddenly appear from the ether?
The desire is here now. What is preventing the crack down is the desire to minimize human suffering and economic upheaval. I expand on this point in post 224 if you still have trouble grasping it.
I take it the "good criminal record" will ignore the crime of illegally crossing our border and illegally working here?
yes.
Are there other laws that they can break and get a pass on?
Perhaps possession of forged identification, and other minor infractions that would be necessary to make purchases, find a job and a home. Think of it like a plea bargain. The illegal turns himself in and makes the job of apprehension and restitution simpler. The prosecution drops the penalty and throws out some charges. This allows investigators to focus on the illegals who are trying to hide. Does that make sense to you?
Secondly, what about their criminal records in their home countries?
I see no reason that can't be considered in deciding if the guest worker is suitable, but you say yourself that criminal records from Mexico may be suspect. These detail can be hammered out by experts.
I know, I know. The idea of corruption in Mexico is laughable, right?
What in the world would led you to make this comment? This statement tells me you have only skimmed my posts, looking for opportunities to contradict. I think Mexico is a hell hole that 15 million people have fled, and I thank God I was born here.
Do you honestly think that if the guest workers are less than sanguine about going home (and totally ignoring the problem of anchor babies that can tie the guest workers to this country), we will suddenly see a will deport these millions of people?
We will not deport guest workers who register and met the criteria for eligibility in the program. Those who do no register will be found and deported.