[bayourod]

"Legalizing the illegals will clearly only encourage and invite much, much more of the same."

So? Since the new ones will also be legal, and you don't have anything against legal immigrants, where's the problem.

The "legal vs illegal" argument will never prevail with intelligent people. For example, in academic competitive debate, opposition to something on the basis that it is illegal is not allowed for the reason that laws can always be changed.

[Jeff Head]

...and that is the problem. Intellectuals have factored right and wrong, legal and illegal, right out of the arguement.

Well, for me, that dog won't hunt. We need a sane legal immigration policy. Plain and simple. Anyone coming in outside of that norm is violating the law and should be treated as such, turned back, to come back through in the proscribed process.

...the logical conclusion of what you have stated is that there is no need for laws at all...that intelligent people can somehow just "all get along".

Well, to quote Thomas Paine who referred his remarks to the the foolishness of allowing no one to own guns...I will use the same words applied to this arguement. "Because some will not, we dare not."

I've made my points and am hapy to let others judge for themselves between us.

[Penner]

The "legal vs illegal" argument will never prevail with intelligent people.

Yes, I want to live in a country where legal and illegal are meaningless terms.

[EGPWS]

The "legal vs illegal" argument will never prevail with intelligent people.

I beg to differ, for if "legal vs illegal" isn't an argument then there is no definition of legal or illegal.