I would offer that allowing the illegal labor force to continue and allowing it to even augment is manipulation of the job market occuring as we speak.
Plan B is always a good idea.
We both support the rule of law. Where we probably differ is that if we would have a process to vet the people applying for immigration, I would support changing the limits of numbers of persons from our southern borders.
Where we also may differ is that I would argue that the numbers of illegal immigrants are not here by someone's plan, but rather by the disjointed legislation and judicial wishywashyness that results in unmanageable borders, insufficient people in the US available (even assuming that there's funding somewhere) for the kind of border control needed and an obstinate crowd mandating the bankruptcy of border hospitals to care (at US expense) of illegals (courtesy of the senator who lost his pants)
Lastly, the most powerful argument against illegal immigration as it stands today is that it supports brutal and corrupt regimes to the south of our border. Yet this is not the argument that the reform crowd takes, which I think puts the discussion on a weaker plane.
Plan B is always necessary. Any job or line of work is a risk. This can mean good things, but a person who is responsible for him or herself needs to be open to contingency planning.