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.
I support everyone coming here legally. I also support that number being generated by debate in congress at the federal level and at the state level as well. This meaning that States should retain the right to have a say in how many legal immigrants they would accept.
I would offer to you that the plan of discombobulation, wishywashyness, and gridlock has resulted in exactly what both parties wanted it to. Cheap labor, and votes.
I agree that the flow here does aid folks like Fox and Chavez,among others. Many do not take notice how much of mexicos economy is based on the money that illegals send there. Stopping the flow would indeed put pressure on southern nations to commit to reforms or see more argentina-like crashes. But do take notice, the spin told to those folks if we do stop this flow will be more of the same....its all America's fault.....that our immigration enforcment brought them financial ruin.
You do offer a good point there, this should be part of the overall debate on this issue.