Sure, send them home. No problem, but the reasoning in the article is almost to the extent that I should pay the bus fare.
Alternative fuels? Sure, possibly. Cost is obviously a big issue there, but you are not going to quickly reformulate all the herbicides and pesticides which a frequently petroleum based.
My main argument is do not burden me with more checking and compliance. We fail at the border and then its my job? Sorry, I don't think so. What about people that house them? Make them all homeless and jobless and then they'll go home. Gee, maybe that would drive up the price of housing?
Yes, you pay in taxes to subsidize, but to me it is like paying for our defense (I'm really mixed on the subsidy issue. I've never collected and would like to see them go, along with the FDA, ICC, EPA, Dept of ag and a myriad of other agencies that impede my ability to market products). Could we tool up quickly and produce our own oil, maybe (I kind of doubt it, but for the sake of argument I'll say yes). I do not think you can do the same farming and ranching - too much land and skill involved.
Farmers get the benefit of illegal labor, and should pay the costs of compliance. There are ways available now (like the Basic Pilot Project) which are inexpensive. If we pay more for food, so be it. The net savings in taxes will more than make up the difference.
Rey, it appears that you are emphasizing the administrative burden this supposedly involves, when your real concern is that hiring only legal workers would increase your labor expense.
I agree that a lot more could be stopped at the border if we really wanted to do so. But as long as there are millions of desperate Hispanics trying to get in through a long border, a large percentage will get through any barrier short of another Berlin Wall manned by tens of thousands of troops. It is far more effective to stop the illegal hiring by changing some laws and enforcing some existing laws than it is to shut down the border.