Replies

What I argued was that making the program available to illegals here does nothing to stop illegal entry, and proposing it encourages it.

You're not being clear about the difference between people who are already here illegally, and ones who might come illegally in the future. Are you saying that we should let the people who are here illegally stay here illegally? I'm not in favor of that, and closing borders doesn't help.

I think people who are looking for an easy answer (eg., build a wall between the US and Mexico) are deluded. There are many ways to get here, and I've already mentioned many of them. Border control is only one part of it.

I'm quite convinced that we need to give people a legal way to get here (if they are people we want to come), and that we need to find a way to locate the people that we really don't want to be here.

You're not being clear about the difference between people who are already here illegally, and ones who might come illegally in the future.

Offering guest-worker status to either group, at the very least, will do nothing at all to reduce border-jumping. Hopefully we can agree on that much.

And if, for the sake of argument, we do make the distinction you're talking about, the distinction would have to be between those who come before this program is enacted, and those who come after, is that not right? Since no such program has yet gone into effect, everyone who's currently jumping the border would fall into the "before" category. Each time this proposal is floated, therefore, especially by someone as high-profile as the President, it gives encouragement to foreigners to continue jumping the border. These facts can not be denied.

But it is a part of it. I don't see how it can reasonably be denied that closing the land border to unauthorized entry will substantially reduce the number of people who can get into the country illegally each year.