You may think my statement was an insult to your intelligence. But dozens of Freepers have been constantly asking me "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" Clearly, for them if not for you, the issue is more one of legality than of economics.
For them, my analogy is spot on. In the 30s they'd have been yelling about the kind of precedent it would set to make alcohol legal again.
I just find a vast difference between CITIZENS taking a drink of alcohol and FOREIGN NATIONALS trashing the sovereignty of the United States and being rewarded for it. Know what I mean?
For them, my analogy is spot on. In the 30s they'd have been yelling about the kind of precedent it would set to make alcohol legal again.
Oh good grief! Your analogy to Prohibition is a joke! You still don't grasp the issue, do you "professor"...? They resolved the issue/dilemma of Prohibition in the '30's not by deciding not to punish all the people who had been consuming alcohol but, realizing that laws against the consumption and sale of alcohol were just not practical (and actually counterproductive), they suspended all the national anti-alcohol statutes altogether. They simply allowed everyone to go back to drinking drinking alcoholic beverages.
So, if we were to actually handle the illegal immigration dilemma in the same way that they handled the problems with Prohibition in the 1930's, we would basically suspend the laws against illegal entry by immigrants into our country and allow virtually anyone and everyone throughout the world who wanted to come here to do so ( open boders ).
I really don't think that is what even you actually want and that is why your analogy ( obviously ) fails.