From your sources, Business Week (they’d simply open the borders to all laborers) even uses the work onerous.
Yet the required paperwork can be onerous, since it requires employers to establish that they cannot fill those jobs with domestic labor. So companies simply hire whom-ever shows up for work, knowing that, with few exceptions, they probably won't be prosecuted for putting illegal aliens on their payroll.
Sorry, that shouldn’t be a problem. Proponents of illegal labor argue that Americans won’t do the jobs. Running a newspaper ad for 3 (?-I think that’s the requirement) weeks shouldn’t be a problem. Unless an American willing to work for locally prevailing wages, likely more than an illegal would cost and the same as a legal migrant, is a problem.
Your Palm Beach article notes
The program requires employers to pay workers' travel expenses into and out of the U.S. and to pay a wage commensurate with that of Americans working in the industry. Employers also must provide free housing for employees.
Yes, it does all those things. Takes money out of the hands of coyotes and assures Americans that migrants are living in suitable housing. The article fails to mention that if they aren’t returned to their housing, the employer has to feed the. And the worst, they have to pay the same wage as they’d pay Americans.
There’s nothing onerous there at all, you’ve simply reinforced my argument that the current system is abusive.
The real problem, as both articles note, legal migrant workers have to be paid the prevailing wage, to be transported and housed. Heck, you might as well hire an American. Illegals on the other hand work cheaper, pay their own living costs, and pay their own transportation. Breaking the law along the way.