IOW, you're suggesting that the problem is best attacked at the demand side, rather than the supply side.
I agree. There are technical issues, but they're surmountable.
I think there are probably several reasons why we're not attacking the demand side, and it's primarily a matter of where the focus currently lies.
The "immigration advocate" side naturally focuses on the "right" of people to cross our borders for economic reasons -- which pretty much requires that they take a position that doesn't punish the demand side of illegal immigration.
On the other side, there's that group of folks who are primarily focused on "closing the border," which addresses the supply side of the issue. From what I can see, a lot of these folks seem to regard the mechanisms needed to address the demand side as "Amnesty," and won't consider it.
It's an emotional issue for many -- I don't know that the current political climate (of which immigration is only one piece) will actually permit the sort of protracted and intelligent debate needed to accomplish anything meaningful. JMO....
I am reading all of this with complete intrique. Others have brought this following point to my attention but i WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE IT FURTHER.
The appellate judge has ruled this admitted criminal is not also a criminal by having crossed the border illegally.
Mr. Appellate judge, what is the statute of limitations for crossing the border illegally to longer being a crime? In other words, how long after crossing the border illegally does it become legal?