[only1percent]

Sworn statements aren't admissable prosecution evidence in lieu of in-person testimony ... it's that tricky "right to confront witnesses against you."

One no more solves the problem of illegal immigration by prosecuting illegal aliens than one solves the problem of drug abuse by prosecuting crackheads. You have to hit the suppliers (the coyotes and traffickers like those being tried here) and the employers (by building a verification system for eligibility credentials, and aggressively prosecuting under-the-table employers).

[Bikers4Bush]

Then keep a few of them but there's no reason the allow them all to stay here.

[varon]

it's that tricky "right to confront witnesses against you."

Are you sure you're not thinking of "right to confront your accuser" ? To best of my knowledge/experience a sworn affidavit is admissable evidence/witness.