[Sabertooth]

Let's see: you propose creating a massive new Federal bureaucracy to deal with rounding up and processing criminals (and you're a conservative who faults Bush's domestic agenda?); creating a new class of criminals - American employers (not just "big business", but middle class families and individuals); prosecuting and deporting and/or jailing millions of people whose crime is that they wanted to feed their families (as if you wouldn't try to sneak into Canada if you woke up tomorrow and found yourself in the same situation that millions of Mexicans are in), is that about it?

No, not even close, really.

The bureacracy necessary for enforcement of our immigration laws would be similar, I imagine, to that necessary to run the background checks on 8 to 12 million Illegals and process them for the Bush Amnesty.

Nor would there be a new class of criminal employers, just enforcement against the existing ones.

Nowhere do I suggest incarceration for millions, which suggests to me you didn't read carefully.

Do you really think that the American people are going to stand for the adverse economic impact of all this ("short term", i.e. 2-5 years though it might be)?

Yeah, I think it will be a blip that hardly goes noticed, though unemployment will decrease, as well as welfare costs. I sincerely doubt that our economy is as dependent on Illegals as apologists suggest.

Where, in any known party or walk of American life are you going to find the politician/leader who can "sell" your proposal, and where will you find the legislators to implement it?

Since the vast majority of Americans don't support Amnesty by any name, I think you're overestimating the difficulty here.

[pawdoggie]

The bureaucracy necessary for enforcement of our immigration laws would be similar, I imagine, to that necessary to run the background checks on 8 to 12 million Illegals and process them for the Bush Amnesty.

Who says I'm in favor of the "Bush Amnesty", or the creation of a massive new bureaucracy in any case?

Nor would there be a new class of criminal employers, just enforcement against the existing ones.

First of all, read the Fifth Amendment, you have to be convicted to be a criminal. Assuming that the "existing" laws are adequate to obtain convictions, especially in the areas of prospective employee identification and proving employer intent to hire illegals, you're still creating a "new class" of criminals whenever you start enforcing laws that previously went unenforced. If you don't believe me, just speak to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I think you grossly underestimate the potential number of US citizens you might snare in your employer dragnet.

Nowhere do I suggest incarceration for millions, which suggests to me you didn't read carefully.

You're right, you were vague about what happens to "deportees" who become repeat offenders, whether they're "self-deportees" or not.

Do you really think that the American people are going to stand for the adverse economic impact of all this ("short term", i.e. 2-5 years though it might be)? Yeah, I think it will be a blip that hardly goes noticed, though unemployment will decrease, as well as welfare costs. I sincerely doubt that our economy is as dependent on Illegals as apologists suggest.

And you have some science/statistics to back that up?

Where, in any known party or walk of American life are you going to find the politician/leader who can "sell" your proposal, and where will you find the legislators to implement it? Since the vast majority of Americans don't support Amnesty by any name, I think you're overestimating the difficulty here.

The majority of Americans don't favor drug legalization either, so the War on Drugs should have been won long ago. Unfortunately, the American people (at least at this time) won't support the kind of politically sensitive and Draconian measures it would take to stop the drug trade, or to end illegal immigration.