As I said, I think that changing laws does not correct problems unless those laws are enforced. Our problem today is the lack of enforcement, not the lack of laws. Furthermore, the major problem today is with illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
"Chain migration" (your #1 example) has been around since 1965 or so. In theory, I think it is good policy ("family unification") when applied with sensible immigration quotas for LEGAL immigration. It is OUTRAGEOUS when it is applied to the massive Amnesty (or "path to citizenship") as proposed by some of our politicians.
As to #2, anchor babies... as I said in my "Clintonesque" post, if you work to eliminate the illegal immigration problem, you begin to solve the anchor baby problem. And you can't ultimately solve that problem unless you get the Supreme Court to reverse their findings, something that is also not within the reach of Congress and their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation.
As to #3, you aren't really suggesting that we need a new law to deport Obama's relative, are you?
As to #4, if you don't have illegal immigrants you don't need to worry about entitlements. Enforce the darn law and we will have more room in our schools, hospitals won't be going bankrupt everday, and the welfare rolls will reduce significantly.
As to #5, quotas are modified all the time. There is no need for a law to change them -- it is within the authority of the Administration to do that already.
So you don't support reforming that (like Mitt and Tank do)? Not even a little bit?
I'm not familiar with any detailed "reform" proposal set forward by Mitt and, honestly, it's been too long since Tancredo was on the scene for me to remember exactly what he was proposing. But, I can say once again, at this time, I do not think any kind of legislative action is required for immigration reform.
Do you moonlight at the Wall Street Journal?
And by that you mean what?
Buchanan is right in saying that you will effectively stop enforcement by reforming the laws in a way that turns off the 'magnet' that attracts illegals. Specifically, eliminating the benefits that illegals are entitled to per the law (requiring a change in the law) and steeper fines/penalties for those who hire illegals (requiring a change in the law).
I think you are doing too many mental gymnastics to try and prove me wrong when the truth is you agree with me (and with the plan Mitt approved.) The laws on the books are a confusing and contradictory mess. They need to be reformed. The magnets (points 2 and 4) need to be changed. That required a 'law.'
And to call changes to immigration quotas a small issues is flat wrong. The current policy was set in the 1960s and was a huge 'reform' passed under President Johnson and was advocated on the floor of the US Senate by Edward Kennedy. That law needs to be 'reformed.'
If you aren't conversant in the plans offered by presidential candidates a year ago, are you sure you have enough of a grasp of laws that stretch back generations to make authoritative statements about what needs reform and what doesn't?