I don't see any mention of the amnesty issue here.That's true, but that's in reference to the number of folks who'd have been Amnestied by Section 245(i). What you may be unaware of is that hchutch has proposed something much bigger, hence my reference to "millions" on this thread.
He might be willing to explain it all to you sometime.
What's the matter? Am I beating up your colleages so badly that you need to start changing the discussion?
Actually, I haven't read the thread, so I'm not aware of the tally. I came across the post to which I responded while doing a general browse, and my interest was piqued.
I thought hchutch's "Tancredobots" and "making sense" remarks invited a little perspective.
As I said, I thought your post at #121 identified an aspect of the problem. I do think the focus is a little narrow, however. I don't think the attraction of Illegals to entitlements can be solved at the just state and local levels without those jurisdictions being given some lattitude by the Feds. We tried that with #187, and before it was thwarted by Gray Davis, it was on course to collide with Plyler vs. Doe in the US Supreme Court.
Without revisiting Plyler, and without the enactment of some enabling legislation from Congress, it's not easy to selectively deny entitlements to Illegals, leaving the States with all-or-nothing options. As much as I'd like to see the extinctintion of all entitlements, that's going to require a more incremental approach.
