[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I agree 100%. I don't think kicking out millions of people and destroying families is the fair solution, but there has to be some type of punishment for being here unlawfully.

The problem is splitting the baby. As long as you're concerned about damage to families, remember that many of those families are going to have children who were brought here by their parents. What sort of punitive measure are you going to take against those kids? If a pathway to citizenship for those kids is ultimately part of whatever package takes form, what sort of corrective action are you going to take that doesn't materially harm a generation of young, prospective citizens (and thus doesn't materially harm their productive prospects on behalf of the nation)?

That's why most solutions offered end up being "pay back taxes and a fine, demonstrate proficiency in English, and apply through the legal channels for citizenship, but go to the back of the line." Punitive solutions don't just fall on the heads of those actively breaking immigration law. It also falls on those who had no say in the matter.

There also has to be heavy punishments on the companies employing illegal workers. (which isn't going to happen with Trump in charge unless he wants to punish himself)

Which is why this has been, like gay marriage bans in 2004 and Roe since the 70s, little more than a wedge issue designed to drive voters to the polls. Nobody in the Republican Party wants to be in the position of appearing to be anti-business, but at the same time, "they're taking jobs from Americans!" is how you keep the base riled.

I'd sure like to not be called a racist xenophobe because I think that a system which allows between 250,000 to 500,000 illegals to cross the border each year is a problem.

I guess where I come down on the issue is that I think there's a critical distinction to be made between border security and immigration. The two aren't unrelated, but remember that a significant percentage of illegal immigration isn't actually the result of illegal border crossings.

We issue 45 million temporary visitor visas per year, and while only about 1 percent of those result in illegal overstays, that's still 450,000 cases per year. Locking down the border, building a wall, whatever you want to do, might increase border security, but it isn't going to eliminate illegal immigration. Might put a dent in its numbers, but most of the data out there suggests that illegal immigration from the southern border has either been static or negative in recent years - that is, the number of people illegally crossing the border has, at worst, been at parity with those leaving the country for whatever reason. At best, the influx has been smaller than the outflux.

So what we've been doing for the last 16 years has worked, and that's probably a non-trivial part of why Donald Trump changed his message from "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" to "do what President Obama has done but with more energy!" The low-hanging fruit on illegal immigration has largely been plucked through the efforts of the Bush and Obama Administrations to secure that border. It's never going to be perfectly non-porous, for topographical reasons if nothing else, but what's left that can be done on that front is a question of diminishing returns.

The visa issue, on the other hand, has been largely untouched (and several of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country exactly that way, so WHY that loophole has been left untouched is a little troubling IMO).