Redstate

Color me surprised when I found out that a center-lefty I worked with while in Los Angeles (a Burning Man devotee, if that tells you anything) actually travelled to Arizona to participate in the Minuteman border watch.  

There may be a divide on the left coast between life-long residents of California and recent transplants, with the natives seeing the way California has changed for the worse as a result of illegal immigration.

if not disastrous out of this trip. The Prez's attitude and proposals have been worlds apart on what he does, says and proposes. I can't imagine a 180 flip in the works. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I'm glad to see that the White House is finally taking note of this issue. I think we can thank Congressman Tancredo for helping with that. I just hope Bush finally shows us some REAL leadership and does what needed to be done a long time ago by securing our borders. I am skeptical but I sincerely hope that this time Bush will do the right thing.

In the words of this poster:

Never be afraid to share your dreams with the world, because there's nothing the world loves more than the taste of really sweet dreams.

Nothing good will come of this.  It's just a stunt to fool us into thinking Bush actually cares about border security.  If he really DID, we'd have completely shut down illegal border crossings within a month of 9/11.  It's now been four years.

#1  We have always welcomed people from other countries that came here with limited means.  We should welcome more immigrants to the US.  The CIS that was the INS...has rules that are so complicated it makes the IRS tax code look like Dr. Seuss book.  The immigration law must be the most complicated rules ever divisive by man. The process of coming to the US....in a legal way is so hard and expensive; none of the people crossing the border would ever ever get to come here under the current system.

#2  Once these people come here and create a new life here.....they cannot go home.  They have children in school here and many of children are citizens....if you deport them or make them leave to get status.....where are children going to go to school and where are the parents going to work while waiting???  Sending these people home is not a workable solution.!!!  (Requiring these people to return home is dumb for a lot of reasons including breaking up families and the possibility that they would lose the job they have in the US and not get to come back anyway.).

# 3  We must do something to take the pressure of the border...Allow people to come here in larger numbers and streamline the rules.....There is no common sense in the current system...  I have talked to many people that have family members that they cannot get in the country ....and have tried through legal means....for years at great expense....This country must stay that Shining City on the Hill that President Reagan always talked about.  We are not a Shining City on a Hill if we are so fearful of others. We need to set up a workable immigration system and then enforce it.  A new system must be based on common sense and fairness.  If we do this the border issue will not go away completely but it would get so much better.

Final Thought:

Most illegal's are coming here to give there families the best they can.  If you want to say that this is wrong ....put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself would you stay in Mexico and live in poverty or would you take your chances on coming to America.  You can make more money in a month than you could make all year in Mexico.  So we must look at the choice they have.  Letting their family suffer or come to the land of opportunity.  We can solve this problem in a dignified way....and not look down our noses at people coming here for a better life.  We must do more to create more and better paying jobs in Mexico.  We must show the kind of people we really are and give these people a helping hand not the back of our hand.  (My two cents worth.)  

let's get this straight

Once these people come here and create a new life here.....they cannot go home

If you get here illegally but you can get your kids into school than it isn't illegal any longer?

I sympathize with people coming here for a better life. But as long as well-meaning folks like you continue to justify illegal immigration it the situation in Mexico will never get any better and they just keep on coming.

The solution is not more immigration, looser rules, blah blah blah. The solution is for the people of Mexico to fix their d*mned problem. Mexico, like most countries in Latin America, have two kinds of people; the very few haves and the many, many have nots. The people who have live in luxury and comfort and for the most part have no interest in the have nots --- especially when the have nots can just go north.

Your point is correct.  But as I said sending them back to Mexico is not going to help these people or the situation at all...it will not work.  I am not approaching this from the pure law standpoint but from a human rights standpoint.  It is a desire of all people to be free and to gain the best opportunity for themselves and their families.

You know at a railroad crossing you are required by law to stop, but most people don't stop.  Is it illegal?....yes.   Should we make it more of a crime if people don't stop...would making the law stiffer make this less of a problem? ...yes...but would the people respect the law if we did that? NO.  

My point here is you want people to respect the law not just fear it.  You must not make a natural human desire to better one's family become a crime.  The laws on how to come here legally must address the needs of these people....so that they will voluntarily obey the law.  

Remember:  If you have to enforce freedom at the point of a gun....is it really freedom?  True freedom requires people to do what is right without the threat of law...but because they want to do right...when the law and the natural rights of man come into conflict.....over time natural rights wins every time.

Note:  I want to keep out anyone that would come here and hurt us.  I want it to work from a legal standpoint because it is the only way we are going to know who is here and be able to stop those that should not come here.  Our approach needs to be with a carrot and a stick not just a stick...or a bigger stick.   We have no hope of fixing this problem if we only use the bigger stick approach....we must use some carrots too. The system must be clear and fair.  Otherwise we are just blowing hot air.  

The Question is: Do you want to punish these people or do you really want to protect the border?  What is the point?  If you come here from Cuba and some other countries you are entitled to a hearing and will get to stay....so everyone that comes here without permission is not illegal...and the laws are not clear...and certainly are not fair.  Let's do something that works not just something that punishes people that are without opportunity to support their families.    

Your advocacy for a more open Southern border is compelling and passionate, but you are overlooking some very important problems.

Many people who are less principled than you are in favor of much less restriction on immigration for the very simple reason that more people mean more economic activity, so everyone's market size gets bigger.

But the big problem is that Mexican (and other) immigrants (legal and otherwise) feel no pressure whatsoever to assimilate and become Americans. Mexicans in particular send a huge amount of money back home, about $17 billion a month if I recall correctly. Remittances from the US are one of the biggest inputs to the Mexican economy as a whole, and Fox's government explicitly encourages this activity.

I have a really big problem with people coming over here, consuming social services, participating in largely black economic activities, disrespecting our culture, treating our society as a big piggybank, and then exporting billions of dollars to prop up another government. Notice, nowhere in what I just said did I use the word illegal. I don't really care about that aspect of it. You simply aren't going to criminalize the behavior of 11 million people unless most Americans want you to.

Which brings me to my second point. The American people aren't demanding that new arrivals assimilate. This is a cultural failing we are all guilty of. Past generations of immigrants not only assimilated willingly and readily, but it was also made very clear to them that they were expected to assimilate. I have a gut feeling that most Americans outside of the MSM and our intellectual elites (who hate American culture and are delighted to see it debased) are strongly in favor of requiring all newcomers to assimilate.

We should liberally grant work visas to anyone who wants to come here, including all the Mexicans currently coming illegally. But these should be strictly limited to six months, and may not be renewed. Strict controls must be placed on their ability to export remittances to Mexico. Violators must be energetically deported. The short work visas may be extended easily, and lead easily to green cards and citizenship, provided newcomers make positive steps to learn the English language, and show other signs of community involvement and assimilation.

Another poster upthread suggested that Mexico just solve their (expletive) problems. With disgust, I have to point out that by exporting potential troublemakers in return for capital, Mexico is doing exactly that. We need to close off this opportunity for them.

President Fox should be ashamed of himself that people are literally dying by the hundreds every year to get OUT of his country. It is not our responsibility to be the safety valve for the corrupt Mexican government.

The laws on how to come here legally must address the needs of these people....so that they will voluntarily obey the law.

Why should I be forced to address the needs of citizens of another country?  I am already forced to address the needs of people in my own country through federally funded programs I disagree with.

I really don't care to take on a whole new nation of "needs".

I hate to be so negative, but I voted for Bush twice and I don't believe for one second he is serious about stemming the flood of illegal immigration.  It simply isn't in him, because he is not only one of those in the GOP has bought into the idea that mass immigration is necessary for a strong economy, but he has also seems to have bought into the emotionalism usually used by the Left when speaking of this issue.  

I mean, he coined (or at least made popular) the inane "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande."  A conservative should be ashamed of adding yet another platitude to a debate overflowing with them, and stifled by them.  

Do you really think that anyone who wants to come here to work should be allowed to do so, and then have the opportunity to become citizens?  

Exactly how much legal immigration do you think we should have each year?  We already have about one million, should it be 1.5, 2, 3 million? Or even more?  

I agree about assimilation though; most Americans do favor it, but the elites don't.  Therefore it is not demanded.  

I really do think anyone who wants to come here to learn American history and the English language, become committed to our civic institutions, and be willing to fight overseas to secure our freedoms should have the opportunity to become an American.

I really don't think that anyone who just wants to come here to work belongs here. Let's give them six months, but then they're out. And they don't get to take any money home with them, and they don't get a second chance, unless they start assimilating. To expand this beyond Mexican illegals, there are hundreds of thousands of professionals and graduate students here who are delighted to make all kinds of money, send it back to their families in other countries, all the while POURING EXCREMENT on American culture. I hear this all the time. You hear computer programmers, physicians, engineers, etc. etc. talking about how America is the worst place in the world. When you ask why they're here, it's always the same answer: "to make a buck." These people don't belong here, and it's about time ordinary Americans stoppe being afraid to say so.

---"I really do think anyone who wants to come here to learn American history and the English language, become committed to our civic institutions, and be willing to fight overseas to secure our freedoms should have the opportunity to become an American."---

Okay, lets take that set of qualifications.  What if the number of such people numbered 2 million per year?  Should they all be allowed in?  What if it were 3 million?  What if it were 5 million, or even ten?  

My point is that even if all who wanted to come were salt of the earth people, who wanted nothing more than to become loyal, assimilated Americans, you still have to have some limits.  Human nature is a powerful thing, and even if all came in with your preferred mindset, their sheer numbers combined with the poisonous influence of our leftist elites and those immigrant group's leftists leaders would undermine the initially admirable values of the immigrants.  

You can't invite the world w/o eventually sacrificing American culture and our standard of living.  

You're making an important point which is voiced by many in the debate, but I don't believe it's a key point. Even three million new immigrants a year is only one percent of US population. Remember, it is true that immigration brings demographic energy and (axiomatically) economic growth. We should be thrilled to import three million young, energetic, motivated people each year, of all creeds and colors, so long as they believe in America, learn English, and become part of our culture.

But even importing one-tenth as many people who just want to suck at our economy's teats while thumbing their noses at our culture is enormously destructive. Just look at Europe.

It does take time and effort to assimilate so many newcomers. This much is indicated by the history of the two previous large "waves" of immigration in our past, both of which ended in backlash and decades of immigration restrictions. The same will probably happen again, but it's not the problem we face today, since past immigrants were at least willing to become Americans.

But as I said sending them back to Mexico is not going to help these people or the situation at all.

Sending them back and blocking their entry might, just might, put enough pressure on the Mexican government that they might, just might, actually do something to address the gross inequities of Mexican society.

The wealthy in Mexico, and most of Latin America, are interested in keeping it all for themselves --- they always have been. Visit countries in LA and take a really good look at the conditions in wicth the wealthy live and then take a really good look at the situation faced by the have-nots. The sqalor faced by the have-nots in Latin America is sinful; those ads you see for the save the children programs are not shot on a sound stage, people actually live that way.

Hmmmm.

The sooner Bush is out of office, the happier I'm going to be.  Frankly I don't trust Bush at all on immigration.  Anything he proposes must be viewed with absolute suspicion.

shrug what the heck.  Not like I'm going to vote Republican again anytime soon anyways.

Three million per year may only be one percent of current US population, but it would constitute a historically large percentage of the rate of US population growth.  One of the many reasons the last great wave was easier to assimilate was the fact that the native birthrate was much, much higher than it is today.

But anyway, one of my main points is that you can't admit as many people as that and still effectively assimilate them.  Even though the vast majority of immigrants may not come with the intent of becoming foot soldiers for the Left, insofar as they vote, most of them do turn out that way.  And I think the volume is one of the reasons, because assimilation is harder to demand when the pool of immigrants is so large.  It helps to empower those forces in society that equate assimilation with racism, and one of those forces is the Democratic party.

I'm glad you brought up the past waves, because while one can impugn the motives of those behind the early 1920s cutoff (i.e. reduction)all they want, you can't really argue about the results.  The following 40+ yrs of low-moderate immigration (along with WW2 and many other things) helped assimilate all of those European immigrants (and their offspring) who had come in the preceding decades.  

I wish I could agree with you that such a reduction will happen again, because I think it would be good for the nation, but I have a hard time seeing it happen unless there is an attack worse than 9-11.  

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door. From the Statue of Liberty.

I guess some people don't remember our history and did not know that almost all of us are decedents of immigrants.  We are being so smug about letting people come here ....when as a country we believe that all people should be free.

I agree with having more assimilation ....it was easier to get assimilation when people crossed oceans to get here they lose contact with there former country.   Mexico is different because we share a border and they don't lose connection with their former country.  We need a short term solution and then a long term solution.  This situation could not be "undone" so easily and it will continue to be a problem unless we do at least the following things.

1)    Create a solution for those that are already here and working or going to school.  

2)    Create a way for people to come her legally to work.(long term and short term)

3)    Create a way for people to more easily immigrate.    

4)    Sign a Treaty with Mexico

a.    Set up joint command on the border (security)

b.    Agree on the number of guest workers (per year)

c.    Agree on immigration standards

d.    Set up joint task force with both Federal authorities (FBI having more power in Mexico)

e.    Loans and Grants to help build a middle class in Mexico

f.    Mexico agrees to change laws to make society more open and fair.

If this was done then you could control the border and most people could do what they wanted and our country would be safe.   This is what I want done as soon as possible.  

...on the amount of legal immigration we should allow. Your reasoning and historical perspective are sound and convincing. However, the question at issue in this thread is what to with the waves of illegal immigration that are swamping our southern border.

I'm not willing to give up on requiring new arrivals, including illegals, to start assimilating as soon as they get here. Otherwise we are encouraging the construction of subnations on our own territory that are necessarily opposed to American culture (the hallmarks of which, to me, are a love of freedom and communitarianism, bound together in an Anglophone society). This is of course happening rapidly today. To reiterate my previous point, to stem this tide will require changes both in our laws and in the attitudes of every American. The former is easy, the latter is hard. We all must lose our fear of appearing "insensitive" (to what?!), and learn to say: "Become American or go back home!"

To further clarify my thinking: I conceived of permitting relatively unrestricted work visas leading to potential citizenship (always emphasizing the need for assimilation) primarily as a way of relieving the pressure that a crackdown on illegals will cause. Again, if this problem can be solved, I'm quite comfortable with well-considered limits on legal immigration congruent with our historical experience. And in candor, I think most Americans (who are not liberal Democrats bent on destroying American culture) would strongly agree with you on the immediate need for limits.

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, your hispanic pregnant women who want to give birth across our border so they can piggy-back on the baby's legal citizenship, your criminals, your sick who come here to get quality free healthcare, your workers yearning to take all the money they make back to Mexico, your jihadists, your drug dealers, and your slave mules.

The only way the immigration problem gets solved is by sealing the borders and erecting a fence (at a cost of $6 billion), and  offering Fox an solution  like: "Look, we've signed onto CAFTA, that should help eventually, but in the meantime, ship us fifty barrels of oil every year for each of your 11 million illegal aliens already here (550 million barrels), and we'll only send the criminals back.  You have what we need (oil and people to fill a certain number of jobs), and we have what you need (jobs and cash coming back to Mexico). The only other option is to send all your illegals back, and cut all of your aid off.  If that happens, your country will collapse under the weight of its own poverty and corruption. You don't want that and neither do we."  Maybe use some more polite and diplomatic wording, but our intentions should be clear enough.

We may feel compassionate by looking the other way instead of doing what needs to be done.  But if we keep doing what we're doing, we'll lose our country.

Well first of all, I don't think we should let the text on a plaque (added later) in front of a statue influence our immigration policy.  Not only is it irrelevant, and not only is it from a different time, but it also injects counterproductive emotionalism into a very complex matter.  The sole criteria for setting immigration policy, as with all public policies, should be to the best interests of the United States and the American people as a whole.  We can debate about what exactly that is, but it is all that should matter.  

And if we use the broad definition of 'immigrant' then all of us, including American Indians, are descendants of immigrants.  But again, that should have no bearing on setting current policy for the present and future nation.  

And when looking at history, be sure to look at it all.  Doing so reveals that we have no history of unending mass immigration.  The last great wave didn't end on its own; it was cut off, or reduced, by Congress in the early 1920s.  Forty-plus years of low-moderate immigration followed, and that was no doubt a big help to the assimilation process.  And this is just one difference that separates today's experience from yesterday's (another is the geographical factor that you mention), so I think its wrong to base optimism for today's immigration challenge on the success of the past.  It may turn out as good or better -- I'll admit to that possibility -- but maybe it won't, and I need more reassurance than the 'we did it before, we'll do it again' rationale.

As to your suggestions (numbers don't correspond);

1.  You speak of making it easier to immigrate, but what if most Americans don't want the greater levels of immigration such a plan would necessitate?  In point of fact, most Americans do oppose increasing levels of legal immigration.  Is this majority sentiment to be ignored?  Shouldn't it at least get a fair hearing first?
   
2.  Maybe a guest-worker program is needed, but it shouldn't be set completely to the employer's advantage.  Doing so means there will be no incentive to ever increase wages and benefits.
   
3.  The United States should not have to seek the compliance or counsel of Mexico in setting its own immigration policy.  But yes, I'd agree that before we agree to anything Mexico wants (which can basically be boiled down to getting rid of as many of its people as possible), we should extract promises from them.  With its natural resources and obviously large labor force, Mexico should not be stuck in third world status, and it is far past time for Mexico to take the necessary steps that might eventually lift them out of it.  I have doubts that Mexico will actually help enforce the border, unless we give their govt everything that it wants, and that of course includes unlimited legal migration of its people to the US and amnesty for those already here illegally.  

Finally, I know of few people who want zero immigration into our country.  That's certainly not my position.  To favor less immigration, as I do, when we are admitting about one million legal immigrants per year still leaves room for many people to come here.  

I guess some people don't remember our history and did not know that almost all of us are decedents [sic] of immigrants.

I myself am the son of immigrants and English was not my first language. However, and to the dismay of many of my business associates, I'm not planning on being decedent for some time to come.

Again, my apologies, I don't mean to discount your argument (though I do disagree with you). The laugh did me good, though :-)

Another important factor that nobody has mentioned is that althought our country was largely built on the backs of european immigrants who came to this country in the between 1900 and 1930, the country was not the current entitlement state that it is now.  Those people were not looking to game the system, they just wanted the chance to work hard and make an honest living (excluding the Mafia, of course, a few thousand at best in a country of 80 million).

Just a thought...

Aurelian, thanks for your comments and the elegance with which you express them.

I can't advocate this myself (since I'm already on record as an English-language partisan), but how do you and others feel about someday annexing Mexico?

Often thought of annexation as an alternative to our culture just getting swamped by immigrants.

My best explanation on why it might not work probably goes like this:  Say we have 30 major league baseball teams and really would prefer to have as many American ball players get spots on the rosters of those teams as possible (equated to jobs in our U.S. economy).  Suddenly, Castro decides to open all his baseball talent from Cuba and sends them all here (equated to opening the borders and more workers coming north and businesses and jobs go south). More talent raises the level of play (dependable lower wage workers), but less American ball players will sign minor league contracts and eventually make it to the bigs (fewer good jobs to spread around to US workers). At the same time, the Cuban players have no need to assimilate to the culture of American sports, because so many of them are Cuban (Mexican people cling to their culture and even in 200 years will not assimilate). Eventually, the level of talent in the U.S. will rise out of necessity (the entreprenuerial spirit), but does the league survive the turmoil to eventually become a better game (does the upheaval in the economy and culture justify the annexation)?

I concede that entitlements, unemployment payments, and the minimum wage applying to the new Mexican territory just annexed sort of distorts the analogy, but otherwise, do you think the analogy makes sense?

I guess the short analogy would be us trying to keep a ship from sinking and getting dragged down with it.

Your feedback...

People like the gentlemen arguing for more illegals to invade our country are treasonous.  Every single person that comes here illegally is a felon and should be deported ASAP.  We are not responsible for Mexican citizens.  This counrty was built on legal immigration, not illegal immigration.  My ancestors came here from Germany legally.  There's a huge difference.  If they want to come here so bad then they need to get in line with all the other immigrants that play by the rules.  It's not fair that they are following the law and the others from Mexico are not.  It's also dangerous to have such an open border in this era of terrorism.  

        Lastly I want to address the issue of Mexico giving sanctuary to illegal aliens that are cop killers.  It's been three years since Armando Garcia killed Los Angeles deputy David March and fled to Mexico.  Mr Garcia remains free to this day down in Mexico.  We have tried to pass legislation cutting off foreign aid to countries that give safe haven to cop killers, but Republicans like David Dreier keep voting against it.  When are Republicans going to get the message?  

Powder Blue Report

The plaque on the Statue of Liberty is indeed just that, a plaque. We could also put this plaque up:

I cross border, poor and broke,

Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there,

Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, "You come no more,

We send cash right to your door."

Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,

Medicaid it keep you healthy!

By and by, I got plenty money,

Thanks to you, American dummy.

I think the problem with the baseball analogy is that (so far as we know anyway) the market for major league baseball teams is limited to 30 or so. But the size of the American economy is limited only by the size of our population. So increasing our population by one third in one fell swoop would not (for example) constrain the supply of good jobs. Rather it would create more good jobs because the demand would be greater.

The culture shock would be absolutely drastic. But in an annexation, there would be no risk that our culture would be subsumed by another country, because the newcomers would already be Americans, by definition. To me the big problem would be: will they subscribe to our love of freedom, capitalism and free enterprise, strong nongovernmental institutions, and the peculiarity of popular democratic rule (which I am more convinced with each passing day is not the natural state of human affairs).

There would be an economic shock in integrating great masses of poor people, all suddenly clamoring for social services. (By the way, this is the reason why 99% of the Mexican population would be wildly in favor of this idea. The other 1%, the power elite, will be bitterly opposed because in America they will just be another bunch of rich people instead of the powerful oligarchs they are now.) But America is a place where energetic, well-motivated people thrive. They create economic value with wild abandon in the world's most fertile soil for new ideas and new businesses.

Finally, the demographic boost would put us right back into the top rank of strongly growing nations, along with China, India and Brazil.

Natural resources could go either way. Mexico has tremendous natural wealth (particularly oil), but incorporating it into the American legal and regulatory framework may actually reduce its value. For example, you might have to stop drilling new oil and gas wells in Mexico until after the Sierra Club and other anti-growth groups finish suing you.

This is a seductive idea. I'm still looking for a fundamental reason not to do it.

All this talk about the "need" for immigration "reform" makes me think that we're only going to get more of the same (lip service). Why not just enforce the laws that we already have? Because the politicians we elected have no backbone.

California Yankee writes: "If the President continues to push for a guest worker program it must require that illegal aliens return to their homeland to participate."

That kind of notion will get us in trouble sorting through the illegal immigration challenge. There is no such thing as a workable guest worker program. No half-measures or nuanced approach can do the job, and all such are covers for a lack of political will.

Further, how is it that some observers are still optimistic regarding the president's plan? He has an open borders/amnesty agenda, and anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been keeping up. There's a reason why George Bush and Condi Rice denounced the Minutemen as "vigilantes."

The notion to require that illegal aliens return to their homeland will work!

California Yankee writes: "If the President continues to push for a guest worker program it must require that illegal aliens return to their homeland to participate."

That kind of notion will get us in trouble sorting through the illegal immigration challenge. There is no such thing as a workable guest worker program. No half-measures or nuanced approach can do the job, and all such are covers for a lack of political will.

No single element alone will work.  BUT add a lot arrest of employeers that hire illegals and those two things together will make it work.

"Are we the Shinning (sic) City on a Hill? Or not?"

John Winthrop in 1630 wrote the words quoted by Reagan for his arrival with the Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony at Salem.  He was speaking about starting a culture to set an example for the world, not about being a magnet for all of humanity to use as moths to a flame.  Reagan used the words in context.  Your version is warped to fit the agenda.

#1  We have always welcomed people from other countries that came here with limited means.  

No we have not.  We were pretty stingy about who we let in here until Teddy Kennedy opened the floodgates in 1965.

#2  Once these people come here and create a new life here.....they cannot go home.  

Oh, are you saying that it is OK with you that because there were too many immigrants, both legal and illegal, in my former home town,  I had to choose between lesser business opportunities there or better opportunities by leaving.

I really didn't want to go anywhere, but I did.  I didn't want to start over, but I did.  And there are thousands of families like mine all over the place in this nation who have had to do the same because of our governments' lax enforcement of laws and giving breaks to non-citizens that citizens cannot access.  If WE can be made to start over because of THEM, how is it somehow more unfair for them to have to start over "back home?"

# 3 ...A new system must be based on common sense and fairness.  

I agree. It must be fair for all American Citizens, not for chain migrants, not for anchor babies.  Citizens.  Period.  Opening the floodgates to the 6 billion people in the world who live at standards of living below ours is not "fair" in any sense of the word.  Or do you mean we should be fair to some "select" group?  

Final Thought:

...put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself would you stay in Mexico and live in poverty or would you take your chances on coming to America.  

I cannot put myself in someone's shoes when doing so would neglect the fact that most of the world does not have our standard of living.  In many ways,a Mexican's coming here illegally seems to be quite the act of convenience.  If I had American values, lived in an American community with American mores and it happened to be on a hill in Mexico, I'd be quite content as long as that corrupt government they have there left me and my community alone and let us build a big wall.  And we could be a shining city on a hill for all the other Mexicans to aspire to become.  And in time, they might just figure it all out and get there...

Had Polk and Congress decided to do so during the Mexican War, then maybe it would have worked out so that by now the former Mexico would be a prosperous part of the United States.  Somebody better versed in history and Mexican culture would have to tackle that what-if.

Now, though, it is too late.  With the hate our elites feel for our own culture, we couldn't possibly have the strength to pull something like that off.  

...maybe you could sell it to them as a way of destroying American culture, which they would certainly be in favor of :-) No one needs to know that we'll actually end up better off. Our elites tend not to deal in reality anyway.

Opposition by American elites aside, are there any substantive objections?

I have to admit I'm starting to like this idea.