[drcode]

Your argument is basically "everybody's doing it, everybody is breaking a law somewhere" and that it's OK for people to break one law because other people are breaking a different law.

I think a more sensible approach than saying "lawbreaking is OK" is for the parties on Capitol Hill to forge a compromise that involves (1) easier legal immigration (2) better funding and more enforcement of existing immigration laws (yes, including significant deportation for illegal immigrants that moved to the US as an adult)

The only way to make progress is to move further away from casual law breaking, not to continue encouraging it. (And yes, a "one time amnesty" as you suggest would encourage more people to break the law.)

Side note: My own personal opinion is that legal immigration should be so easy that virtually anyone can come to our country who doesn't have a criminal history, but that's not on the table as a viable option.

[dwaxe]

Sometimes a law is detrimental to human good. In such cases we should break it.

[AstralStorm]

No, the companies involved have clout to lobby to change it. Instead of breaking it in the dark, apply sunlight and expose the problem, then fix it.

This used to be how the US operated, how both majorities (women) and minorities got the right to vote, and more.

Apparently certain countries have no such problems, with near full employment. For instance, South Korea, and it's a pretty rich country. So it is not impossible to do legally.

[dylanfw]

> No, the companies involved have clout to lobby to change it.

> This used to be how the US operated, how both majorities (women) and minorities got the right to vote, and more.

You might be giving a bit too much credit to company lobbyists and not enough to law-breaking activists. Both examples involved extensive illegal actions to accelerate change.

[drewrv]

I think the major disagreement isn't whether law breaking is ok or not. The question is whether violating US immigration laws is a serious crime that requires harsh punishment or a minor crime the requires a slap on the wrist.

The "apologize, pay a token fine, get a work permit" crowd thinks violating immigration laws are like speeding, pot, or jaywalking laws. The "deport them all" crowd thinks violating immigration laws is like stealing or committing fraud.

That's why this issue won't be resolved any time soon. If liberals get a big enough majority there may be a one time amnesty or a change that allows new immigrants in. If the right got a big enough majority there would be a one time mass deportation or maybe a stupid wall. But the bottom line is that some people see it as no big deal, the others see it as a heinous crime, and it's a Rorschach test: agreement on who's right will never happen.

[drcode]

Sure, speeding might be a misdemeanor, but no one in their right mind will continue doing it of they see police lights in their rear view mirror.

Similarly, illegal immigration may be a misdemeanor, but you can't continue doing it after you're caught.

Deportation is not meant to be punative, it is simply the mechanism needed to bring you back in compliance with the laws you've knowingly broken.

[drewrv]

The "pay a fine, get a work permit" solution will put you into a compliant status too.

Whether deportation is meant to be punitive or not, it is harsh. Not just for the deported person, but also their employer, family, landlord, etc.

This gets back to my point, does the crime deserve a harsh punishment or not is something that our society doesn't agree on.

[pliftkl]

But for most people, there is no "work permit" to be had. If you're an El Salvadoran national who wants to come to work in the US - good luck. Unless you are married to a US national, there isn't really a path to "come work here legally". If we were to create such a path, then the people who are coming here illegally would compete with random foreign nationals who would love to come and work in the US for sub-par wages in exchange for a chance at a better children for their future. We have a problem with illegal immigration from our southern border because it's porous. Are we going to create two standards - one for people who can manage to get here by crossing the Rio Grande, and a different one for a textile worker from Laos who has no ability to get here physically so that he can become "legal"?

[refurb]

the parties on Capitol Hill to forge a compromise

I was actually pretty impressed with the immigration reform GW Bush tried to pass, but failed. Increase enforcement along with a process to legalize the ones already here. My memory is hazy on the details, but unless you've lived illegally in the US for more than X years (those people get legalized within the US), you need to leave the country, then apply and return. Of course this is dependent on having a good enough process to let them back in (which I remember it was), but it seemed a good compromise between enforcement and increased immigration.