The only objections to this course that I can see are "unfairness" to would-be immigrants waiting patiently in the immigration queue--and I do not think the interests of foreigners should weigh heavily in U.S. public policy

For the purposes of the present debate, when you say you do not think that the interests of foreigners should carry much weight in determining U.S. immigration policy, are you considering the illegal immigrants currently present in the United States as foreigners? If the illegales are deemed foreigners (as aurely they are), should our policy be formulated in terms of our interests not theirs?

What I can't quite understand is why - in this post and your previous post - it almost seems that you have more respect and concern for the illegales than for those who immigrated legally. I apologize if this inference is incorrect, but that seems the natural inference to draw.

久仰大名！前来瞻仰！切勿驱逐为盼。 a chinese，呵呵

What he's saying is that U.S. law should have concern only for the interests of U.S. citizens. He supports increased immigration because this correction of the presently distorted labor market will likely benefit U.S. citizens. Whether something is "unfair" to people who immigrated illegally, waiting for many years for their visa, is irrelevant. We don't make laws because they are fair or unfair, but only because they benefit the citizens of this country.

Asylum law is an exception to the general rule that laws should be made only to promote the welfare of U.S. citizens, but with regard to the present debate about economic immigration, the "fairness objection" fails to consider that current U.S. citizens would be better off with more immigration.

Poker Player

Correction: "whether something is "unfair" to people who immigration legally, . . ."

"He supports increased immigration because this correction of the presently distorted labor market will likely benefit U.S. citizens."

Why is the current wave of illegals without high school educations a "correction of the presently distorted labor market"? As I said in my last post, we need more high school drop outs digging ditches, but we don't need more nurses, computer programmers, engineers, or doctors? How could anybody in their right mind believe such nonsense?

No amnesty. Period. I opposed the 1986 amnesty believing it would only encourage more illegal aliens. If the best we can do is throw our say, 2 million a year, fine. It will take us six years to deport them all. We do not need illegal aliens here with questionable loyalty to the US. We have enough welfare recipients as it is. Throw them out.

Latest news about sport, entertainment, business, culture etc.

I laid out my thoughts about this in a recent piece, of which I recite the more relevant points here:

• Revamp the guest worker program. Create two tiers, one for skilled professionals and another for unskilled professionals. Unskilled professionals will not be entitled to unemployment benefits, and will have shorter grace periods for picking up new work in case of a layoff.
• Increase staffing in consulates general to expedite background checks.
• Amounts paid into social security can accrue for future payouts, but if a worker is forced to leave the country by, for example, unemployment or other ineligibility for renewal, and does not qualify for re-entry for more than a year, amounts paid into social security are forfeit. That money could probably be best used to pay benefits to citizens and legal residents, who, in an economy that cannot even employ guest workers, will probably need the help.
• Harsh penalties for human traffickers. I suspect a lot of these middlemen entice workers with promises of the golden land in exchange for exorbitant amounts of future debt. This is at the very least true for many illegal immigrants from China; there is nothing that suggests that it isn't true of illegals from Mexico or other places as well.
• Rather than designate current illegals as felons, allow them a grace period to apply for guest worker status. Those with violent criminal records must be deported immediately. Those with minor, non-violent records must pay a fine. Those who have been here for less than, say, 5 years must also pay a fine. None will qualify for social services in excess of what they earn from here on.
• In all cases, contribution to and participation in local communities will be mitigating factors.