[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We've "given up" illegal labor and made them legal back in 1986. So there is precedence.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia.

Just like we have always done. We just made those that are illegal legal which comes with certain pay, benefits, and humanity requirements that businesses didn't like complying with. So they went right back to and are still hiring illegal labor almost thirty years later. Our farming and more recently construction industries are addicted to the undocumented workers drug. BTW, scroll down on that wiki page and see what it says about the impact the IRCA had on the labor market, crime and you guessed illegal immigration.

I've answered what my threshold is below. The reality is since I do not control INS, Border Security etc, and because I believe compromise is necessary to get a bill through, I accept there will be some "leakage". I am willing to accept this leakage for something like the Dignity Act which contains stuff I support and other stuff that is questionable.

But my default position is get rid of all illegals either by kicking them out and/or converting (most of) them into non-voting, guest-worker-like visa.

I'm sorry but this is a cop out. You asked everyone for a percentage or criteria despite the reality that they don't control any government entities either. Once you say you have accepted "leakage", you can't then say that 0% is too much. The "leakage" is more than 0%. What if the "leakage" was 11M? So once again I pose the question back to you.

how much is enough? Provide a % or a criteria where you would say there's enough illegal immigrants in the US. Or is it open ended where there is no limit?

We don't need illegals. We do need legal alternatives with a holistic immigration reform bill. I stated below as my previous bullet #3. But you are right, without alternatives to current illegal labor (e.g. holistic immigration reform bill), it'll be a big frackup.

By not coming up with legal alternatives, we have chosen illegals. Not only could government reform immigration, business can choose to hire legal workers no matter what it takes for them to do so. I promise you, if farms said they fruit picking jobs available for U.S. citizens only starting at $500 per hour, they would have very little problem finding U.S. citizens to work for them .

I am saying if illegals are provided a pathway to citizenship, the 11M can greatly influence elections. There are approx 2M Cuban-Americans in Florida and they exert political pressure.

Anyone or any group given a pathway to citizenship can greatly influence elections. Every other immigrant (legal or illegal) who has become an American citizen and/or group who can organize themselves to exert political pressure. Do you have the same worry for every other immigrant?

That's right. And depending on what party you belong to, you either like or dislike how the Cuban-American population significantly impact FL elections.

And? Do you like every group that exert political pressure? I am not sure what that has to do with anything if the decision is to give the 11M a pathway unless you believe that the people that provide the pathway are trying to tip the political scales one way or another.

Good question. In my previous comments, I did not commit to either "lean Dems or Reps". It really depends if Dems/Reps change/adapt and cater to the new reality (e.g. what can they concede to the 11M illegals to get their votes).

That did not answer my question. I will ask it a different way. What is it about the current 11M that makes you not want them to impact elections by becoming citizens but not have a similar concern about any of the 23.1M naturalized citizens who may have gotten a similar pathway?