[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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.

I have said I am willing to accept a compromise based on what the immigration reform bill is. I have also said I support the Dignity Act even though I have some dislikes. If the Dignity Act passes based on 11M illegal becoming legal, I am ultimately okay with it. If there is no Dignity Act or any other compromise bill, I want 0% leakage ... as in, remove them all of them other than DACA and probably some special hardship situations.

So, to reiterate and be very clear:

1) Edward, what is your acceptance level for illegals, assuming no immigration reform bill, status quo deadlock etc. Answer = 0% other than DACA
2) Edward, what is your acceptance level for illegals, assuming Dignity Act or some other comprehensive reform bill. Answer = I am good with what was negotiated and passed. If 11M illegals are given pathway to citizenship because Dignity Act also did X, Y, Z, I'm okay with it. I believe in compromise. I believe both sides need to give and take.

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'd say by not coming up with a legal alternative, we have "defaulted to" illegals. Dems & Reps are dysfunctional, and have been for a while.

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?

Your question is posed as anyone or any group. The difference here is 11M is a big-big group.

So to answer your question - if its anyone or a small group, no problem. If it's 11M or 3% of population, absolutely.

It doesn't have to be illegals. I'd be worried if Israel/Ukraine/Taiwan lost the war and 9M /43M/23M Israeli/Ukrainians/Taiwanese were allowed to immigrate and given a pathway to citizenship.

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.

Yes, I believe allowing 11M to become citizens will do bolded. I believe your question is "how will they tip the scales" or "will they tip the scales to Dems or Reps". My answer is I don't know, it's dependent on how the political parties react. But it will tip the scales one way or another.

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?

I'm not sure the composition of the 23.1M naturalized citizens you quoted but assume they are widely diverse from all over the world, with a bunch of different skillsets, colors (black, brown, yellow), greater level of education & resources etc. Less homogenous, more diverse.

My question to you -

I contend the below. Do you agree or disagree?

there is nothing I can think of that the "economic benefits of illegal immigration brings" that would not be matched/exceeded with "economic benefits of legal immigration + increased guest workers".