Michael--

Mick is correct. And his arguments are not ad hominem. He has accused no specific person of racism. If you don't think the shoe fits, don't put it on.

Added to which: "social costs of this population"---at this point there are many illegal immigrants who pay into Social Security--and as long as they are illegal will never see any benefits from it. Also they are not of an age to benefit from it. If you think the illegal immigrants are getting a free lunch, consider what the US would be like if all--probably 12 million-- of them disappeared tomorrow. The economy would be vastly different--and it would not be an improvement. The US gets huge benefits from illegals now.

Further, neither MIck nor I--nor anybody else on our side of the debate--including the illegal immigrants themselves--want the illegal immigrant situation to continue as it is. We are in favor of a path leading to citizenship for all illegals--not waving a magic wand to make them citizens--and they would have to get behind all people now going through the citizenship process legally-- but a process including proof of English proficiency and other requirements.

This idea went down in flames in Congress recently--but it's still a good one--far better than building fences between the US and Mexico or requiring all illegal immigrants to return to "country of origin" to apply for US citizenship--or any other idea I've heard from the restrictionists. As I've said before, if I were an illegal I would not come out of the shadows for "touchback"-- I would not trust the US to let me back in.   Would you?

If you are against a process of gradual citizenship for illegals--not requiring "touchback"-- exactly why?

And what is your counterproposal?

I'd sincerely like to hear it--and so would Mick, I suspect.