Another proof that supporters of the current immigration law actually prefer illegal, unskilled, and uneducated immigrants over legal, skilled, and educated immigrants: a massive bureaucracy will have to be stood up just to process these so-called Z-visas. Why would they be willing to do this for illegals who are already here, while unwilling to beef up the same bureaucracy to process the massive backlog of legal visa applicants, many of whom have been waiting years for legitimate residency?

Other distinctions between illegal and legal immigrants:

Most illegals aren’t really immigrants, but migrants, who come here for mostly economic reasons, and maintain roots in their contries of origin. Legals come here mostly to become part of American society. In short, illegals come for money, legals come for values.

Most illegals (60%) don’t even have a high school education. Most legals have college degrees. If our native population exploded by 12 million people, 60% of whom fail to finish high school, that would be a crisis. Why is it not a crisis when this explosion happens through regularization of illegal immigrants?

Anyone who fails to note these and other important distinctions is hiding his true motivations for support of the Senate bill.

The biggest absurdity of the current immigration bill in the Senate is that intends to codify into law two classes of immigrants: those who followed the law and those who didn’t. And it gives preference to those who didn’t.

Even if you assume that the immigration laws were flawed or unenforceable, it is perverse to address the lawbreakers before addressing the law. It’s also dishonest to insist that you can’t reform the immigration laws before you find some way to regularize those who broke them. This shifts the urgency from where it belongs to where it never existed.  

It’s as if the line at the theater box office snaked around the corner, with the backstage door open without a sentry, where scofflaws entered. Would the theater manager handle this problem by addressing the box office and the backstage door, or start by offering the scofflaws a discounted entry?

Another analogy is the alcoholic. Assume for sake of argument that the U.S. economy is addicted to the unrestricted flow of unskilled immigrant labor. For a multitude of reasons, we all know that this is an unhealthy addiction. Now, an alcoholic cannot be treated until he is first separated from the bottle. So shouldn’t we try to stop the flow before anything else?