Fixed it.

Here in the USA "amnesty" is used to mean "give them citizenship", period.

It's a complete farce.  Work permits don't give anyone citizenship.  

That's the difference I meant.  

As for the why, first of all, here, you couldn't send them all back.  A lot of them have no place to go back to.  People would complain about it, make it politically infeasable.  

So work permits, I'd give them out, but they'd have to show a passport and have a background check.  Those that had a criminal past would be kicked out, along with other undesirables.  For example, people with tuberculosis are not allowed in the USA - but they get in as illegals and stay.

So the main point is NO AMNESTY - NO FREE CITIZENSHIP, but if you want to work, you can.  I guess you could say this is sort of practical and pragmatic, not what I'd want in an ideal world.

Well, okay.  I admit the truth, since I can't get away with the lie anymore.

I'm not really Batman.

Why don't you start by acknowledging the priority of State Law in these matters, and then acknowledge the irrelevance of states where "the problem" was not claimed to be found?

Otherwise, you are creating a straw man argument by misrepresenting the original claims made.  Essentially that's lying.  Well or repeating the lies of the "news source" of the OP.

I mean, can't we do better than this?

One interesting thing is that Google isn't a good search  engine.  It's results are virtually stuffed with links that lead to malware, and it appears this is due to such companies buying position in the search queues. 

A lot of the search results are completely fake, because of the way that Google sends the terms of your query out to various companies who then respond with whether they have the product or service.  This is because, say if a company has it's goods in an online catalogue that produces pages when a query is done, Google cannot search those pages internal to that company's database.

Other companies, though will simply take the search phrase and claim they have it.

Google could strip these bad links out, but they won't.  Given these severe deficiencies, one would think the era of Google search engine domination would be coming to an end.  But is it?

EDITED:  On doing a Google search on this topic I find the following (note bolded)-

http://www.google.com/policies/faq/

Are my search queries sent to websites when I click on Google Search results?

In some cases, yes. When you click on a search result in Google Search, your web browser also may send the Internet address, or URL, of the search results page to the destination webpage as the HTTP Referrer. The URL of the search results page may sometimes contain the search query you entered. If you are using SSL Search (Google’s encrypted search functionality), under most circumstances, your search terms will not be sent as part of the URL in the HTTP Referrer. There are some exceptions to this behavior, such as if you are using some less popular browsers. More information on SSL Search can be found here. Search queries or information contained in the HTTP Referrer may be available via Google Analytics or an application programming interface (API). In addition, advertisers may receive information relating to the exact keywords that triggered an ad click.

Bullshit.  I'll have to advise any of my friends that contemplate suicide to steer clear of any of your "appease all groups" committee decision making crap.

You mean they're all fucked up?

And THEN, let's have the Best Theatrical Performance of Outrage, Indignation, and Scoffery.

No, they do not know these things.  Not unless you have let the Evil Goog into your home.

Wait.  I'm not totally sure that's true.

Let me ask Google.

Now you may wonder why, exactly, is this of interest....

.....Forster came up with ingenious marketing schemes.

He first targeted stationers, who dealt in small items. When he could not place his product in their stores, he hired personable young people to go to those same retailers and ask for wooden toothpicks. Naturally, the retailers had to turn away the potential customers. Shortly afterward, Forster would make return visits to the stores, where he easily sold his wares. To reinforce the wisdom of the shopkeeper's decision, Forster's shills soon came back to ask again for toothpicks, and this time the sales were made. The boxes of toothpicks were then returned to Forster, who could resell them to the retailer, who now was prepared to talk them up to real customers.

To get toothpicks into restaurants, Forster hired Harvard men. After they had finished dining on Forster's dime at a local establishment, such as the Union Oyster House, they demanded wooden toothpicks. When they were told none were available, the students raised a ruckus and vowed never to eat there again. Naturally, when Forster came around some days hence, the restaurant manager purchased boxes of toothpicks to distribute to his customers.

Once wooden toothpicks became readily available in restaurants, diners picked them up on their way out and used them for their intended purpose. After they were used to clean the teeth, the toothpicks had a further use. Chewing toothpicks in public soon became fashionable among well-to-do men, and after a while young women began taking up the practice. One Bostonian observed that at lunchtime "nearly every third woman met in the vicinity of Winter and West streets has a toothpick between her lips." This ostentatious primary and secondary toothpick usage in the 1870s served to further the general desire for toothpicks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business_and_tech/design/2007/10/stick_figure.html

Because those of us who seek to introduce Bitcoin to restaurants, clearly are ignorant savages compared to the finesse, cleverness, and diplomacy of those of scoundrels of the past.  lol...

And hell yes, the Union Oyster House in Boston is worth a stop.

Anonymous Internet discussion groups would be my answer.

Exactly what most governments would not like or want.  Oh, and "appease all groups" is total bullshit - that's what's created this sanitized metrosexual politically correct atmosphere which is the problem, not the solution.

I think your sarcasm and pessimism is warranted, until details on Trump's plans emerge and can be critically examined.  As a businessman, I assume he'd be more attuned to cost and waste than the average politician.  But your concept - that that MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE - is certainly possible at this point.

I really don't care.  Recently had a conversation with a friend who's teen aged son had taken up heroin.  This little conversation had to do with "tough love."  Sometimes people need to feel shitty.  You are not here to create and maintain a warm and happy basket of feelings.  If you want to discuss problematic issues, be prepared to face the problems.

"Men that think they are women" in India/Pakistan (can't recall the term in that culture), as I recall, have about a 25% HIV rate.

Well, obviously you have an agenda.  I'm not even opposed to people having an agenda, by the way, so here is my question.

Can you clearly and concisely articulate your agenda?

If not or if you don't care to, no problem.

That's correct, and then the illegals can be given work permits, those who are criminals sent back or imprisoned, and things would probably get better.

If you look at what I actually said...


And as for your comment bolded above, there's been a lot of good done in the world because one person told another he was headed down a bad path.  Does not mean they were always right, but suppressing that freedom of speech is not a way to optimize outcomes.  No need to get preachy, by the way.

You'll see that it includes your comments, as well as opposing points of view.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to help people who are confused and troubled.

And once you put that under a government services umbrella, they gonna tell you what to say.

Safeguards?  Like what?  A procedure manual?

Look at the current controversy about Planned Parenthood and ask, why could they simply not stick to doing unqualified good?

Because you're just plain wrong.

No, we are not all a "bit crazy."  Clearly you haven't been around crazy.

Here's a bit of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWaFqw8XnpA

And as for your comment bolded above, there's been a lot of good done in the world because one person told another he was headed down a bad path.  Does not mean they were always right, but suppressing that freedom of speech is not a way to optimize outcomes.  No need to get preachy, by the way.

That's the sort of idealistic dream that when reduced to the ugly reality of a government program, because nothing nice at all.  Soylet Green!  Yah!

No, it's the Controllers Way of setting the nature of the herd.