I'm going to play Devil's advocate a little bit here.

Your program offers a viable solution, but it still presents the American government and taxpayers a problem. While immigrants are allowed to come here and work, they also must live. To live, they need a home. Would the government provide these accommodations? Will they be forced to live under the same laws and standards as citizens who must have flood insurance? How will these immigrants be transported from their homes to their jobs? Will the government provide them free transportation? If so, what would that cost? If not, would they be given a car? Would they be forced to drive under the same laws and standards as citizens who must have car insurance?

These burdens – living accommodations and transportation – would increase exponentially in both size and cost as those 6 million immigrants come into this country and start to work. While the taxpayer’s burden of teaching illegal children, curing illegal immigrants in hospitals, and milking illegal families via the welfare system would subside, I fear that it would be counterbalanced with these issues I’ve laid out.

However, as your post goes on, it presents many new burdens the taxpayer would have to shoulder.

Forgive me, but are you even the slightest bit aware of the steps and procedures American entrepreneurs must go through to start up a business? There are hundreds of websites, thousands of published books outlining just exactly how you can start your own business. It isn’t an easy task. The government is most definitely involved.

Tim Berry, author of one of those book I mentioned, CPA's Guide to Developing Effective Business Plans, once said,

"The pros and cons of different business formations are worth understanding. They vary by state—consequently this is not a good area for guesswork, and not a good place to save money, so please go through this with a local attorney you can trust."

A local attorney?! How are non-citizens going to afford an attorney let alone advice from one? Depending on the business these non-citizen residents want to start, they will have oversight from multiple government organizations like the FDA, SEC, and the Federal Reserve. God forbid they want to start a restaurant. Food regulations are through the roof. All of this amounts to more oversight and more taxpayer’s money being spent on non-citizen residents. “But normal Americans start businesses every day and go through the same things these non-citizen residents do.” Depending on their goal, some non-citizen residents may or may not be contributing back into society. It is often the objective of illegal immigrants today to move across the border, work, get money, and help their families back at home.

I would also venture to say that many Americans would not support spending such money on non-citizen residents. Why give them the luxury of American entrepreneurship and commercial enterprise if they aren’t going to contribute to society?

There is even a moral issue at hand. Regardless of the current policy, who are we to tell people, “Sure, you can come to the land of the free and home of the brave, but you don’t have the liberty to welfare if your job doesn’t fair well, or transportation if your job is more than 10 miles away, or housing if your family has more than 4 members. Oh, and we aren’t even going to treat your children’s knee scrapes because that would cost too much.”

Do we or don’t we have a moral authority to allow these people the rights and freedoms that we share? Are we not doing so in the Middle East and abroad? Why not hear at home and on our southern border?

And with this, I fear, we would extend the financial burdens for generations.

Your plan does nothing to address the needs of our nation’s national security. We hear time and time again that al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups send operatives into Canada with God-knows what in mind. They can easily enter our northern border, and with your proposition, can even more easily enter our southern border.

It's about time...

The government would provide no free living accomodations, no free transportation, and no free insurance. If they want a car, they'll have to buy car insurance like anyone else, and adhere to the same rules as anyone else.

You speak as though it would be impossible for any mere immigrant to come across the border and be able to find housing and transportation without a free gift from the government. But six million immigrants in America do it today without the assistance of the government, while even hiding themselves from the government. Under my system, they'd still have to find their own housing and transportation, but they would not have to hide from the government.

Because the government provides no free housing, insurance, or transportation, the taxpayers would be paying no additional money for these things under my system.

Perhaps the immigrant can afford it because he isn't coming into the country completely broke. Has the possibility that a more wealthy immigrant might use this system to set up a business in America not crossed your mind? Further, if a bank should choose to lend money to an immigrant who has been working here for a long amount of time, then perhaps that immigrant could also start up a business.

How someone finds the money to set up his business is not my concern. But if they have the money, and they wish to start up a business, then I see no reason why they should be disallowed.

Under my program, the government is not providing any special "help immigrants start up businesses" money. My program simply allows immigrants to start up businesses, if they can afford it. So again, the taxpayers have no additional burden.

Sure, it's not totally moral to deny these people the privledges that we give full citizens. But it's one heck of a lot more moral than any other immigration system.

Our current system says, "We can't afford to give you benefits, so not only can you have no benefits, but if we catch you on American soil, you'll be deported or thrown in jail." Bush's proposed system says the same thing, except it adds "But we'll let you temporarily work in this country with no benefits, if our government can find a job for you."

My system says, "We can't afford to give you benefits, so you can't have them. But you can still come into America and work here, without benefits, until we can fit you into the immigration cap."

Mine is the only system which still allows immigrants into the country, even though we can't afford to give them benefits. Just because we can't afford to give them benefits doesn't mean we have to prevent them from living here or working here. Let's give them as much as we can.

Terrorists can already enter the nation by simply flying in via airplane, or driving in through the standard tourist routes. Stepping up border security isn't going to change that. The problem with a terrorist is that you don't know he's a terrorist until he commits a terrorist act.

I don't think Bush had any illusions that stepping up security along the Mexican border will stop terrorism. Instead, I think he intended it to stop illegal immigration. Under my program, this would not be necessary, for there would be no reason to enter illegally.

So if your plan refuses non-citizen residents access to free housing, free transportation, free insurance, welfare, heath care, Social Security, or public education, isn’t that a recipe for homelessness? Isn’t that a recipe for crime? We usually associate crime with lower socioeconomic classes, and by giving these people the bare minimum – it may be argued even below the bare minimum – we are creating a +6,000,000 strong class that is prime for indulging in violent behavior. 15% of American jail cells are filled with Hispanics mind you.

These immigrants coming to this country aren’t well-off people. After currency exchange and the cost of getting to where they want to go, they are living on hardly anything. To assume they are middle class citizens just looking for a change of pace is a silly, and quite an unfounded assumption. You said yourself, one of the major burdens American taxpayer’s have is paying for illegal immigrants who apply for welfare. Middle class families looking for a change of pace don’t migrate to the United States illegally and apply for welfare and mooch off of the public school system. Financially desperate one’s do however.

I’d like to address the security issue in a new tone. I’m no longer playing devils advocate when I say this plan would not do anything to address the security situation that exists on our southern border. Now, I know some don’t believe there is such a situation, so allow me to shed light on it.

You said that you believed the Bush Administration didn’t think terrorist coming through our southern border was a serious problem. Allow me to quote a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) press release from June 29 of this year.

“The Administration is constructing new fencing and barriers, and improving and expanding existing infrastructure. DHS is also using 21st century technology to increase the effectiveness of operations. The use of radiation detectors, sensors, cameras, and biometric information dramatically increase the likelihood of apprehending criminal or terrorist elements attempting to enter the U.S.”

The President does indeed think that terrorists elements can enter the United States through our porous southern border or he wouldn’t have authorized a $1.9 billion supplemental request for border security infrastructure. The President has every reason to think that because it is true. J. Zane Walley, a spokesman for the Paragon Foundation, writing for World Net Daly said, “Terrorists are well aware that the 4,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico is easy to cross, with its vast unmonitored stretches. Their crossing directly into Arizona is of special concern. Arizona appears to have been the home of a "sleeper cell" of Osama bin Laden's worldwide terrorist organization, with a select group of operatives living quietly in bland apartment complexes and obtaining flight training, in preparation for the Sept. 11 attack. The organization's known history in the state goes back nine years.”

We hear time and time and time again about terrorists entering our southern and northern borders illegally. In 2001 alone, more than 50 known terrorists were arrested on the southern border.

While terrorism is a major problem, so is drug trafficking. We already have problems with drug trafficking as outlined by this Government Accountability Office report. Removing what security elements we have now would allow these non-citizen residents to enter the country and start up a very lucrative business – illegal drug distribution. To further illustrate the threat, the National Drug Intelligence Center published the National Drug Threat Assessment 2005 Summary Report in February of that year. It stated the following.

“Mexico has been the principal source of U.S.-destined foreign marijuana for decades, and already high production levels escalated in 2003. Mexican DTOs control nearly all marijuana production in Mexico, and an estimated 13,500 metric tons of marijuana were potentially produced in Mexico during 2003--70 percent more than the previous year.”

Jaxian, my friend, your plan refuses to address one of the major concerns of this new century, and I fear that implementing this without keeping in mind the dire need of some sort of security infrastructure on our borders would be disastrous. If, in 2001, those +50 known terrorists weren’t arrested, what do you think they would be doing now? Working hard at their jobs to provide for themselves and live the American dream? I think not.

On September 11th we saw what 19 terrorists could do.

Show of hands of those who want to see what 50 or more could do.

I do not assume that many immigrants entering this nation are well-off; the vast majority are not. But if one immigrant who is well-off comes into our country and wants to start a business, my system is the only one which would not stop him.

But immigrants under my system are no more likely to commit a crime than the illegal immigrants which exist under Bush's system or our current system. In fact, in my system they would probably be less likely to commit a crime, for their illegal status would never drive them to desperate measures.

Furthermore, I don't see why we should punish all immigrants for the actions of a few. If ten immigrants commit a crime, then punish ten, not thousands.

And finally, if you are worried that immigrants commit too much crime, then what is your solution?

You have many links which discuss terrorists arrested at the border and all the potential terrorists which have made it through the border. But have there ever been any terrorist attacks caused by someone who avoided border security? More importantly, has there ever been any evidence that increased border security would have prevented these people from entering the nation?

The only actual terrorist attack you mentioned is 9-11. Those terrorists came into the nation perfectly legally by getting on a plane. If they'd wanted to use 50 terrorists for that attack, they could have. Increased security along the Mexican border would have done nothing.

I live in Michigan. I cross the border into Canada all the time. Countless people do. The vast majority of the time, the border guard just looks at my birth certificate and says, "go ahead". In order to thouroughly search and background check all of these automobiles, it would require an army, along with an army-sized boost in taxes. And beyond that, I'd simply choose never to cross the border because it would be a giant hassle. Now, we might be able to add cameras and sensors, as suggested by Bush in your quote, but these things aren't likely to stop the average terrorist from crossing the border any time he wishes. It's simply unrealistic to hope to stop terrorism by regulating border traffic.

And most importantly, if your security concerns really have to do with terrorism instead of immigrants, then they have no place in a plan designed to handle immigration. If someone wants to ramp up border security, let him create a plan to do so. I'm not addressing terrorism or border security: I'm addressing immigration. Pointing out that my immigration plan fails to prevent terrorism is no different from pointing out that my immigration plan fails to solve the war in Iraq, or that it fails to resolve the abortion issue. These things are unrelated to the issue of immigration, and my immigration plan should not be expected to solve them.

How do you know that immigrants under your plan would be less likely to commit a crime? I clearly identified that today, illegal immigrants, and even legal immigrants bring across the border tons of illegal drugs for sale. The drug trade is a very lucrative one, and just because immigrants have access to other, more legal jobs here in the United States, does not mean they are going to abandon such a profitable trade they already know well.

Further more, your system does not guarantee that immigrants crossing the border would abide to your rule of a “background check.” If I’m a criminal or known drug dealer, I’m not going to want to get a background check, but I sure as hell want to enter the U.S. and sell my drugs.

So, what are you going to do to alleviate this problem? If people don’t want to abide to your plan, what security measures are you going put in place to secure the situation?

That brings us to your rather weak security argument. Let’s look at it shall we?

The terrorists that entered the United States to partake in the attacks on 9/11 were specifically chosen because they were eligible for visas. Not all terrorist agents are suitable for such a benefit, and I highly doubt the +50 terrorists caught on our border in 2001 alone were of that same status.

However, that isn’t even the bulk of your argument. What you argue, is that because nothing has happened, we should assume it never will. Because terrorists have the potential to enter the U.S. undetected, and yet there have been no attacks to this day, you argue that we shouldn’t worry about it.

Not only is that one of the most irresponsible arguments I have ever heard regarding border security and its relation to the War on Terror, but it seems to be ignorant of the true nature of our enemy. The War on Terrorism is related to your plan because your plan basically calls for the dismantle of the security infrastructure that exists today, and replaces it with a “background check” that seems to be run on the honor system. Our borders need to be secure for all the reasons I have explained: from terrorism, to drug control, to crime, to homelessness. Implementing your plan would leave our backdoor open for anyone to enter and cause serious harm. To ignore that fact based on the illogical assumption that because nothing has happened in the past, we shouldn’t worry about it today, is wrong and dangerous.

It is not unrealistic. We have seen that triple-layer fencing as well as many other techniques that the President has called for actually work. You say we have no need for such security precautions. By sacrificing our nation’s sovereignty, eliminating the existing security infrastructure, and by promoting a nonchalant attitude towards the security of this nation is exactly why your plan cannot be implemented as is. It solves many problems, and holds promise but falls drastically short in my book.

Let's say we take your policy of allowing citizens of other nations to enter the country and work, but we also have a strong and, ideally, impenetrable border. We allow people access into our country with a background check and a wish of good luck. If in, say, two month's time these non-citizen residents do not have a job, they should be deported. If they aren’t doing what they were suppose to do, then they need to leave, or become a legal citizen. What do you say to that?

Here is the cost of illegal immigration:

Center for Immigration Studies

Here is the cost of illegal immigration:

Center for Immigration Studies

To give you a straight answer, I don't think drugs are a big enough problem to implement additional border security. But that's irrelevant.

My plan is designed to provide a legal means for immigrants to live in America without creating an unrealistic burden on our government-provided systems. My plan is not intended to address the problem of drugs being transported across the Mexican border, nor do I feel that it should address that problem.

My immigration plan neither makes it easier for drugs to be moved across the border, nor does it prevent any additional security measure from being implemented. As such, preventing drug movement across the border is a seperate issue, unrelated to my immigration policy. If someone wanted to use my immigration policy, and also add additional security measures, he could feel free to do so. But those additional security measures would be related to the drug problem, not the immigration problem.

As I said before, you may criticize my policy for failing to solve the abortion issue, for failing to resolve the dispute in Iraq, for failing to prevent global warming, and for failing to solve the plethora of other problems plaguing the world. But my immigration policy is not intended to solve those other problems. It is intended only to provide a reasonable means for immigrants to enter our nation.

It isn't that we shouldn't worry about these attacks; it is that the data you provided about 50+ terrorists being caught doesn't necessarily mean we should step up security.

You haven't explained exactly what we will do to step up security to prevent a terrorist attack. The links you provided claim that we caught 50+ terrorists, and we missed others. But since there have been no terrorist attacks, it is difficult to say, "Here is exactly how we can increase security to prevent a terrorist attack." So your links do not imply any specific action we could take to prevent terrorism; they only say, "terrorism is a problem: do something about it."

I don't think there are many additional security measures we can realistically take at the border to truly prevent a terrorist attack. I like the camera and sensors ideas, but I don't think they're likely to truly prevent a terrorist attack. So what are you suggesting we do to increase security?

I am not removing any existing border security. I am only adding an additional background check for people wishing to come into the country under my program.

Isn't the triple-layer fencing part of our existing security system, which would not be replaced by my plan? Furthermore, when have we ever seen triple-layer fencing work?

I already addressed your claims that our existing security infrastructure would be removed. Nothing of the sort would happen, nor would any later additions to security be disallowed.

The only noticable difference between our nation today and our nation after my plan would be that illegal immigrants are able to sign up for my program and enter legally, provided they go through our current security measures and background checks. What makes you think our current security would be worsened in any fashion?

I don't like it. The idea behind my program is that you don't have to get a job to live in America. Why would you suggest deporting people after two months?

Furthermore, explain to me how this impenetrable border works.

Further, explain what your impenetrable border has to do with my immigration plan. If you truly had some sort of impenetrable border security plan, you could as easily implement it after my immigration plan as you could before my immigration plan.

In short, you are using the buzzwords "terrorism" and "security", but no solution to terrorism and security has been presented. Far more importantly, those are seperate issues from immigration. You would not criticize a solution to abortion because it fails to address border security, and you should not criticize a solution to immigration because it fails to address border security. They are seperate issues.