>If they are illegal, have kids here, then the kids should be illegal also.
>
>What about the millions of kids who are already citizens according to current law? It would be illegal to revoke their citizenship or hold them guilty for the sins of their fathers. Consider that if you deport their parents, you'd need thousands of new orphanages to house all the traumatised children. Even if these kids weren't citizens I don't believe the US public would accept forced separation of families or deportation of innocent child citizens in 2006.

I didn't say it was simple, but why should someone be able to enter illegally, have kids, then have it be wrong for us to send them back?

>Not questioning the quality of jobs, just their right to take them.
>
>I'm sure they are well aware that they have no right to work. But there are two sides to this equation. There is a willing buyer and a willing supplier, *both* of whom are acting illegally. As usual the market is controlled by the buyer, not the supplier. IMHO you need to focus on the buyer.

I'm sure they are very aware that they have no right too. And I blame the supplier also. We don't disagree here.

>My problem is with the illegal part of it.
>
>Well, illegal employment is completely normalised in large parts of the US. The law is ignored and essentially unenforceable now that there are millions of US citizens who depend on their illegal parents. As noted above, I simply do not believe that the US public would tolerate a return to orphanages or other state facilities for kids deprived of their parents.

You are probably right here also, but that doesn't mean we can't work on what happens in the future.

BTW, I see you dropped the NZ portion of the thread. It really wasn't an equitable comparison.