What should be done about illegal immigration?

if they care about obeying the law.

If you don't like the laws, get it changed. But until then, it's still the law of the land.

If you claim some sort of "rule of law" principle on one issue, but break the principle on another... well, it isn't much of a principle then, is it. I accept this argument from Mysterman who I think would have a consistent position in both cases.

But why are you opposing enforceing our law, just because you dont like it?

Until it does get changed, it is the law.

If we wanted to stop people from breaking the driving laws... we could rely on harsher enforcement. For example we could jail people for speeding (separating them from their families and communities).

WEST PALM BEACH " Victor Leon is alone in the hospital most days.

The 26-year-old was paralyzed nearly three years ago when he fell from the roof of a three-story building in Palm City while working for Jupiter-based Altec Roofing. Since then, Leon has been mired in a legal battle to get workers' compensation benefits or legal damages from Altec.

Leon is an illegal immigrant. His status puts him at the crux of a legal debate over what rights, if any, illegal workers have after being injured on a job for which the American government says they never should have been hired.

A urine test taken at the hospital revealed traces of cocaine and marijuana in Leon's system. In addition to Leon's legal status, Altec is using this test to fight his claims to benefits.

ebrown, You suffer from myopia; most traffic laws including speeding are controlled with fines (and usually a higher insurance rate), not jail time unless someone drives under the influence of alcohol/drugs and are involved in an accident.

Yes, I have broken speeding laws during my lifetime of driving, but have not gotten caught in a traffic ticket for many decades.

Prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990, the INS recognized the "dual intent" doctrine while the State Department did not.

Generally, the law requires that a nonimmigrant be maintaining a residence abroad which he has no intention of abandoning. When a nonimmigrant has an approved visa petition for permanent residence, how can it be demonstrated that he has no intention of abandoning his residence abroad? Only by invoking the doctrine of dual intent. Simply put, this doctrine provides that although the nonimmigrant at some future date would like to reside permanently in the U.S., at the present time he merely wishes to reside in the U.S. on a temporary basis. Should his temporary stay in the U.S. expire before he attains permanent resident status, he intends to depart the U.S. and reside abroad until he is called for his immigrant visa interview.

During the period when the INS recognized the doctrine of dual intent, but the State Department did not, a nonimmigrant with an approved permanent visa petition could easily qualify for an extension or change of status from INS, but be denied a new nonimmigrant visa from the Department of State. This rule resulted in considerable hardship upon nonimmigrants and their employers in the U.S. Lawful nonimmigrants employed in the U.S. were often effectively prohibited from traveling outside of the country until they had achieved permanent resident status.

The Immigration Act of 1990 codified the doctrine of dual intent, but only for H-1A, H-1B and L nonimmigrants.

Nobody is proposing "starving them out".

But, I would have no problem with denying illegal immigrants, and the key word is ILLEGAL, all but the most essential services.
If they need emergency medical care, we give it.
If they need food, we give it.