I think we just might be able to. Sorry if my comment seemed personal; it wasn't. It's just that I've had run-ins with others before on this issue, and sometimes I get a little stuck in a rhythm, if you know what I mean. Thank you for wanting to discuss this reasonably. It's quite refreshing to find someone who is.
So, under your idea you would have fairly liberal entry requirements, but no forced ruundup and expulsions?
Actually, I'll be quite honest with you. I'm not a huge fan of guest-worker programs to begin with. My preferred course of action is to first completely libertarianize our economy and get the courts under control (no welfare, no "civil rights" laws second-guessing whom employers can and can't hire, and remove all PC ACLU-type influence from our legal system). Once that's done, then I'd be fine with loosening our immigration policies quite a bit.
Nonetheless, I still consider a guest-worker program to be negotiable, provided it doesn't even smell like amnesty to me. As for what to do with the illegals already here, that problem will become a lot easier to deal with once the flow across the border is cut off, or reduced drastically. We don't have to expel them all at once. We can do a little bit at a time, taking full care to avoid hassling citizens and legal aliens in the process. In addition, I support giving state and local governments the widest latitude in dealing with the illegals in their midst, except as limited by the Constitution itself (IOW, no limitations from federal statutes).
On the practical side, this would simply mean that all the good guys would head for the border so as to be on the "right" side of it, and then just re-enter, with papers?
That's more or less how I see it, though if there were a practical way of identifying those who had entered illegally in the past, I wouldn't mind imposing additional hindrances, just to make up for the unfair advantages many of them will still have if they have people here in the U.S. that they've been working for, who'll sponsor them in preference to someone who's never been here. (sorry for that mouthful of a sentence)
Or are you saying that only denial of re-entry is sufficient punishment for having jumped the border in the first place?
I don't know if it's necessary to go that far, but I am in favor of giving every advantage to those who've never entered illegally, to the extent that that's practical to do.
Why not just charge a stiff premium on those already in the country who have good health, n job, and no criminal record other than being here w/o papers?
Either that would be more of a burden than making them go back and wait in line, in which case we might as well make them go back and wait in line, or it will be less of a burden than making them do so, in which case, as far as I'm concerned, we're crossing over into "amnesty" territory. I don't want to go there.
As for actually granting them citizenship at any future point in time, I'd rather not make that automatic. They should have to do something above and beyond. I don't know what, exactly, but I want to know that those who become citizens and are given the right to vote, in fact know and appreciate what this country's about. The last major immigration wave from Europe during 19th and first part of the 20th century certainly was a boon to us economically, but I think it was also instrumental in bringing us socialism. I'd like some way of making sure that part doesn't happen again.