To be clear, I do support immigration reform that allows a reasonable path to permanent residence and a reasonable guest worker program. The US's history with appropriating Mexican land by conquest in the 19th century means that there are many people in both countries with family ties across the border, and immigration policy must accommodate that. However, at the end of the day, immigration is not the sole solution to the world's problems. The troll above does have one point – not everyone in the world could physically fit in the OECD countries.

Ngchen suggested a $1-2000 fee on intending immigrants plus an otherwise open immigration policy. However, the filing fee to adjust one's status to permanent resident is already $1,010. Additionally, immigrants who are not lawyers themselves should probably hire legal counsel to do much of the paperwork for them, which incurs additional expense.

Of course, coming up with that kind of money is by no means easy, especially for someone living in the third world. Which is exactly the point; only those who are prepared to work hard and have the brains to work smart and such would be allowed in. We want *quality* immigration from people who really want to come here, and as imperfect a measure as paying money is, it's probably as objective a measure as anything that we humans can come up with. The high price also would keep the country from being “flooded,” since again not everyone will be able to afford the price.

There are A LOT of people in the world who would like to move to the United States. That makes me proud of my country – other people think it's such a desirable place that they risk life and limb to get here! However, as other commenters have noted, it's just not possible for America to absorb everyone who wants to live here. For this reason, it seems we need to have some caps or limits on annual migration. Maybe immigration reform advocates don't want to acknowledge it, but saying “no” to some people is just the way it has to be. If we left ourselves open to a migration free for all, the laws of supply and demand would eventually balance things out, but that would be a pretty rough time along the way (e.g. The Tragedy of the Commons).

It seems odd that should a citizen who would advocate for a mere copy of the Ten Commandments in a classroom or a Pledge that says “under God” would be condemned for wanting a theocracy, but that US government policy on immigration should be based on Leviticus. Nothing you present in this article speaks to state-run activity, but rather to the individual acts of the faithful.

This does not mean I think the government's actions are right. I do agree that immigration laws and policies need to be reformed. However, it seems a bit ridiculous to get all riled up at the U.S. government for not following these verses, when the government has never professed to be a Christian government.

Perhaps it might be better to examine how we as individuals can lovingly treat immigrants in our communities or how we can work together as a community of faith to get immigration laws modified to be more fair and humane. But this article only does what multiple other Sojourners immigration articles have done: lambasting the government (because that's safe) while failing to say anything new or provide actionable steps for the individual level.

6,771,109,272

No matter how much we “streamlined” our system to match what the world wants, there would be hundreds of millions of people who'd want to come here. Your “policy” would be to constantly change our laws until no one wanted to come here. Your “policy” isn't a policy at all, it's just cheap boilerplate. And, it doesn't take into account the wishes of U.S. citizens. The fact that most wouldn't want to open the floodgates in order to let in all who want to come doesn't enter into your calculations, such as they are.

There are only two ways to prevent people from crossing the desert: have completely open borders, or strictly enforce our laws. Anything other than either of those will result in people trying to cross the desert.

If Anne Dunlap wants an effective and humanitarian solution, she should call on foreign governments to take care of their own people and she should call on the U.S. government to enforce our laws. Anything other than that just makes the situation worse for everyone (except of course for those who profit from this in some way).

The truly non-sociopathic thing to do is to streamline our immigration system so that people who legitimately want to work can get in legally without having to wait years and years. And then they wouldn't have to cross deserts.

Would you be willing to accept immigration reform that would streamline this process? Many people are not willing to do this, which is why it hasn't happened even with the support of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

As for the walls and such, yes they're bad. But maybe the solution is for people to get in line and enter legally, just like razor wire surrounding prisons is bad for the would-be escapee. Shooting the cans of water is worse, since they don't discourage people from illegal entry, but only to kill them.

Should love be the ultimate guide for making federal laws? What is loving about confining anyone to prison? What is loving about allowing people to lie to others? What is loving about legal abortion? What is loving about settling disagreements through lawsuits rather than forgiveness? Our laws are very rarely based on love; for better or worse they're based on practicality.

Sojourners commentators have offered many justified criticisms of the current immigration system and many suggestions about how to reform it, but very few descriptions of what an ideal immigration system would look like. What would an immigration policy based on love look like?

I've been covering this issue for years in literally thousands of posts. For all the facts about this matter that Sojourners won't tell you, subscribe to my feed.

It's xenophobia and racism. Oh, sure it's couched in the language of “we're not prejudiced; it's just that they (whoever “they” is) must obey the law and come here legally.” Of course whenever anyone mentions reforming the labyrinthine immigration laws and the huge backlog at INS where people have to wait for years to get legal papers: then suddenly it's “we don't want to give them (there is that “them”) again) amnesty. Let them wait!”

But then we probe further and get stereotypes about how “illegal” immigrants (and also legal ones) just want to come to the U.S. to drain our welfare and Medicaid systems. No one even thinks about what it's like to work 12 hours or more a day receiving $3 or $4 a day without any benefits in sweatshop conditions — without any recourse to complain because when it comes to deportation, the INS backlog seems to magically disappear and action is taken immediately.

This is human trafficking of the worst and most exploitive kind. It's easy to protest human trafficking when it occurs far across the sea. But when it's happening right here in our own backyard, in our own country, then suddenly people want to blame the victims of this human trafficking.

We need meaningful immigration reform and we need it now.