Immigration reform bill, amnesty, and path to citizenship

I am really intrigued by the whole illegal immigrant bill and associated debate going on right now.  There seems to be a lot of effort and general support from dems to provide amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  I also see opposition to reporting those here illegally as part of booking them for other crimes.  What i never hear is the justification for amnesty or the justification for not considering someones immigration status when booked for other crimes.

To me I get that there is a human rights aspect to this.  A family moves here with a 1 year old child illegally, child grows up here for 10+ years, does it really make sense to deport him back to wherever?  Is breaking up that family ok?  On the other hand I think of the analogy of someone struggling to feed their family breaking into a home and robbing them.  He uses that money to feed his children, raise them right, and send them off to college.  But if he is caught after all that time, he still owes the money back.  He still stole it.  What legal or moral right does he have to any of it?  Sure it isn't his families fault he got the money illegally but tough cookies he broke the law.  

So what exactly is the argument for giving those currently here illegally citizenship?  Is it similar to the drug war where making something illegal doesn't solve any problems and creates new ones to boot?  What do we say to those who are still in the waiting line for the legal option?

------------

Thx for your thoughts. I am not aware of the fine print, but I also agree that the Dems' push for a path to citizenship is a bit excessive. I mean, Reagan gave the last amnesty with very few strings attached, so the GOP don't really have much credibility to be hard on the Dems - though to be fair Reagan would not really be identified as a Repub. today on many issues/practices. Citizenship is a pretty big deal (and as you said the legit line is very long), and for sure not many of the illegal immigrants currently here would qualify or see it through if it were law tomorrow. But still, it may send the wrong message. I would be OK with giving them work permit/legal resident status instead as the ultimate goal. Why should there be a path to citizenship specifically vs. residency status? I didn't see really compelling arguments for that online. Maybe the rationale for granting citizenship is kind of ideological: as you said these folks have demonstrated "American-ness" in every other way possible, so why not out of respect grant it to them after paying some fines? Or as the GOP says, maybe it's a hand-out to win Latino votes.

I would disagree regarding your burglary analogy. In that case, the thief is hurting an innocent private citizen and taking something from them. For illegal immigration, in most cases it is a "victimless crime" where no one is harmed and in fact many Americans may benefit without even realizing it. Of course that immigrant (if amnestied) may be "taking a spot away" from someone in line who played by the rules. And if that immigrant got some gov't assistance, that is fewer resources for others in need. But in general I think immigrants contribute more to the US than they take.

Did you know that you can also buy your way to a green card? Doesn't that also disadvantage the immigrants who are waiting patiently but can't afford a $0.5M-1M fast-pass?

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/us_attracts_rich_foreign_inves.html

For individuals booked with a crime, depending on the severity I guess it's valid to ask for immigration status and deport/imprison bad offenders. But I think the big problem was in states like AZ, they passed profiling laws where authorities could ask anyone they wanted for proof of citizenship on the spot. And of course they tend to ask people who look a certain way.

Tangentially, Maher commented that the GOP's insistence to "militarize" the southern border (Border Surge) as a prerequisite for imm. reform is a direct consequences of our draw-down in the War on Terror. Many contractors are going to be assed-out, so they need to replenish their revenue with more ludicrous spending on high-tech hardware and troops (in this case B. Patrol agents) we don't really need. Supposedly in the Senate bill there are specific provisions for the purchase of certain tactical systems from certain companies. In total the Surge would be $38B in additional spending - advocated by the austerity-or-bust party. For scale, all food stamps spending in the US in 2010 was $64B.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/immigration-deal-would-boost-defense-manufacturers/2013/07/01/d1c115e4-df63-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html?hpid=z1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/10-states-with-the-greatest-food-stamps_n_860233.html

Also an interesting side-note about drones: I thought they would be a lot cheaper than manned craft. But according to "The Newsroom", an F-16 is about $500M while a Predator is about $300M - not much savings! Well if you include the pilot training and future care costs, maybe that's another $5M to the manned craft bill? How the hell can an oversized RC propeller plane (that is lower tech, can be hacked, and is slower than an F-16), cost 3/5 as much!?!