Such a difficult topic
I will talk to anyone, anywhere about almost anything although I don't argue as often as I did when I was younger. Now I try to spend more time listening even though it might not seem that way to people who know me especially my wife and children. I have found that trying to change someone's mind that has a closed one is a lost battle before it begins so I don't try. Once in a while I will try to interject information that they are not aware of and sometimes that will make them raise an eyebrow but most of the time these people don't want to know the truth or to know facts that might change the way they feel about issues.
Just mentioning that 1.3 million Mexican farmers were put out of business when the US Started selling corn at a much lower price than the farmers could produce it and telling them that illegal immigration then tripled does not seem to change anyones outlook on the issue.
Pointing out the most recent reliable studies done show that the undocumented people here in the US add much more to the economey than they use in public benefits. The studies show the GNP Gross National Product would be negatively affected in a big way doesn't change their perspective. Showing them how crime is not any higher because of illegal immigration does not change their minds.
We kinow that along with illegal immigration we do have crime and drugs and human trafficking as well. There are certain facts that stand on their own on both sides of the issue. Most people realize that mass deportation will not work. Many want to handle the problem through attrition by squeezing so hard that the people just leave. Well you have to squeeze very hard to make someone go back to making 1/20th or 1/10th of their current wages. You have to squeeze very hard to make someone want to move back to a country where the police are the ones that pull you over and steal from you. You have to squeeze very hard to make someone go back to a country where is it almost immpossible to provide for their families.
Many people will start out a discussion on immigration by stating, "They are good people and hard workers but they should go back to their countries and come in legally because they are hurting the chances of those that apply legally and they are only being exploited here anyway." They think that by saying they are good people that it lessens the racism and hate that they show when they call for deportation. The maintain that it has nothing to do with racism. They group these people together and treat them like numbers or objects not like people.
Sounds fairly easy doesn't it? Send them all back and tell them to get in line, problem solved. Except we are dealing with families that are being separated left and right. When the US deports families they put them in impossible situations, many times fiancially impossible and many times very danergerous situations. The emotional trauma of having your mom arrested when she has not committed a crime stays with a child. The trauma of separating these families hurts and these wounds fester.
People that use this type of logic are not informed people. Many of the Republicans have this type of pat answer to give stating that they have nothing against these people. They say it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with "THE LAW" Really the law is a federal law and if they are caught crossing it is a violation of a Federal Criminal code and it is only a misdemeanor. If they are not caught or if their visa expires then it is only a civil infraction and not criminal. The consequense is deportation and normally a 10 year bar from re-entry (The legal way) To file the proper paperwork is very costly and runs into the thousands very quickly. If you had to chose between feeding your family and a class B misdemeanor can you really say what you would do?
It is sad that they leave the human element out of issue. Let's look at the life of a friend of mine just for an example:
My friend Javier came to the US a few years ago with a valid visa and he brought 2 children with him and began working and had 2 additional children. Their visa would not be renewed and they moved to a new state and started a new life. He works two jobs and his wife stays home with the children. He owns two homes and rents one out. He pays property taxes on both of these homes and much of the property tax goes to pay for education which also includes the education of his children. He uses a false social security card and has FICA, Federal and State taxes taken out of his check which he will never get back.(He is one of the millions that pay billions into these tax funds) He has a leadership calling in the LDS Church, a current Temple recommend and is normally the first one to offer help when someone is in trouble. If he goes to the Immigration office he will be deported with his wife and two of the four children.
He can take the other two children with him but in Guatemala there is a $34 dollar per US Citizen charge for every month US Citizens stay in Guatemala after 90 days so that would be $68 dollars per month and wages in his area area are about $100 so that would leave him $32 dollars a month to raise his family or it would leave him $132 if he worked two jobs and the cost of living in his area is about $500 per month and that is without a car but only taking the bus and riding your bike. So his wife would also have to go to work and they they would still make less than half of the cost of living. Does he go back to his country? Should he leave his 2 US Citizen children with friends so they can grow up and have a better life and petition the rest of the family when they are 21? When the oldest child that is 12 gets to be 21 in 9 years then it will take another 9-12 years to get the family back here. By that time 20 years will have passed and living in extreem poverty ages you much faster and after having lived in the US going back is that much harder since you are used to flushing toilets, hot water, paved streets, medical facilties that are decent and enough money to buy basic food.
Oh, he does have another option, the two older kids can quit school and work at the sugar cane farm and make about $45 each child so with him working 2 jobs, his wife working one and 2 of the kids working he will make just over half of the cost of living. That sounds fine right, make the kids stop school early to help provide for the families needs.
The other option is for him to stay in the US, continue working for less than he is worth because he has a college degree and makes just over min in one 40 hour job and he make min. wage at the part time 30 hour job but it still comes out to making many times more than he would back home.
I go over these types of stories over and over in my mind and wonder what would be reasonable. What is the solution? A fine? Allowing them to get in line behind those that have applied legally? Allow the families to stay together unless criminal involvment was part of the mix? A national ID card that has the fingerprints and eyescans in a smart chip? I don't know.
I do know that I am biased because my family is one of these families being separated so I feel very strongly about being compassionate and reasonable. I know my kids cry all the time when we start to talk about immigration. We try to ignore it but it is very hard to ignore the big pink elephant in the middle of the room when ICE (Immigration) agents are out front of the home watching our house.
I do see both sides since I am in the construction industry. I hear about TX tile setters that bid jobs out at $15 per hour and can't get them because companies are using undocumented tile setters and paying them less than minimum so that hurts the industry and home owners do get lower priced tile but not only are people being exploited but companies are suffering. What is the answer? I don't feel the answer is an AZ type law so we must work together to find a solution that also considers the human element. A law that considers families, childrens needs, the safety of the people and a balance of what will be good for the US as well. I write these things out and hardly anyone ever reads them but it is a way for me to outline the logic and deal with it. 
In 1898, the meaning of the citizenship clause (14th Amendment) was conclusively determined in Wong Kim Ark, when the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the son of a Chinese national – who was forbidden under the Chinese Exclusion Act from ever becoming U.S. citizens – should be deprived of citizenship because of his parents’ status. Subsequent decisions have upheld this standard.
The 'rule of law' crowd claim the United States is outdated in providing birthright citizenship. Recently, Glenn Beck and Bob Dane of FAIR have said, that the U.S. is “the only country in the world” or at least the only “western country” where birthright guarantees citizenship. Neither is true: the U.S. is among 33 other countries—including Canada—that practice jus soli (grant birthright citizenship).