http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22102656

I'm not sure what to think of this, should illegal immigrants who have not followed the proper protocol be granted citizenship? Just seems to me like a way to spite those who have legitimately immigrated, I'd certainly be annoyed if Canada decided to do the same thing, but then again Canada does have better structured immigration paths in my opinion so I don't see it ever needing to be considered here in the same way.

I know there is a topic over in the US forum but I'd be curious to hear other people's opinions on this here.

If they become citizens will they have to be paid more? A Californian once told me that her state's economy would pretty much collapse were it not for all the illegals there. If they are made citizens surely they will be able to demand more money and benefits.

I think there are grounds for amnesty in many cases. For example, a young family that entered the country illegally, had kids in the new country, worked and were self sufficient - it doesn't make sense to send a family like that back to their homeland. A system could be set up where they agree to pay some back-taxes in return for legal immigration.

Obviously, that has to be part of a bigger solution where there it is made harder for people to immigrate illegally. What the above-board immigrants think or feel is irrelevant. There are massive risks and massive hardships associated with illegal immigration, and those who go through the correct channels are spared that side of things.

That argument is a bit like saying it's risky stealing cars but if you can pull it off you can keep the car, and your neighbour who pays $2000 per month for the same car he bought legally can't complain because he was never exposed to the risks associated with the theft.

Yes Mr Bond, it is exactly as you say. Good analogy. We can't really complain that we have to pay for our car when other's can obtain one through theft, as theft is not even an option for most of us. Hence, irrelevant.

Surely if you lower the bar or set a precedent then you are opening the floodgates for massed illegal immigration.

Definitely can't lower the bar, quite the opposite, it has to be raised (in terms of policing and deportation). However, you can select a worthy section of the illegals to retro-actively grant immigration to. Say someone came in aged 14 with their uncles and aunts, and then is an upstanding citizen for 15+ years, on that kind of criteria I would want to let them stay. I think a blanket amnesty would set the wrong precedent. Of course it comes down to available funding, the fairer the policy, the higher the cost to implement it.

Eh? What's wrong with the immigration paths of the US? I believe the reason why illegal immigration is more rampant in the US is simply because more people wish to go there.

More specifically, many Mexicans wish to go there, and the country has an enormous land border with Mexico.

It's not just Mexicans. English computer people in California, Irish bartenders in NYC, there are illegals in the US from all over. In addition to AC's reason, I think there are more illegals in the US than Canada because the US lets less people in legally.

3 of my English cousins went there in their 20s. None of them did so legally. They all married US citizens and, from that point forward, were "legal".

I accept all that you say about Mexicans.

If the ball was on the other foot, one wonders how many Republican politicians would be accused of pandering to their future electorate by the Democrats.

Yes of course there are illegals from everywhere, and the US, unlike Canada, is a magnet for some people in every country (North Korea being a possible exception). But there main "issue" is with the Mexicans, which is ironic, as they pre-date the yankees anyway.

I don't think that holds. It may be that their main issue is with people entering from Mexico but I doubt that's even true in Miami.

Do illegals in any country pay taxes?
How can they pay taxes into programmes like EI, CPP and Federal taxes if they are illegal and dont have valid social insurance numbers.
I agree they pay consumption taxes on goods they buy.
A single male caught being illegal is much easier to deport than a family of 4 who have been flying under the radar for 10 years.
Some of the illegals do contribute to society and would make good citizens however that is not the point.
Yes they could use the Amnesty but is that fair on those who are legally seeking their way into that country and have to wait years in some cases to get in.
The Govt of the day will decide how they deal with it and they certainly wont let the public vote on it so we really dont have a say.

They can't but that doesn't necessarily make them less valuable to the host country than legal immigrants. They can't make any claim on the government, they can't commit any sort of crime; even a speeding ticket leads to detection of lack of license, lack of work permit, deportation and a week off work before the driver can get back. Illegals have to make an effort to be in the country, they have to have saleable skills (not ones on a government list but ones someone will actually pay for) and they have to stay out of trouble. There's a case that they're the best immigrants.