The AP follows up on the big illegal alien march yesterday:

LOS ANGELES - Thousands of immigration advocates marched through downtown Los Angeles in one of the largest demonstrations for any cause in recent U.S. history.

"Immigration advocates"? The march was about supposed "rights" for illegal immigrants. The bill to be debated in the Senate this week is about illegal immigrants and border security. Anyone who chooses to ignore the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is being disingenuous about the terms of the debate. Every nation has the right and obligation to control its borders. It's a matter of basic security and sovereignty. That's what the debate is about, not "immigration advocacy." We are not against immigration from Mexico, we are for orderly, legal immigration and border security.

Here's an alternative view from Tamar Jacoby in The Washington Post:

'Guest Workers' Won't Work
A Path to Permanent Citizenship Would Benefit Everyone"

....

Policymakers from George W. Bush to Sens. John McCain, John Cornyn and Edward Kennedy grasp that the main problem with our immigration system is the lack of visas for foreign workers. International supply and demand -- demand created by U.S. labor needs -- generate a flow of roughly 1.5 million immigrants a year. But our annual immigration quotas accommodate less than two-thirds of that number, producing an annual spillover of about a half-million illegal workers that erodes the rule of law and undermines our security.

The logical remedy: to provide these additional workers with visas and allow them to enter the country in a lawful, dignified way. The only problem: Policymakers are afraid the public would reject such a large increase in permanent immigration. So even those who have been most courageous in promoting reform talk instead about temporary visas. Bush and Cornyn would require foreigners to go home at the end of their work stints. McCain and Kennedy would allow some workers to stay permanently, but they, too, call their proposal a temporary worker program, and many of those who support their package -- including myself -- have gone along in adopting the term.

....

In 1986, we got amnesty and promises of better border security. We got the former without the latter. Quite simply, this leaves us skeptical when we hear similar promises today. That's why we want to see border enforcement first this time.

Previous:
Illegal Aliens

Others:
Patterico
Memeorandum
Michelle Malkin
Outside the Beltway