Reihan Salam of National Review discusses Marco Rubio's amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform in general here and here.

Here are some questions based on those posts. The reader is urged to ask Salam these questions in comments, on Twitter (@reihan), and at his personal appearances:

1. You say "[Marco Rubio's] approach reflects core conservatives priorities". Here are 10 reasons Marco Rubio's amnesty isn't conservative. Which of those do you think are wrong, and why?

2.You say "[self-deport] seems to be the view of a vocal minority of diminishing influence... a large number of U.S. voters find a hard attrition strategy unpalatable". Isn't that supposed change in point of view due to propaganda? For instance, even today one sees politicians and the media using the deportations false choice. After Mitt Romney's single time where he promoted "self-deport", supporters of mass immigration launched a campaign to mock that plan. Has attrition been given a fair hearing? Why give up on something just because it's suffering under the impact of a propaganda campaign?

3.Isn't one of the major reasons we have massive illegal immigration because of corrupt politicians who've looked the other way (or encouraged it) for some form of gain? Imagine that every politician was like Joe Arpaio. How many illegal aliens would we have in the U.S. now?

4.What are major politicians who aren't truly strong on immigration going to do after "reform"? For instance, both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Antonio Villaraigosa have enabled illegal immigration in the hopes of gaining something for themselves and their associates. Are they going to reform after "reform"? Of course not: they're going to continue doing after reform what they did before. Any type of "reform" would reward the crooked behavior of hundreds of politicians over the years. What's your plan to deal with that?

5.Likewise with the establishment media. They've printed hundreds of propaganda articles designed to enable illegal immigration. Are they going to suddenly reverse course after "reform"? Of course not: their actions will have been rewarded and they'll do after "reform" what they did before. What's your plan to deal with that?

6.Likewise with all the far-left and business groups whose job it is to increase immigration and/or weaken immigration enforcement: American Civil Liberties Union, National Council of La Raza, National Restaurant Association, US Chamber of Commerce, and on and on. As with the others, "reform" would reward their past behavior and they're going to do after "reform" what they do now. What's your plan to deal with that?

7.You come out in favor of a plan by Peter Skerry of Boston College to legalize adult illegal aliens without giving them citizenship. You admit that those "permanent noncitizen residents" "might at some point in the future be granted a path to citizenship, as Congress can always decide to revise the terms of the deal." Wouldn't one have to be Pollyanna's Pollyanna to think otherwise, given the track record politicians - D and R - have amassed on the immigration issue and given how much money and influence the groups in the previous question have to push their agenda?