Mark Krikorian offers "L'Intifada en Los Estados Unidos" (link), which discusses a few points previously made here:

1. The guest/temporary worker schemes will result in millions of people coming here to stay.
2. Those millions - mostly from Mexico - will give that country even more power over us than they already have.
3. If we tried to kick them out, it would result in civil unrest similar to that in Paris.

...a Mexican immigrant population of 20 or 25 million is qualitatively different from today’s already-huge 11 million. It would create more of a constituency for the Aztlan irredentism that is already a normal part of political debate on the Left in California; more immediately, it would facilitate the Mexican government’s anti-assimilation initiatives (described in detail here by Heather Mac Donald) designed to create a regime of shared Mexican-U.S. sovereignty over much of our population, with Mexico City serving, in effect, as a second federal government that local and state officials would be answerable to. And when we rouse ourselves to reassert our exclusive sovereignty, as the French state tried to do in the no-go zones of its immigrant suburbs, the pushback might well be as intense...

Then, he provides information on other countries we could get serf labor from (see my Bangladesh example):

if you want huge amounts of really cheap labor, go to Indonesia (242 million people, 88 percent Muslim, per capita GDP $3,500) or Pakistan (162 million, 97 percent Muslim, GDP $2,200) or Bangladesh (144 million, 83 percent Muslim, GDP $2,000) or Egypt (77 million, 94 percent Muslim, GDP $4,200).

Someone from the Cato Institute actually suggested that we bring tsunami victims here as guest workers. No, I'm not joking (reason . com/hod/ww011405.shtml).

Neither George Bush nor John McCain - nor even Ted Kennedy - want immigrant uprisings (en.wikipedia . org/wiki/List_of_riots#19th_century) in America's cities. But their immigration proposals would move us in that direction. We need to choose a different path.