Sean Hannity interviewed DHS head Michael Chertoff and (perhaps he was being disingenuous) got a little confused:

HANNITY: Because you had made a controversial statement, and you seem to be backing off of it now, and it was that people that are here illegally, that they all ought to be sent back... And it seems like now you've sort of backed off that position a little bit, because there are million that we estimate that are in this country illegally...

CHERTOFF: Well, what I said, Sean, was this. I said everybody that we apprehend, that we catch at the border, who's coming in illegally, we ought to send back...

Now, of course, I was about the only person who didn't simply take Drudge's and AFP's word for it, and actually read what he said at the time: Chertoff promotes "Temporary Worker Program" at Senate meeting. Needless to say, the interview goes on, sounding very similar to what's in his prepared remarks discussed at that link:

Well, Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality [why we can't just tell all the illegal aliens in the U.S. to go home].

I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows.

Now, this is not an amnesty. This is not — the president's proposal is not a path to citizenship. It's clearly temporary, and it clearly envisions people who would have to commit to go back...

See the last link. Their scheme is clearly not temporary. Then, Hannity realizes the awful truth:

The only thing I would respectfully question you on or disagree with you slightly on is those that are here illegally, those that didn't respect the laws of the United States or our sovereignty, I want to go back to that question again, because basically you're saying they can stay.

Then, Chertoff lets Hannity in on the awful truth:

And we also want to punish employers who don't use the legally available channel for getting workers across to do temporary work.

And that's tough. I mean, a lot of people are not going to like the fact that we're cracking down on employers who — we're doing it now in nuclear plants, we're doing it now in critical infrastructure.

Those are about the only places where they do it. And, I wonder what would happen if the DHS decided to crack down on employers. Would those employers stop donating money to the GOP?

In other words, the choice to the GOP is as follows:
- Look the other way and get donations
- Enforce the law and don't get donations

Question: isn't one of the major differences between successful and unsuccessful countries the level of corruption in the country?