Questions about the "high" cost of immigration enforcement

The Migration Policy Institute has released a study claiming that the cost of immigration enforcement is too high.

Here are some questions for those leaders who are using the study to push their loose immigration/amnesty agendas. They should be able to answer these questions, yet the chance of any of them doing so is small. Since they won't and can't answer these questions convincingly, please re-evaluate whether you should take their advice on policy.

Please contact those leaders on Twitter and through other channels and ask them one or more of the questions. If you get any sort of response, please let me know in comments or @24AheadDotCom_ .

The questions (more may be added later):

1. If the immigration enforcement promised in the 1986 amnesty had materialized, would we be spending as much now on enforcement? Wouldn't enforcement then have paid off now, as fewer potential illegal aliens decided to risk coming here illegally?

2. What would be the cost of reducing immigration enforcement, which would lead to the loose borders situation that far-left groups like the ACLU and libertarians like the Koch family want? There are, for instance, over 500 million remaining people in Latin America. If we reduced enforcement, wouldn't more come here than would otherwise do so? What would be the cost of that to the U.S. as a whole? What would be the cost to the majority of Americans who are below upper middle class? What would be the cost to lower-skilled Americans?

3. If we increased the number of sanctuary cities and increased the benefits to illegal aliens (such as in-state tuition for all illegal aliens, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) wouldn't you agree that that would lead to increased illegal immigration (such as of a good portion of those 500 million people remaining in Latin America)? You can agree to that without saying that illegal aliens are here for benefits, but just by admitting that those benefits make being an illegal alien easier. If we make it easier to be an illegal alien, won't that increase illegal immigration? Likewise, if we reduce those benefits, won't that make it more difficult to be an illegal alien, and won't that lead to decreased illegal immigration?

4. The main reason we have a good amount of immigration enforcement is because that's what most Americans want. If George W Bush, Barack Obama, and most other political leaders had their way, we'd have less enforcement. So, if comprehensive immigration reform passes and it spurs a new wave of illegal immigration, won't that lead to the demand for more enforcement?

5. Related to the last two questions, aren't those who support benefits to illegal aliens increasing the costs of immigration enforcement? That is, when the ACLU opposes immigration enforcement, that enables more illegal immigration. And, more illegal immigration leads to a demand for more enforcement. Aren't those who fight against immigration enforcement contributors to increased immigration enforcement? Would immigration enforcement cost less if groups like the ACLU, the National Council of La Raza, the Democratic Party, and some Republican leaders didn't keep trying to undercut it?

6. To put it another way, would immigration enforcement cost less if corrupt politicians didn't fight against enforcement? Democratic leaders want race-based power, and some Democrats and some Republican leaders get donations and other monetary gain from companies that profit from illegal immigration. If most Democratic leaders and some Republican leaders weren't willing to turn a blind eye to massive illegal activity, wouldn't immigration enforcement cost less?

7. Massive/illegal immigration leads to lower wages and lower safety standards. (If you disagree, explain why businesses support it so much). Would immigration enforcement cost less if Democratic politicians actually represented the interests of those lower-skilled Americans - the ones harmed by massive/illegal immigration - they claim to represent?

8. (ADDED 1/10/13) Hopefully you don't think the functions performed by the Customs Service count as "immigration enforcement". What spending amount do you get after you subtract the amount spent by the Customs Service? Would you agree that casts a great deal of doubt on whether MPI is credible? (Note: see UPDATE 2 at the first link in this post)

Please ask those questions of those who are using this study to support illegal immigration and/or to push comprehensive immigration reform, and let me know if you get any sort of response.