Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network offers "Making the Case: 7 Reasons Why Congress Should Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform this Year" (huffingtonpost.com/simon-rosenberg/making-the-case-why-congr_b_193621.html). As one might expect from the source, all seven are actually reasons *not* to pass "reform".

His first reason is that we need "reform" in order to remove the "trap door" that allows employers to pay illegal aliens below the minimum wage:

it needs to be understood that these undocumenteds are already here and working. If you are undocumented, you are not eligible for welfare. If you are not working, you go home. Thus, in order to remove this "trap door," we need to either kick five percent of existing American workforce out of the country -- a moral and economic impossibility -- or legalize them. There is no third way on this one. They stay and become citizens or we chase them away.

1. Even if they aren't eligible for welfare, they can still get it either illegally or legally through their U.S. citizen children.
2. Many unemployed illegal aliens are remaining in the U.S., such as by being intermittent day laborers.
3. We don't need to "kick" that 5% out of the country at once. We could take steps to encourage them to leave over time if our political leaders would let us. Given the job situation and the fact that citizens can obtain a host of benefits, illegal aliens leaving and freeing up a job for a citizen would be a net economic gain. "Chasing them away" over time is not a drastic step, and it's the only realistic public policy.

He also says, "[l]egalization does not create a flood of new immigrants", which is obviously absurd. Then:

[Legalization] does the very inverse of what is being suggested -- it creates fairer competition for American workers -- not unfair competition. The status quo is what should be most unacceptable to those who claim they are advocating for the American worker.

That competition - fair or unfair - should not be here in the first place. And, a supply of millions of new legal workers would drastically lower the wages for those jobs that are only open to legal workers. Rosenberg is only concerned with race-based power, not the American worker.

His second point advocates a whopping gain of $4.4 billion per year from amnesty; the third falsely claims that legalization would reduce rather than increase illegal alien smuggling. An amnesty would cause a mad rush for the border. That point also claims that we have to give in to what he wants to lessen support for illegal activity in the illegal alien community; why would we even want to be presented with such a choice in the first place?

The fourth point is the message we'd be sending to Latin America. Contrary to what he says, the actual message would be one of capitulation and would make the Mexican government even more demanding and give them even more power inside the U.S.

His fifth point is that he wants a "clean and thorough" Census. He wants his race-based power, and he wants it now!

This sixth involves ending adding immigration-related amendments to bills. Apparently amnesty would have many powers.

The seventh and final is the most disreputable of the lot, called "Finally, in the age of Obama, we must be vigilant to stamp out racism wherever it appears":

It will be increasingly difficult for the President and his allies to somehow argue that watching Glenn Beck act out burning alive of a person on the air over immigration, "left leaning" Ed Schultz give air time to avowed racist Tom Tancredo on MSNBC or Republican ads comparing Mexican immigrants to Islamic terrorists is somehow different from the racially insensitive speech that got Rush Limbaugh kicked off Monday Night Football, or Don Imus kicked off the radio.

He's misleading about the Beck segment: the person being set on fire represented the average citizen who'd been a victim of Obama's policies. He's lying about Tancredo, and, while it's unclear which ads he's referring to, they probably don't exist in the form he claims. And, he appears to be advocating for silencing those on the other side, perhaps through some form of Fairness Doctrine-related legislation.

Even at the HuffPost, most of the commenters are strongly opposed to Rosenberg's misleading list.