OK, I accept the challenge:

Why the rush to legalize these 12 million? The arguments adduced in favor of the Senate bill by its proponents are largely specious and are premised on a number of fallacies — paramount of which is the ostensible “need” for immediate legalization.

Why not enforce existing immigration laws first? If rigorous enforcement was implemented, many illegals would leave the country because there would no longer be any incentives to remain. Thus, over time the problem would be significantly reduced by a natural attrition.

This approach is not only eminently reasonable, it would also be rather effective in reducing the number of illegal immigrants that burden the infrastructure of municipalities.

This approach refuses to acknowledge and accept the most spurious false choice presented by advocates of the Senate bill: you can’t deport 12 million people. Memo to champions of the Senate bill: you don’t have to nor are your opponents advocating same. (See aforementioned proposed alternative).

Another one of the many fallacies repeated endlessly is that you can’t keep people from Central America out who are looking for higher paying jobs in the United States.

Really?

Those who offer this proposition in support of the futility of enforcement act as if income disparity between Mexico and the United States is a recent phenomenon. How do they explain the absence of a massive illegal immigration problem prior to 1986?

They can’t, of course, because prior to granting amnesty in 1986, the country was actually serious about enforcing the immigration laws and didn’t explicitly sanction, through neglect, an invasion of illegal aliens across its Southern Border.