For all my complaining that editorials force me to water down — and to an extent, dumb down — my ideas, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the lead editorial I wrote for today was minimally edited. Often times I will feel uneasy about saying that I "wrote" an editorial when it's so heavily redacted that even the sentence structure is different, but this one isn't so bad.

For those of you that prefer the raw (right...), unedited version, enjoy:

In what appears to be part of a string of proposals that the President has been “meaning to get around to,” President Bush last week unveiled a plan for immigration reform. By most accounts, this “new” proposal is little more than a repackaging of the President’s so-called “Guest Worker Program” that he proposed in early 2004. The President should, however, be given credit for rekindling a much-needed debate — even if his plan is off-target.

To be fair, immigration — especially illegal immigration — is an immensely complicated, highly polarized, divisive issue; and the political and practical realities are such that there is no quick, simple, painless — or even fair — solution on which everyone will agree.

The President’s proposal to beef up border security and deportation measures is indeed a step in the right direction, but an incomplete one. Ending the so-called policy of “catch and release” — when immigrants are apprehended only to later be released due to a lack of detention facilities — would certainly have a noticeable impact on illegal immigration, but not as large as many are hoping.

According to the Urban Institute, roughly half of illegal immigrants in 2003 came across the Mexican border. The rest entered the country perfectly legally and simply never left. Even if the southern border were to be completely fortified, it would likely reduce illegal immigration by less than half as immigrants found new ways to enter the country.

That is certainly not to marginalize the effect, as even a 40 percent reduction would be substantial, but people should not be under the impression that plugging the porous southern border will stop illegal immigration in its tracks.

Even if illegal immigration was reduced to zero, there is of course the issue of the estimated 10-12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. The President claims to be against amnesty, and there is no reason to doubt him. His guest worker plan, however, that would require immigrants to leave the country after a maximum of six years, is not likely to be well-received by the immigrant community. Nor is it likely to be effective, as is not reasonable to assume that immigrants would be lining up to participate.

Opponents of a guest worker program — or, for that matter, legitimizing immigrants in any way — seemingly fail to realize that rounding up and deporting millions of illegal immigrants is practically unfeasible, financially irresponsible and morally questionable, at best.

While blanket amnesty is certainly a slap in the face to those legally immigrating to the U.S., blanket deportations are simply never going to happen. It is no doubt unfair to those trying to immigrate illegally, but it is a harsh — not to mention unfair — reality. In dealing with this reality, there should be an avenue through which law-abiding, tax-paying, socially-contributing immigrants can pursue legal status — a sort of “earned legalization.” If, however, an illegal immigrant is detained for committing a crime, it should be perfectly reasonable and legal to deport them.

More should also be done to decrease the incentives for illegal immigration. Not only on the demand side (the draw of labor opportunities), such as prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and similar means, but incentives can also be reduced on the supply side of the equation (making legal immigration more attractive.)

Our current legal immigration system — with its slothful bureaucracy, years-long waits and first-come, first-served process — is far too inefficient for any reasonable person to want to traverse.

These inefficiencies could be curtailed by things as simple as a nominal fee for an immigrant application, a standard immigrant profile that requires prospective immigrants to have certain skills or characteristics before entering the country, etc.

Such a process could weed out immigrants that are unsure of their determination to immigrate, as well as prevent those who don’t plan to contribute to American society from entering in the first place.

The fact remains, however, that none of these policies have any hope of being effective until the massive influx of illegal aliens is slowed. The bleeding must first be stopped before the wound can be treated. The fact that border security is first and foremost in the President’s plan should leave Americans (very) cautiously optimistic.

For all its faults, President Bush’s plan is at least an attempt to address a problem that three out of four Americans believe the government is not effectively addressing, according to a CBS News poll taken in October. Whether or not the plan will be effective remains to be seen. We certainly aren’t holding our breath. The President may be talking the talk, but we’ll believe it when we see it.