Ok, instead of telling me I am a naive idiot,  tell me what you think is wrong with this plan and how you would tweak it.

You are certainly not a naive idiot!  Some good stuff there.

This only indirectly affects the illegals that are already here, and the only "amnesty" is if they leave and come back legally.

I am in favor of "amnesty" for those already here.  Although I have to hold my nose to say so, they do deserve a chance at citizenship.  It will be very difficult, expensive and fruitless to try to remove them.  Spending additional tax dollars on the huge effort to identify them , round them up and deport them just doesn't make sense to me.  Besides that, we need more younger workers on the tax roles.  Our demographic is getting older, some new tax paying younger people will help that.  That being said, there are a number of hoops they must jump through to stay.

First step, make immigration much much easier.  If you apply, pass a background check for criminal activity and meet certain conditions, you can enter.  Past illegal entry will not be held against them unless they had a criminal record while here.

OK, fair enough for new immigrants .

1.  You must exhibit minimal fluency in English, and you must demonstrate on an ongoing basis that your English is improving.

Good, makes sense.

2.  You must be able bodied and willing to work.  It is not necessary to have "needed skills" because anyone that is able bodied can pick tomatoes and clean houses.  But if they do have better skills, like carpentry or rocket science, so much the better.

OK, how would you apply that to children or the aged?  A family might have a wide variety of "skills"

3.  You will be ineligible for government assistance for some time period (eg: 2 years).

Would this also apply to children and their use of public schools?

4.  You will have to pay an additional set of taxes (on top of all the taxes everyone else pays) until you are "Established" which I haven't defined yet, but it will take a couple of years.  If illegals can send home half their illegal. "below minimum wage" salary back to Mexico, then they can pay half of that (or 25% total) to an immigration tax.

Someone else mentioned double taxation, don't see additional taxes as an option.  Possibly a one-time fee?

5.  Employers will have to abide by all wage and hour laws required for citizens.  Immigrants will have to compete for jobs on ability, not cheap labor rates.

OK

6.  When you register, (or with a short period of time) you must provide a contact address.  And you must notify the government immediately if your contact address changes.

OK

Hopefully, the cost of administering the agency that tracks immigrants will be offset by the savings in ICE.

Part of the reason I thought of this was that I have read several articles recently in local and national news that many business are having problems hiring labor.  An article in today's paper said a lot of manufacturing companies and construction companies are missing deadlines because of insufficient labor while at the same time we are trying to run off a lot of laborers.

Seen that as well.  If they want to work, let them.  Would have a condition that if convicted of a felony, they will be deported.

Gary, you forget where you are.  Has to be leftist leanings, the root cause of everything bad in the world.  Has to be.

<slaps forehead> Duh!  Must have gone off on a tangent of logical thinking!! 

It was public, was it?

    Expected the Pelosi quote sooner or later, it was a pretty stupid remark on her part and not at all true.

You're trying to place the blame squarely on him, and it wasn't solely him. Paul Ryan couldn't get it done either. He's the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Republican party in the House and he couldn't get the House Freedom Caucus on board with it.

Perhaps you are right.  Wasn't just the Freedom Caucus that had difficulty with the bill, there was a clear and definitive threat that it would not have passed the House even if the Freedom Caucus was on board.  It would have been dead in the Senate.  The President is the leader of the party as a whole, why would the President go to such lengths to provide the support he did if he knew it was a POS?

I don't think the problem is with Trump.  I still have hope that he can whip the establishment Rs in line.  Trump is at least trying to do what we elected him for.  But the fragmentation within the party is playing into the Dem's favor.

"We" is not all.  The President it acting pretty much as advertised.  The President discovered that health care is "complicated" - just wait until he tackles tax reform!!  Whether he can be effective is yet to be seen, but isn't encouraging.  So, how do you define "establishment"?  Anyone against the President policies?

Don't let the media spin dissuade you from seeing what is really happening.

Agree completely!!

Agreed.  The Rs are bad, BUT I still don't think they are as bad as the Ds or as irrelevant as all the others. But we do have to let them know how we feel, and if there are enough of us, they may listen, at least a little.

Agreed. I'm done with the Republicans.

No worries!  I am as frustrated as you with the establishment Republicans.  Even more frustrated with them than the Democrats.  At least the Democrats tell you they are for all the nasty stuff we dislike.  The Republicans lie, and tell us what we want to hear, then promote the status quo.  They ARE the SWAMP! 

So where will y'all go to find that political satisfaction?  I can understand it when your choice of Party/President doesn't turn out as promised.

Libertarian?  Maybe they don't have cookies, but do have pot! 

Possibly a centrist Republican/Democrat?  That way you can criticize both sides (and take heat from both sides)??

The Trump camp is talking about removing the Federal tax deduction for those that pay State Tax.  This would hurt rich people in states that have large state income taxes, and most of those states are Blue (primarily California and New York).

I say go for it!  Florida doesn't have a State income tax, so why should I pay more  and make it easier for Blue States to fund their socialist programs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-state-local-deduction-gary-cohn-2017-4

Won't happen, the beneficiaries of that deduction are the one's that make political contributions.

The graph you posted has nothing to do with what you just wrote, and does not support what you wrote.    I think there are a lot of factors that you don't account for and there is a much data missing that you need to analyze to support your hypothesis which frankly I don't think is accurate.

The Mother Jones graph may be simplistic, but it clearly illustrates that wages for the bottom 80% of earners have remained flat for 40 some years.  Granted there are other factors involved but it is a fact.  Coupling that with inflation over time, the buying power of those in that bottom 80% have taken a big hurt. 

I will agree with you that upward mobility has been tougher over the past 10 or 15 years, but I don't think it has anything to do with what  the rich make, it has more to do with 90+ million discouraged workers unable to find suitable work.

Glad that you recognize that upward mobility is far more difficult, particularly if a person doesn't own a specific skill. Personally think that has been going on for more than 25 years..  Agree that the stagnation isn't directly related to what the rich make.  So, why are there 90+ million discouraged workers? 

My hope is the with Trump's more business friendly attitude and "America first" mantra that things will begin to change and our economy will begin to boom.

I'm "hoping" along with you.  We have a consumer society, without customers, that boom isn't going to happen.  With so many people living on the borderline, how is the President going to increase demand for products?  For the bottom 80%, there isn't a lot of disposable income available.  Without extra cash to spend, where are the customers?  Half of all tax filers pay little or no income tax, so a tax cut does nothing for them.  As previously mentioned, the top 20% of earners already pay most income tax.

I'm hoping that the global playing field levels out a little, in that product dumping in the US will be curtailed, the corporate tax issues will be drastically improved and the business and regulatory environment change so much that companies would be foolish to continue moving jobs offshore and outsourcing. 

Capital ALWAYS follows return. Companies will inevitably move to areas that allow them to produce goods at the lowest cost possible.  Our economy is global, whether we like it or not.  I'm all for making our businesses more competitive, and that competition is off-shore. Unlike the 1950's - 60's and maybe the 70's, we are not a self contained economy, capable of increasing growth without the rest of the world.

Those are issues worth talking about, not some foolish graph from far left website that is being to used as a foundation to argue for socialism, which NEVER works.

Can you point out the errors in the "foolish" graph?  How in the world is that being used to promote socialism??

Well Mr. Nudnik, you certainly are a prolific and entertaining poster!!  Appreciate the enjoyment - Thanks!

Oh, I don't think it's murder - I think it's a bunch of cells, and it's like taking a dump. But if you want to go out on that premise then Little Joe is probably a better person to argue with.

This really does get to the crux of the abortion issue - just when does human life start?

I'm sure we both know very intelligent, decent people who sincerely believe that human life starts at the moment of conception.  I can understand that, there are very reasonable arguments to support that position.  I'm sure we both know (and I suspect that you are in this camp) that human life does not begin until sometime after the moment of conception.  These people are every bit as intelligent, decent and sincere in their belief.  They also have very reasonable arguments to support their cause.

The tough part for the "after conception" crowd, is just when that occurs.

I often hear how the left is "forcing stuff down our throats", yet for the abortion issue, it is the pro-life groups who have decided that their point of view is the right and moral version so we all have to follow that.  The latest rallying cry is de-fund Planned Parenthood.  There is already a Federal law that prohibits Federal dollars for being used for abortion, and I've never seen any evidence that PP is breaking the law.  Would seem to me that the pro-life crowd would be overjoyed at methods that could reduce abortions, yet that doesn't seem to be the case.

Personally, I believe the Federal government should neither promote nor prohibit abortion.  The decision to have an abortion is intensely emotional and spiritual, best handled by the mother, father and their doctor.

Will part company with you on this being potentially a states rights issue, government at any level should not be involved in this decision.