I would have to ask why he wants to become a citizen in the first place.  When you have more people wanting to become citizens than there is space for, you naturally have to prioritize the people who can do it.  I don't think there is anything unfair in that. 

Regardless of how easy it is or not doesn't justify breaking the law.It's easier for me to steal things I want so does that make it right?

It's not that it's not easy, it's impossible for some. If you're a single male or female that just came here on your own there is no path to citizenship.  It's a big roadblock.  Work visas are temporary and renewal is limited. They can't get citizenship without a green card, they can only get a green card by being here 5 years legally, yet because the way the work visas are setup, that's not possible to do.

The question then becomes - do you believe that any foreigner, regardless of status, should be able to become a U.S. citizen?  If so, then on what basis?

I am guessing that you mean “economic” opportunities here.  I think it can be a valid reason.  Do you think someone who is looking for a job in the U.S. should be able to get one before someone who is escaping political or religious persecution overseas?

So you think that a foreigner who is more qualified, but not facing religious persecution, should be granted U.S. citizenship first?  Well, leading on to the second question, how is a person working as a day laborer job more “qualified” than the next guy?  But in answer to your question, when an illegal immigrant has to resort to working under the table, it is possible that he is taking a job away from an American citizen.  Think about it - if you have an apple orchard and there is a scarcity of workers willing to do the work, what happens?  I can see a few scenarios: 1) the job taken by an American citizen, 2) the job is left unfilled at the hourly rate being offered, and the orchard therefore has to raise the hourly rate until it is filled by an American citizen, or 3) the job is left unfilled, the orchard goes out of business, and consumers have to buy apples from another orchard which can better control costs.We are really relying on an assumption that American citizens will not work for the same wage that illegal aliens will.  I don't think it's really true that illegal immigrants work jobs that American citizens won't, since if you offered a janitorial job to the public paying $100/hour, you'd have plenty of Americans applying for the job.  So it's a matter of expected payment rather than the nature of the job.Now we all know that there is high unemployment in which Americans are getting $0 income.  I do think that over time, American citizens would take up the traditional day laborer jobs that are often filled by illegal immigrants.  Why?  Because a) more unemployed Americans equates to a larger supply of workers, and b) a lower-paying job is better than no job and c) if those jobs are not being filled by illegal immigrants, their availability would be attractive to American citizens.  If you take away those lower-paying jobs, then Americans do not have that option of filling them if they want to.So in the end, it's all a matter of supply and demand.  Perhaps in the past, when more sophisticated jobs were developing in the U.S., educated American citizens went directly to those jobs because the supply was growing.  Now that the supply seems to be decreasing, the workforce has to shift to other jobs which are still in demand - such as those which are currently filled by illegal aliens.

I actually have heard the line before that illegal immigrants take the jobs that citizens “don't want”.  The presumption is actually kind of haughty – that “full-blooded Americans” are too lazy or unwilling to do grunt labor at low pay, so the jobs would go unfilled if not for the illegal aliens.  I think that's somewhat ridiculous; if a job goes unfilled, the employer raises the offering wage.  This will likely cause the price of the final product to be higher as well.As for welfare - I think the issue has to be separated from the immigration issue.  Yes, I think that some people would rather receive benefits for not working rather than take a low-paying job.  But that's a problem with our welfare system, not with immigration.  Now, would I hire the foreigner with experience or the one without who has fled persecution?  Obviously the one who has experience!  But that sounds like a case in which the foreigner with experience would be in line for a temporary worker's permit, not necessarily citizenship. If you equate citizenship with a worker's permit, then I can see your argument.  I don't think the two are equal, though.I will throw this back at you - should citizenship be open to all who come to the U.S. who have "good moral character and true desire to be a productive citizen"?  If yes, then does this apply to those who enter illegal to begin with, or does breaking the law to enter the country show "bad" moral character?  Also, what if twenty million foreigners apply meeting the criteria above - do you grant all of them U.S. citizenship?  If no, what is your basis for granting citizenship to some rather than all?

I still don't understand why emotion has to over-rule the law.The law is what it is... We just choose to see things in shades of gray when the reality of black and white doesn't fit into a mold we want it to. Whatever the law was back when the immigrants from Europe came here, they did so by whatever the law of that day allowed them. I'm sure there were those who did so illegally and they should have been treated as such: law breakers. The idfference now is we just assume that any sob story should grant someone the same (and in some cases better) rights than those who follow the rules.Sorry... this is just the PC world shoving a square peg in a round hole.