That's the problem, it's not really risky for employers.

I'm a big fan of comprehensive reform, but there seems to be an unholy alliance between open-border radicals and certain business interests to keep the status quo. The weird thing is that the big fortune 500 political donors probably don't actually hire many illegals due to the nature of their business... it's further down the business food chain, but I guess those faolks must have influence too.

We obviously have jobs for immigrants, but when we let in too many illegals we flood the lower-middle class job markets with artificially low cost labor. That screws some Americans who'd like those jobs, and also the rest of us who have to pay for the social programs that the employers and illegals are not paying for (via taxes).

We should setup a system to readily and easily allow in the people we do need, while still maintaining robust screening to avoid criminals and national security threats, and being flooded with people we cannot economically and culturally assimilate.

1. Prioritize Mexico & Canada (proximity and strong economic and cultural ties). Then our permanent military allies.

2. Match immigrants to job requirements/skill level.

3. Eliminate friends and family programs, which amounts to open borders once you get one legal immigrant in to establish a beachhead. Allow immediate family, but only after a waiting period and they still have to be screened thoroughly.

4. Establish real criminal penalties for illegal entry (or visa overstay). Like 6-12 months in a low security detention camp before deportation.

5. Establish even more severe penalties for employers who knowingly hire them.

6. Shred treaties which obligate us to accept asylum seekers (that kind of thing is just more open borders BS). We are perfectly capable of making our own decisions about asylum seekers, without that being dictated by world government. That should be a political decision weighting economics, societal cost, and national security with charity.