Two Schools of Thought on Immigration Reform - Which Is Better?

Should there be a path to citizenship for those who enter the country illegally?

President Barack Obama has called for comprehensive reform and indicated any approach that omits a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a deal breaker. Republicans also want reform, but have different ideas about how best to accomplish that.

A Roll Call post outlines two GOP schools of thought when it comes to immigration reform -- one which includes a pathway to citizenship and one which would block citizenship or any other legal status "condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United States of any individual.”

On Monday, Aug. 5, Rep. Paul Broun -- whose 10th Congressional District includes Barrow, Walton and Oconee counties plus parts of Gwinnett and Clarke counties -- released a statement after introducing H.R. 326 which read in part: 

“This resolution will not only stop future illegal immigration in our country, but it will also stop the outrageous growth of spending that will occur if amnesty became law. In our nation’s current state of fiscal emergency, we simply cannot afford to take on the extra costs of legalizing 11.5 million illegal immigrants, which would create a new wave of spending under entitlement programs, and burden taxpayers with a slew of unnecessary costs. Instead we must work to secure our borders and enforce our laws on the books before we begin any conversation on amnesty.”

Which approach do you support? Let us know in the comments below or share your thoughts in a Patch blog by visiting our "Blogs" page (see tab above) and looking for the "Start Your Own Blog" link on the left side of the page.