Somebody is starting to pay attention to the - "going to the back of the line" -  rhetoric in the immigration debate. Daniel M. Kowalski is trying to explain the myths about the immigration line in Washington Post. This is something I mentioned sometime ago in the post about the what is left unspecified in the proposal to address the illegal immigration. Daniel is an immigration lawyer, so knows what exactly he is talking about. The key point is the lines are too long and there is quota of how many people can get a green card every year. A reform that doesn't address the quota is impractical.

For comprehensive immigration reform to work, Congress will have to substantially increase the number of green cards available each year in every visa preference. This may mean, for example, allowing a one-time surge of visas to wipe out the backlog, then doubling or tripling some quotas.

When the broader immigration reform does not address which line illegal immigrants will get into (employment based or family based), the proposal to include same-sex couples certainly looks like family-based lines. Both lines are useless without changing the quotas.