The stark reality of an overdue debate between presidential candidates was to expose the similar economic implications of each party’s approach.Their forward-looking aspirations are frustrated by the need to address increasingly evident consequences of a regrettable decision to facilitate and condone four years of illegal immigration. Both proposed solutions inevitably would lead to further increased federal spending deficits to be financed by some combination of taxation and borrowing. The televised discussion was long on superficial policy rhetoric and short on practical specifics as to how objectives could be accomplished with the likelihood of another narrowly divided Congress. How do millions of unvetted and dispersed illegal immigrants get rounded up and deported, to where and at what cost?How could the Russo-Ukranian war be ended prior to inauguration? On the other side, how could extraordinary financial inducements to random newcomers (transportation, lodging, childcare, health services, tax credits, direct subsidies, credit cards, cellphones, etc.) be fairly reconciled with the plight of less fortunate citizens requiring assistance or whose employment may be replaced by illegals or artificial intelligence? America can be exemplary, but it cannot save the world.Realistically, any meaningful course correction will take time and be expensive. Phil Osifer