Mark:
I must say that this issue could quite possibly be the deciding issue of this election. As several radio personalities here in Dallas have said...this issue is way TOO complicated to play out on blogs, on local evening news.

There are serious consequences to any steps we as a nation take.

Things we know won't work.
- Building a wall. We know it won't work
as the wall in Southern Mexico doesn't
work.
- We cannot turn 11 to 12 million people
into felons. At the rate of a Harvard
education for every federal prisoner a
year, we'd bankrupt ourselves in no time.
- Blanket amnesty isn't fair to the hundreds
of thousands that do it legally every year.

We do know what is a huge problem, and that's the strain on education and health care that illegal immigrants put on local governments; Particularly Emergency Rooms.

I think the United States Senate, with some commonsense amendments were close to creating a law that was what the American people expect of our leaders and that was compromise as well as a modicum of fairness.

I understand illegal immigration is indeed an illegal act. But to punish someone who will go to extremes for the American dream because they come from Mexico seems hardly fair when we allow it if they are Cuban.

I believe we need to tell our senators to get to work again and compromise!!!

I think a big part of the problem is the lack of education many Americans have on this issue. I feel that if they better understood the negative impact that illegals have on our country, our economy and on the average American, they would be much more vocal on the issue and realize just how dangerous the plan the Democrats are advancing is.

Well, it's time to decide which side of the republican party you folks are on. Are you on the side of the hard working, blue collar, values voters? Or are you part of the cigar chomping, big business segment who make their fortunes exploiting cheap labor in this country (via illegals) or elsewhere in the world? I believe Mr. Bush is with the latter (he can't alienate those Rangers after all). Mark, you sound like you are with the former.

I guess family values will have to be propogated by only those smart enough to get a college degree. You can't really get married, buy a house and have children on Walmart wages.

No worries for the party though. Those values voters are too busy worrying about abortion, gay marriage and the so-called "war on Christians" to realize they are backsliding by the minute...and paying for those fat cat's cigars. Bravo, Mr. Rove. Bravo, Mr Murdoch. Bravo, "new media".

WOW!!!!

This isn't a Republican problem or a Democrat problem extramedium.

I can see what people on one end of the political spectrum where Jackasses roam seem to think of this issue:
Illegal Immigration isn't a problem as long as it's a problem for the Republican Party.

Just goes to show you that the party with a perjurer as their biggest star seems to never have problems with illegal actitivies unless they are calling legal activities by Bush illegal.

OR EXTRAMEDIUM...am I reading what you're saying wrong?

Mark,

We have some common ground !

Glad to see you are going to join us in raising the minimum wage, because as we all know, a person can not live on minimum wage.

I've been a small business owner for almost 3 decades and without exception I only hire Americans and my first choice is always Veterans. The old sage is really applicable "Find good people - pay them well"

-Joe

Mark,
"The illegals aren't the backbone of the American economy but, rather, the backbone of a labor force which keeps blue-collar wages down."

If, as you say, you are from the Las Vegas area, I am astounded that it took you this long to catch on. Roofers, framers, tilers, landscapers, meat packers -- just about any blue-collar trade you could name (that isn't state-provided or union controlled, that is), is the same way. So think about this: say 11 million of those folks didn't exist anymore? What do you think the economic impact would be? Additionally, say we wanted to deport all of them, or put them all in prison (or some combination of both), what do you think the additional economic impact would be? These people are going to require lawyers and/or guards -- not to mention facilities... Jeepers.

Those are the deep questions, and they are exceedingly complicated. But in the mean time you repeatedly champion the low unemployment numbers. If they are really so low, what the hell do you think is going to happen if we deport 11 million people? In light of all these considerations I am repeatedly astounded that you, and others, have paid so much attention to what a bunch of high school reprobates are doing with various flags and all. According to you, those kids have radicalized your thought. But if that is true, you are being as juvenile as they. Think about the big picture. We need a big picture solution. And if we don't get it, it won't be workable.

I read "The Grapes of Wrath."

Try as they might, the antique media - in this case MSNBS- err MSNBC - can't quite pull the wool over the readers' eyes. Despite the echo of Spanish guitar, despite the woeful depiction of the dispossessed victim of the Mexican social order, despite the poignant depiction of the wistful immigrant with an eye on the prize of the great hope of America, I somehow can't quite find it within myself to feel moved by this display of pandering on the part of MSNBC to the out-of-focus issue of illegal workers here in what used to be referred to as "The United States of America." For the 12 million or so of you who are new to the neighborhood, I say. "Bienvenidos." Welcome to the Estados Unidos.

Let's see if I get this right. According to the article referenced above, Maria Hernandez found herself a part of the Mexican underclass in 1986. She chose to come to America in an illegal fashion, against all odds that the gringos put before her for a better tomorrow in the Estados Unidos, home of the running dog capitalist exploiting cigar-chomping gringo pig. Then, because she loved America so much, picking tomatoes, squash, and limes with no health insurance, no taxes taken out, no benefits whatsoever, and assumedly horrid living conditions in Homestead, Florida, she decided to find a way to bring her children here to be with her. Again, she made some choices.

After two years of illegal habitation in the Estados Unidos, she "scraped together" some savings. By MSNBC's own admission, she once again chose to commit herself to breaking American immigration law.

"...she began an arduous two-year process of bringing each of her children across the border. She secured false birth certificates for some, and arranged "coyotes"—guides who help migrants cross over—for others. Palacios made it across easily—fast asleep in the back seat of a car. Her brother Jorge, though, suffered a
harrowing journey in which he nearly drowned, and was then caught and deported once he arrived
in Texas (he succeeded on a second try). Eventually, all the kids joined their mother."

How much money did Maria spend illegally with disreputable characters to smuggle her children into the United States? Why did she not choose to contact the appropriate authorities to begin the process of immigration during this same two-year period? She chose to spend her clearly hard-earned capital on a bunch of "coyotes" and document forgery experts instead. Everybody in this world has choices. Maria made a series of choices. Each of them was deliberate. Each of them involved breaking US immigration law in substantive ways.

MSNBC goes on to tout the diversity and hardship experienced by this disparate band of downtrodden illegal immigrants as they trace the ongoing confusion and chaos that surrounded the amnesty program promulgated by the Reagan administration. (Insert Mexican guitar themed music here)...

"Raymundo's fear and Palacios's defiance show how diverse the immigrant experience can be..."

Excuse me if I take a moment to barf. So far, I think that MSNBC is willing to stipulate that Maria has commited at least five felonious crimes. 1) she crossed over illegally; 2) she "secured false [birth] certificates" for some of her children (and I'll only count 1 for purposes of this discussion); 3) she conspired with illegal human traffickers to bring at least one of her children into the Estados Unidos in contravention of US immigrant laws (again, I'm only counting 1 in this instance); 4) In an apparently separate attempt at illegal human trafficking, Jorge was unsuccessfully transported and was subsequently deported. A second attempt was necessary in order to get him into the Estados Unidos, but what the hell, we're a compassionate people, so I'll only count it as one attempt - yet again; 5) "Eventually, all the kids joined their mother." I think the reader can safely assume that at least two more actions were necessary in order to bring all the family here into the Estados Unidos.

In any event, Maria and her brood made it here relatively "under the radar," in direct violation of US immigration laws. Now let's multiply their experience by 3 million people. We've got a serious problem on our hands...

Before anyone goes off on me for being some sort of xenophobic, gun-toting, confederate flag-waving, beer-sucking redneck, let me go on the record to state that I support rational immigration to this country with open arms. It's just that I can't stand it when people bump into line to get ahead of others and then claim that they have some sort of inherent right to assert themselves into our political discourse by virtue of their overwhelming presence in numbers... They didn't play by the rules for immigration, yet now seem intent on demanding their piece of the American pie - as if they were actively participating in the baking thereof. Also... I don't drink beer.

I feel like I'm battling squatters in my home who raid my fridge, run up my phone bills, and raid my change stash to advance their thirst for cerveza - all on my tab. When is enough enough?

So let me recap. MSNBC would have us buy into the pathos of poor Maria and her downtrodden children just trying to live the good life of America, despite the fact that they got here illegally. Then, the sad indignity of having limited opportunities for advancement because they could not document their legal status should tear us apart, because, after all - this is AMERICA! How could this travesty occur?! MSNBC should be asking a straightforward question at this point. Since they won't, let me ask it.

Since 1986, when Maria first came here to the Estados Unidos, she has worked in one capacity or another. How much Social Security has she paid? MSNBC doesn't seem interested in examining that aspect of her employment status, even as they freely admit that Maria chose to break a series of immigration laws in order to advance her - and her childrens' lifestyle - here in the Estados Unidos, going so far as to engage in conspiring to commit documentation fraud and conspiring to engage in human trafficking across our southern border. But no matter! It's all about how poor Maria and her children have suffered as they lived a life "under the radar" here in the Estados Unidos.

MSNBC goes on to extrapolate the Hernandez experience against the growing tide of "nativism" or "populism" that is becoming more and more evident in this country. But what strikes me about the overall tone of this "expose" on the part of MSNBC is the lack of attention paid to the criminal element that is so pervasively active in the dynamics of the story. Where does the reader find a sense of outrage that Maria - in the first instance - was subjected to conditions that forced her to seek relief in the Estados Unidos? By their own reporting, MSNBC implies that she got here illegally. Then, again by their own admission, she undertook efforts through illegal channels to smuggle her children into our country. Perhaps I'm missing something at this point, but... a lot of time, energy, and money seemed to be spent in going around our immigration laws, instead of respecting them. Am I off base here? Clearly, MSNBC established that Mexico was a poor place to find oneself with children and unsupported in the 1980s. It must have really sucked. But where is the investigation into the injustice of the Mexican economic and political system in MSNBC's reporting? Perhaps I'm asking for too much...

Having characterized their presence in the Estados Unidos as fundamentally illegitimate in nature, MSNBC than attempts to paint this family's dilemma - now a generation removed from the original transgression of US immigration law, as some sort of responsibility for this country to live up to.

That Maria's children have successfully moved forward with their lives here in the Estados Unidos despite the illegitimacy of their transport here is a testament to the character or their personalities. I applaud them for their effort to better themselves. But MSNBC seems intent on somehow convincing "the rest of America" that the criminal transgressions of their parents should somehow be forgiven by virtue of the assumption that their parents' hearts were in the right place.

Sorry. I'm not feeling it. I know what I'm witnessing in my community. It's being overrun by foreign nationals - most Hispanic. For the sake of argument again, I'll stipulate that most of them are Mexican. If I had some degree of comfort that their salaries and paychecks reflected the same sort of deductions as my paycheck, I would have no problem. But I know in my gut that this is not case for a substantial percentage of of the "Maria Hernandez's' out there. For all its attempts to humanize and elicit sympathy for the illegals in this country, MSNBC has only served to reinforce my belief that there are forces within our society that would subject the producers of our system to a forcefully subsidize the illegal activities of those who skirt around the laws of this country to arrive here. Having then established a presence, these people who have blatantly broken our immigration laws, are now demanding that we afford them full citizenship. Have I missed something here?

The irony is that this week's attempt at immigration reform on the part of the US Senate reflects this out-of-kilter sentiment in this country. Are we so complacent as a society that we are willing to turn the other cheek - and a blind eye - to tens of millions of lawbreakers over the past 20 years because we can't - or won't enforce the laws on our books? Why have the US taxpayers been paying taxes for the past twenty years? If as a society, we can deliberately turn a blind eye - and the other cheek - to transgression of our immigration laws, then why shouldn't or couldn't we turn another blind eye and cheek to other laws on the books, like, let's say, for the purpose of argument here, income taxes?

The forces for open borders such as Ted Kennedy have framed this issue as the "new frontier of civil rights." If pandering to a group of lawbreaking squatters on our homeland is legitimate, then would pandering to a group of people who refuse to pay their income taxes because they are not receiving adequate representation for their hard-earned dollars be a specious argument?

Ricorun,

The big picture solution is, in the end, the solution President Bush has been supporting for his entire Administration - stricter border control plus a guest-worker program. Control the borders to keep order and prevent criminal activity from easily crossing the border, have a guest worker program to bring in those workers we do need, but above-ground and not undercutting the wages of native Americans and legal aliens. In the long run, demographics solves the problem for us - Mexico's birth rate is dropping like a rock and eventually will fall below replacement levels...meantime, however, we've got this huge generation of young Mexicans who are unemployable in Mexico's corrupt economy.

Thanks to my friend Don, I now see the two-part immediate problem we have:

Mexican nationals resident in the United States but not at all loyal to the United States (all those Mexican-flag waving fools).

Mexican nationals employed illegally Americans may be fully willing to do, provided they don't have to work for illegal-alien wages.

The immediate solution to the first is to round up everyone here illegally - and no matter how long they've been here: if they crossed without persmission, then they have to go back, we can take into consideration their long-term residency when they knock politely and as permission to re-enter, but they must go home and ask...that way we'll know they respect our nation.

The immediate solution to the second is to sternly punish businesses who employ illegals. Probably most employers would prefer to employ only citizens or legal aliens, but as soon as one or two companies in an industry do it and get away with it, all must follow suit in order to be competitive. The gigantic incentive of employing people for low wages must be counterbalanced by the gigantic disincentive of 10-20 years in jail for doing it. Once that is in place, all those illegals streaming across the border will find their job opportunities drying up very fast.

Joe,

The minimum wage should be abolished - it is an imposition on free people.

My God, dboglan, you're wordy! You even put me to shame! All I can say in response is... cha-ching! Welcome to economic globalization, dude. You hit the nail on the head, whether or not you realize it. The real problem is much bigger than just the Mexican/American border. If you seriously want to solve the immigration problem you have to think much bigger. You have to think globally. To tell you the truth, I still haven't wrapped my head around the whole thing. But undeniably, and for better or worse, that's where we are headed. The dogs have been unleashed. There is no turning back. Everything will change. But in the mean time there are some unsettling inconsistencies between national security and economic interests. And in my opinion -- and I say this with all due respect -- your view appears to be short-sighted.

I say that almost begrudgingly, because your post was beautifully constructed and presented. And it may further help you to know that despite what you may think of my analysis, I am a piker in virtually every sense of the term, lol!

Mark,

Although I fundamentally agree with you on the points you made above, I feel that you have put the cart before the horse in a sense in that you stressed rounding up illegals first, and enforcing the employment laws second.

I am of the firm belief that it should be the other way around. If we were to simply enforce EXISTING LAWS regarding employment verification procedures, we would effectively shut off the "magnet" that drawing illegal workers to this country. We would also get a clearer picture of how much money is falling through the cracks by employers not paying into Social Security and benefits, etc. by illegally hiring undocumented workers. Once the "magnet" has been "turned off," many of the people in question will repatriate at their own cost because it will no longer be of great economic benefit to continue to "play the system" here in the Estados Unidos.

Further, the issue of dragging down the prevailing wage (or as you referenced it above, "minimum wage,") would become less of an issue, since the playing field would be essentially flattened against the the employer who pockets the difference between benefits/wages offered against cost of doing business...

Your assertion that Mexico's birth rate is "dropping like a rock" is news to me... can you provide some substantive proof to back up this assertion? I'm under the impression that the Hispanic population in the Estados Unidos is the fastest growing among all demographics. Perhaps I've missed some relevant statistics....

From what I've managed to uncover, I agree that Mexico has a difficult problem with what you coined a "corrupt economy." Unless and until we confront and resolve this "corrupt economy," we will continue to face a flood of people fleeing the system to take advantage of the Estados Unidos' opportunities...

But I'm firmly against a structured "roundup" of illegals for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it stinks of xenophobia and radical populism. Secondly, at this point, there does not exist any valid "national emergency" or "extraordinary circumstances" that would hold up in what would most assuredly be a hotly litigated issue... Plus, it's just.... I don't know... un-American...

I'd much rather pursue a course of action that would provide enough dis-incentive to those who are playing the system to give it up and go one home, rather than risk the "jackboots in the night" approach to population control...

My biggest fear, to be honest, is that by the end of the public debate, this nation might succumb to the temptation to allow the establishment of another tier of second-class citizens in the form of "Guest Workers" to flourish in this country. Didn't we fight a war only 150 years or so ago to abolish that type of institutionalized second-class citizenry? Aren't we still grappling with the residual issues surrounding that abolition?

If we allow this country to establish a new class of citizens who work here, live here, but aren't allowed the full rights of citizenship here, are we any better than the Sheiks and Mullahs in the Mideast who, dripping with oil wealth, have established a two-tiered system of citizenship within their soveriegn territories?

Just to point out the ludricrous state in which we find ourselves once again, I ask why we have commited hundreds of billions of dollars to help to secure the borderes in Iraq and Afghanistan when we seem to have no resolve to secure our own northern and southern borders...

Anyone - I repeat - anyone can apparently cross our border with Mexico with little or no consequence...

No se puede...

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!

Ricorun,

Please explain why my view are shortsighted. I beg for enlightenment...

And... what's a "piker?"

There is no question that enforcement of existing laws that prohibit hiring illegal/undocumented workers would fix the problem. They come here for work, period.

So why did the Bush administration dismantle an effective law enforcement program 4 years ago that used simple database matching to identify fraudulent use of social security numbers and notify employers? This program was amazingly effective at rooting out illegal workers in the country.

This cost-effective program was doing exactly what it was designed to do, which was identify illegal immigrants who were being hired by employers here in the U.S.

The answer is obvious: Bush's cabal of corporate interests saw the program as a threat to their source of virtually unlimited, unregulated, non-unionized cheap labor. Period. End of story. The program was mysteriously "de-funded" and terminated.

So this whole "debate" is simply a smokescreen. Bush wants to build a wall because it will mean fat contracts for his Ranger buddies. Nothing new there. A "guest worker" program to keep the illegals here working at subpar wages as second class citizens. Nothing new there either.

Let's just skip the self-righteous hypocrisy and get right to the point: Bush doesn't care about the American blue collar labor force that is being squeezed on all fronts any more than he cares about the "guest workers" who are exploited for profit by money-grubbing employers. As far as Bush's priorities are concerned, it's all about the law-breaking money grubbing employers, stupid.

There is no question that enforcement of existing laws that prohibit hiring illegal/undocumented workers would fix the problem. They come here for work, period.

So why did the Bush administration dismantle an effective law enforcement program 4 years ago that used simple database matching to identify fraudulent use of social security numbers and notify employers? This program was amazingly effective at rooting out illegal workers in the country.

This cost-effective program was doing exactly what it was designed to do, which was identify illegal immigrants who were being hired by employers here in the U.S.

The answer is obvious: Bush's cabal of corporate interests saw the program as a threat to their source of virtually unlimited, unregulated, non-unionized cheap labor. Period. End of story. The program was mysteriously "de-funded" and terminated.

So this whole "debate" is simply a smokescreen. Bush wants to build a wall because it will mean fat contracts for his Ranger buddies. Nothing new there. A "guest worker" program to keep the illegals here working at subpar wages as second class citizens. Nothing new there either.

Let's just skip the self-righteous hypocrisy and get right to the point: Bush doesn't care about the American blue collar labor force that is being squeezed on all fronts any more than he cares about the "guest workers" who are exploited for profit by money-grubbing employers. As far as Bush's priorities are concerned, it's all about the law-breaking money grubbing employers, stupid.

Get out the Reynolds Wrap and the crystal ball, folks...cookie is teling us Like It Is, lefty version.

The first thing to do is invent a nefarious reason for an action---it helps if you can toss in a buzzword, such as "cabal", to sweeten the pot. Suddenly, the President did not simply make a bad decision based on compassion for the grinding poverty and hopelessness he saw when he lived so near the border, or on a desire to improve the lot of millions who are suffering day in and day out. I am not arguing that his decision was the right one, because I don't think it was, but I am certainly not buying into the Left mantra that everything he does is for evil and twisted reasons, usually involving "cabals" and "corporations" and often "oil".

Rub that crystal ball a little harder, cookie---who knows what you might be able to see. The one thing we know for sure is that whatever you come up with, it will be anti-Bush, all the way.

"The minimum wage should be abolished - it is an imposition on free people."

So are stop lights, speed limits, metal detectors at airports, wire taps, the list goes on. Fortunately more compassionate heads will be the ones to decide where the line on freedom v. impositions is drawn.

wawilyo, you are right, yet not quite right.
A regular wall, the old-fashioned kind, will not work. But a barrier that incorporates new technology will stop a huge proportion of those trying to cross. The types of surveillance available to us now, and being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, will enable us to know when people are trying to cross a barrier, and a physical barrier is not only a slowing mechanism, if not always a stopping mechanism, it is also a psychological barrier. It takes a lot more determination to try to thwart a big wall or fence than to merely walk across a shallow river.

Clearly, we could not make a law which is retroactive. Therefore, those already here could not be declared to be felons, as that was not the law when they came here. I believe it is a misdemeanor to cross the border illegally, though a felony if the person does it more than once. So the average illegal immigrant could merely claim he had only crossed once, and we could let it go at that and agree to a misdemeanor charge and penalty---unles the illegal had been officially deported, in which case the felony charge would and should be applied.

Blanket amnesty is grossly unfair. I employ people from South America, and have paid huge amounts over the years for legal fees and government paperwork to get them here legally and keep them legal. You have no idea how much resentment there is toward the illegals from people who have respected the system and worked within it.

But a system in which the illegals agree that they have broken our law, plead guilty to misdemeanor charges, pay some appropriate penalty, and then are allowed to remain for a total of several years, under fairly strict regulations applicable to all foreign nationals living here, seems fair.

Any multi-tiered legal system, which imposes laws on some people but not on others, is bad for the country. Period. Any system which allows large numbers of people to simply declare that they do not feel bound by a law which does bind others is bad for the country. Period. Any system which allows a large group of children to grow up believing that the laws do not apply to them, and/or that they can choose which laws they have to follow, is bad for the country. Period.

We tend to overlook the corollary impact of illegals residing, in huge numbers, in our country.

One is the recent figure of nearly 60 billion dollars sent out of the country every year by foreign nationals working in the United States. Think about that. Think about 60 BILLION DOLLARS removed from our economy every year.

One is the impact on our services by people who do not pay taxes----and many millions of the illegal aliens here do not. They work in an underground economy, paid in cash. For example, illegals are far more likely to use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care providers---and why not? It is free to them, while they would have to pay doctors in private practice.

One is the huge underground criminal activity tied in with illegals living and working here. The most obvious is the thriving trade in forged documents.

I don't know if anything can be done to halt or at least slow the hemorraging of American dollars to foreign countries. But it is obvious that far fewer people would choose to be away from their families and their homes if they could not send money back. And if people knew they could not profit by coming here, they might put their efforts into electing governments that would build up their native economies. Not a quick fix, but eventually a very important one.

If people have to be registered to be able to use public facilities, such as hospital emergency rooms, we could then have a little control. We could start by establishing low-cost medical clinics associated with hospitals, and moving non-emergency cases over to those clinics, where people would have to pay part of the cost and could also be initiated into the concept of having a private doctor, or a clinic relationship, and having to pay at least part of their medical costs. A lot of this is an educational process, as so many immigrants simply believe that emergency rooms are accepted sources of basic medical care. Again, this is a long-term problem with no good short-term answer, but it will have to be addressed, and for now it has to be recognized.

The criminal underground is more easily addressed. I would start by making it a felony, with a large mandatory sentence, for producing, selling, or using fake documents. Those of you not very closely involved with the illegal population might not know, or acknowledge, this, but the illegal document business is so much easier than getting legal papers, it is a normal choice for most immigrants. It's a default pathway even when legal papers are available.

(I employed a man who had a professional visa. All his wife had to do was apply for a work permit, and it would have been granted. I gave them the web site for the document, and later found she had simply bought fake papers. I insisted that they become legal and downloaded and provided the form---but she preferred using the forged documents. I finally fired him, because I was his sponsor, and they were breaking the law under my sponsorship---but they didn't have to. It was just a cultural thing, it was just what felt easier and more comfortable. He was a college graduate, she had some college, they were both fluent in English, he made good money---there was no rational reason to choose the illegal pathway.)

If there is a huge penalty for creating, selling, or using fake papers, this will dranatically undercut a lot of the problems associated with illegals in this country. Because it is a slippery slope. It is accepted, encouraged, to buy and use fake papers, and there is no penalty. So it is a logical next step to drive without a license, or insurance. After all, in my community the police are not even allowed to ask if a person is here legally, and it is just too much trouble to deal with driving without a license. The driver just gives a fake name, knowing he will not be put in jail but just given a court date, and then he simply disappears.

But we could easily cut the heart out of the illegal papers trade, and in doing so force the illegals into the system by making it mandatory to register and impossible to work without being registered. Once they are in the system, they can get restricted drivers' licenses, and be held to the same standards as the rest of us, regarding insurance and other civil responsibilities.

We can't demand that employers check the validity of papers without setting up a way for them to do so. Social Security numbers are so abused now, being used for everything in direct violation of the law regarding their use when the system was developed, that we would probably have to come up with a different identifying method for registered immigrant workers----who would no longer be illegal, by virtue of paying the penalty for their misdemeanor offense of crossing illegally, and by virtue of registering. Then we would have to have a way for employers to do a very quick and accurate check on the validity of the registration and social security number information provided by a job applicant. Then, and only then, could we impose penalties on employers for hiring illegals. There is just no way to effectively and fairly demand that every employer be able to identify forged documents, especially when brilliant forgeries are so easy these days.

And we must demand the learning and use of English. We must start to make this a cultural as well as legal expectation. We have to get over the goofy idea that somehow expecting immigrants to learn our language is an insult to their native culture, or whatever loony tationale is being espoused for what is really a thinly disguised racism, or at least has the end effect of racism. Because encouraging immigrants to expect US to accommodate THEIR language has the very real effect of creating ghettos in which immigrants are confined by their own inability to function outside those areas, and by limiting their access to education, work, and respect from citizens.

DeeCee,

If the minimum wage is good, why isn't it set at $20 an hour?

Clearly, we could not make a law which is retroactive. Therefore, those already here could not be declared to be felons, as that was not the law when they came here.

The bill that passed the House in December makes illegal presence a felony, which has the same effect as what you refer to as a retroactive law. Not illegal entry, but illegal presence.

My big question for everyone here is this: why on earth do you want English to be the official language of the US? Shouldn't you all be a little more states' rights-oriented? Language laws hardly ever work, and when they do they have lots more negative effects than positive.

If the minimum wage is good, why isn't it set at $20 an hour?

Conservatives.

The United States needs to protect and assert its sovereignity. If Mexico makes illegal entry into their nation a crime and prohibits immigrants in participating in politics of any kind, why shouldn't the U.S. be able to do the same?
Congress needs to look at the question of illegal immigration from a number of aspects and pass laws that will benefit the people of the United States, first and foremost.
While some speak of immigrant contributions to the economy, one may also ask: to what extent are illegals robbing this nation of multi billions of dollars in taxes not paid or multi billions of dollars in education and health services spent on them, as well as billions sent abroad and not spent here? Not to speak of billions in drug money generated by, among others, California valley hispanic drug lords, who also hire illegals.
Although, granted, most illegals are hardworking and honest people, and want a better future, this does not change the fact that they entered illegally and contribute to multifaceted problems that the U.S. is facing today.
No matter what laws may be passed to curb illegal immigration, and protect the U.S. economy, illegals already here need to be put on notice to register in some way or other, and be counted if they want to stay in this country and get any kind of consideration. If they refuse to come out of the shadows, for their own good, they need to be found out and pay the consequences.
Legislation that only rewards illegals sends the wrong messages and shows the U.S. to be weak as a law-abiding nation, which encourages more of the same illegal behavior and illegal entitlements. Marches that have included hundreds of thousands of illegals shows the brazen fearlessness of people who have broken the law and know there are no consequences, since the U.S. government chooses to look the other way. In the end, any legislation passed by Congress will need teeth (strong committment of enforcement) to back it up.
The U.S. could also encourage Mexicans (i.e.who have gotten their educations here) to go back to Mexico and truly show pride in their country by helping to build Mexico's economy and improve the lot of the underclass that seems to be the majority that comprise the illegals to this country.

Nicole, the Constitution specifically prohibits any law, made by any state or the federal government, from being retroactive. Clinton got away with it when he had his retroactive tax hike, but I would not count on the Supreme Court allowing it to happen again.

The simplest and most basic reason for establishing an OFFICIAL language is to head off the demands of every nationality living here that we play fair and print all of our documents in THEIR language, as we do in Spanish. As long as we accommodate the Mexcian population by allowing them to live here continuing to use their own language for official purposes, we are just creating a scenario in which Korean, Vietnamese, African, Eastern European, Russian, Czech, or Finnish immigrants can demand that we accommodate them, too.

We can let each state choose whether or not it would like to have an official language, for the same reasons stated above. But for all federal documents and purposes, there should be one official language.

Why English? Good point. Why not French? Why not Esperanto? Get real. The language of the United States of America is, and always has been, English. When my grandparents migrated here (legally, I might add) they did not have to sit down and ponder which language they had to learn to become Americans.

Next, you will be spouting the English Only nonsense, which is what the Left used so effectively to block any effort in several states to establish English as the official language there. They and their lies had migrants terrified that if they were heard speaking another language, or even if it were reported that they spoke another language in their homes, they would be arrested.

"Language laws hardly ever work..." What 'language laws' have failed to work? Where? What "negative effects"? What 'negative effects' would you expect from a law which simply states "The official language of the United States of America is English"?

Yeah, right, As*. Try getting a Big Mac for under $10.00 when the guy at the fryer is making $20 an hour. Cost of production is added to cost of purchase, Brainiac.

Just like corporate "taxes" become corporate "expenses" and added on to the purchase price of whatever the corporation sells. We pay the freight, but the libs FEEL good about socking it to the evil CORPORATIONS.

Gotta love Liberal Econ 101.

Almiranta,

I said the law would have the general effect of being retroactive because it makes illegal presence a felony. So if I entered the US illegally yesterday, and today you pass this law, then tomorrow I will still be illegally present in the US even though I entered before the law was passed.

If you want an example of the negative effects of language laws, look no farther than your neighbor to the north, specifically Quebec. The laws passed in the 1970s to promote French at the expense (mostly) of English decimated both the economy and the population of the province, especially of Montreal. Perhaps interestingly, in this case it's what you would call the Left that promotes laws like this.

My point is not to be alarmist though, as you suspect. Regarding language laws I speak strictly as a linguist. The language people speak is driven more than you would imagine by market forces, which means trying to regulate it can have unfortunate side effects. The reality of the American situation is that while immigrants may not speak English, their children will certainly have to. Having official documents only in English isn't a bad idea, but some bilingualism isn't a bad idea either: what's the point of sending notices home from school when parents can't read them?

I also understand the desire for immigrants to learn English and be more assimilated, and I think this is a wonderful goal. But this is impossible to accomplish with all groups. The Pennsylvania Dutch have been speaking Pennsylvania Dutch for a while now, and even in France, which has had strict language laws for years, half a million people run around speaking Breton every day. Teach immigrants English, by all means, but to expect everyone in the country to use mainly English is an impossibility.

Ash,

Yeah, we're just a bunch of heartless SOB's...