All I can say is if the Republican politicians cave to this Amesty deal coming down the pike, I will NOT vote this Nov. and recommend other Republcans do the same.It is about time the politicians start listening to what the Americans have to say-- or let the Dems win in Nov. then start impeachment procedings on President Bush.Which at that point in time, I won't care. I've had it with the Republicans.

I like Thomas Sowell as much as anyone, but the quote you pulled from his article is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Let's see, there's an estimated 10 M illegals in this country, leaving approx. 280M plus legal residents. Legals outnumber illegals 28 to 1. Even if that proportion was cut in half, there are 14x more legals than illegals but the ratio in agriculture is 3 to 1. Seems like his argument actually proves the exact opposite. Legals don't want to work in agriculture so a disproportionate amount of illegals do the jobs that other Americans won't.

Thomas Sowell and you can do much better than that.

If they have no jobs, they will not come. Jail and fine any person(CEO,business owner or citizen), who has an undocumented worker on their payroll. Peace

Every time I hear the line I call B.S. Mainly since I've done many of the jobs that I shouldn't do because I'm an American.

Sheesh, what world do these politicians live in where everyone who does "menial" labor is an illegal?

Rich,

That takes some guts; taking on Sowell...but, I do see your point, as well as Sowell's.

I think that we won't get to a concrete answer on that - and I refuse to be drawn into a battle over it.

Build the fence, put those here on a path to home or citizenship, keep out all future illegals...that, to me, is the proper solution, and that is what the President is working for.

The Senate bill is amnesty. California, Arizona, and Texas cannot handle the millions of illegals already here. The Senate amnesty bill would bring in a flood of 66-100 millions more illegals. It must not become law.

This evening I received my weekly call from the GOP to support the Senate republicans with a donation. When asked "would you help with a donation of $xxx I was pleased to say NO!. I told the caller that the Senate republicans in general and Lindsey Graham and John McCain had sold out the country.

I will support only candidates who are against the amnesty proposal, regardless of party.

Work premits, yes Citizenship NO!

As a Tried and true conservative, the congressional Republicans risk losing my vote come november unless we force all the Mexicans to carry ID cards or wear yellow stars...

"Jobs that Americans won't do." When your number one supporters who own this site don't like this phrase, this ought to be a clue to the Bush Administration to drop this slogan. Personally I like this phrase about as much as I like finger nails on a chalk board. The well fare state mentality is correctly touched on in this post. The policies of this administration very muc seem to promote a well fare state mentality. George W. Bush is very much for big government. This man is no Conservative. No one should be decieved.

uh, we'll see about that "even bigger Republican majority in November".

Besides the rather dismal approval ratings now enjoyed by Republicans nationwide, this very immigration issue is badly fracturing the Bushian right.

In regards to immigration and specifically to how it relates to agriculture, I will point out that here in my home state of California, tons of fruit went unpicked last fall due to a shortage in immigrant labor. Turns out that a large proportion of the state's immigrant labor pool took construction jobs in the hirrucane ravaged Southeast.

I visited Pensacola last December and the year before - from the air you saw a sea of blue tarps that still covered the missing roofs of homes and businesses in the wake of hurrican Ivan. Everywhere I went it was the same story: repair and clean up efforts were slowed by a limited labor pool to accomplish the monumental task.

What that meant here was that California orchards had to let a huge amount of fruit rot on the tree as immigrant labor streamed southeast to take better paying jobs in constrcution/clean up. Estimates are that $30 billion worth of fruit was lost! That is equal to the State's budget deficit for which Gov Davis was recalled!

For picking our fruit and cleaning up after our hurricanes, these people are to be hated? OK, whatever. The fact is that for every stat the xenophobic branch of the Right produces to show that immigrants are a drain on the economy, there is an equal and perhaps greater economic positive. You guys consistently only look at the one side of the equation.

In any case, the immigration situation has been a status quo for a long long time. Why is this all of a sudden deemed some sort of national emergency? My suspicion is that with Republican election hopes flagging, the illegal immigrants are being set up to serve the same purpose this fall as gays served in the last election cycle: to fire up the wingnut hate machine and get people to the polls. Comically, it looks like the whole plan is going to blow up in Republican faces.

"As a Tried and true conservative, the congressional Republicans risk losing my vote come november unless we force all the Mexicans to carry ID cards or wear yellow stars..."

Oh shut the fuck up with the racism inferences. What part of LEGAL and ILLEGAL do you have a problem diferentiating? We don't OWE you anything and ther are many LEGAL immigrants who are as pisssed off about this amnesty as everyone else is.

If mexico is so shitty the fix it. Its not OUR problem. Its yours. Why should we have to pay for it?

Woah there Aarontime, we don't hate immigrants, but those who suggest that Americans won't do these jobs are insulting Americans not helping the immigrants. I'm from California too my friend and I understand what you're saying, but ignoring the illegal immigrant problem won't help solve California's problem or the nations problem either.

Do you disagree that illegals are a drain on our public services? If they are paid in cash and not paying taxes but still using the services of the roads, schools, and medical system doesn't that cause a drain that's not being replaced? Are not those who get fake ID's and using stolen Social Security numbers just compounding the problems?

Somewhere in all of this there's a way to help curb or stop illegal immigration while at the same time allowing those who wish to work and contribute to this country a chance to do so. Suggesting this is all a stunt just because of "flagging election hopes" doesn't change the fact that this is a problem, or offer any solutions.

Especially if you're a Californian you should know that this problem isn't a new thing, nor has it "just now been brought up." Is it getting more attention now than before? Heck yeah! But that doesn't mean no one has been trying to draw attention to it or do something about it for years.

According to one statistic, approximately 85% of all illegals are Mexicans. As long as they are allowed to continue entering America illegally, there will be no real incentive for Mexico to fix its own economy. Illegal immigration into America perpetuates Mexico's economic crisis.

Matt, we are in total agreement. As to economic benefits/costs, even the Heritage Foundation agrees that immigration is a net economic benefit. Don't believe me, look it up. NBER studies as well. The problem is that the costs aren't borne equally while the benefits are spread widely. I like my cheap fruit here in PA.

If one were to draw the ideal new American 50,75 or even 150 years ago, a hard working person, deferring immediate gratification in order to support those at home, integrating into American society would have been the ideal. I got news for you, most of them didn't speak English at all or very well. Obviously integration is the key and the challenge.

Well, at least we have history on our side. Enforcement only policies worked well for Prohibition, illegal drugs, underage drinking.

Ignore the market at your own risk

Gozer -

A thoughtful response - thanks.

"Do you disagree that illegals are a drain on our public services?"

No, I don't disagree. However, if you only look at the side of the equation that is a drain, you are only getting half the picture - a half-truth.

Case in point is the example I cited of the California fruit growers who saw $30 billion in lost produce - and that is but one in many many examples. That's $30 billion that won't make it into the economy, all because the critical role played by immigrant labor was not there. That's $30 billion these farmers won't have to expand their businesses, make consumer purchases, etc - the things that make our economy grow and that expand the tax base. You all can say all you want that there are Americans who will take these jobs - but when the chips were actually down here in California and the hurricane-ravaged southeast last year, the fact is that there weren't enough Americans willing to take those posts - and we all payed a huge economic price for it. Think about those things next time you carp about the drain on public services.

"If they are paid in cash and not paying taxes but still using the services of the roads, schools, and medical system doesn't that cause a drain that's not being replaced?"

I partially addressed this above. But there is another group in the US that uses and abuses the the services and public infrastructure to a far greater extent, and in turn finds ways to skip out on its tax obligations. That group would be corporate America. Through their contacts in the political system, greasing the palms of BOTH parties, corporate America has created grotesque tax evasion schemes involving bogus overshore headquarters and other dodges that Americans should be disgusted with. At no time in our history have corporations payed such a small proportion of the tax burden. The rampant tax evasion by corporations - who economically benefit most from the public infrastructure they use the most - dwarfs any lost revenues or infrastructure degradation from immigrants. If you are upset about the increasing tax burden on middle income Americans, and the wear and tear on public infrastructure, you should be more angry at corporate America than the people who want to earn a modest income mowing your lawn and cleaning your schools.

Actually, I take a rather conservative stand on this issue. I've heard too many stories of willing Americans who do want to work, but who won't work for the money that is being paid to illegal aliens.

A lot of construction workers, carpenters, electricians have lost opportunities because they
wouldn't work for $9 an hour with no benefits.
On the other hand if you are from Mexico or El
Salvador, that 9$ represents the honey pot at the end of the rainbow. Its a win for Mexico, whose corrupt economy gets a huge infusion of U.S. cash, without having to commit to any meaningful reform.

Its also a win for business, who gets cheap labor, and desperate, willing,eager workers . No overtime pay, no worker's comp, no social security-what a bonanza for these companies! As for existing laws prohibiting this practice, well, they know INS isn't really serious about enforcement.

Its a win for Bush, because in addition to appeasing his big corporate donors, he gets to play the part of the compassionate conservative, who's working with the Senate in a bipartisan way to achieve compromise.

The losers are the taxpayers in the border states who have to pick up the tab for social services and education for the illegals, and the American worker who is at an unfair advantage. Also among the losers are the Conservatives who wrongly thought that Bush was "one of them", and who are now feeling mightily betrayed by the administration.

"If they have no jobs, they will not come. Jail and fine any person(CEO,business owner or citizen), who has an undocumented worker on their payroll. Peace"

I didnt expect to ever say this but here goes.

I agree with you Steve. 100%. Ouch...that hurt.lol

I also would like the anchor baby B...S... stopped.

At the heart of this immigration issue is the fact that this is an indiction of capitalism gone awry.

America used to be about the land of opportunity. A poor Irish immigrant could open up a small shop and eventually end up with a piece of the American Dream. His store would grow and he would hire workers that would eventually become the middle class, blue and white collar workers.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, something went heywire and capitalism took a turn that would favor the rich while trying to squash the middle class. The richest 10% wanted to get as rich as they could. If they were millionaires, they wanted to become billionaires. They more the got, the more they wanted. At the same time, they wanted to knock other people down to keep them from getting or achieving what they have.

Immigrants come here because big business due to NAFTA have crushed the already low prevailing wages in their native country. At the same time, greedy american firms here want to hire illegals because they work cheap and many times under the table with no benefits and this allows these companies to get rich fast as their overhead is really low.

Americas employment situation is really off track and needs a serious correction. In addition to the illegals, you have a big shortage of skilled trades. Companies are rarely willing to train on the job as they once did and as boomers retire, there is an inbalance of new workers to take their place, this is driving up the cost of many things , such as construction, where homeowners are paying premium prices and waiting due to the trade inbalance.

Steve wants to put the employers in jail.

I am an employer and have a small business. I already have files with hundreds of I-9 forms in them. I have NEVER had a federal goverment employee looking at those files for any reason.

I have ONE QUESTION. How do I as an employer know, POSITIVELY, if I have an illegal worker? If they provide valid papers required for their I-9 form, what more can I do? There is a whole industry creating false documents. So, I need to become a document expert too?

Think it through and tell me, a small business owner, how I KNOW that the person I am hiring is legal. Assume they have the required paperwork.

Now another wrinkle. A large portion of the illegals actually entered legally and overstayed their visit. Is it up to ME to now monitor their stays?

Geeez, it's not enough that I have to report all new hires to the Labor Dept for possible court required payments, like child support. Then I am ordered to garnish their paychecks and send them to the court. Explain what any of this crap has to do with running my business.

No one has yet commented on the most obvious absurdity in the part of Sowell's piece featured at the top of this topic. Rich came close, but I'll express it in a different way. The part of which I speak is this...

"The highest concentration of illegals is in agriculture, where they are 24 percent of the people employed. That means three-quarters of the people are not illegal aliens. But when will the glib phrase-mongers stop telling us that the illegals are simply taking "jobs that Americans won't do"?

Ummm... do you have to work in the fields to be considered a part of the agricultural industry? I'm guessing if you run a tractor, or drive a truck or a combine, or work in a distribution warehouse, or various other things, you'd still be considered part of the "agricultural industry", even though you don't work in the field. So the REAL question is... what proportion of agricultural workers actually work in the field? And how many of them are illegal aliens? It is absolutely ludicrous to assume that all jobs in a given industry are equally attractive. The issue is JOBS Americans won't do, not INDUSTRIES. Geez, talk about insulting our intelligence.

LaMano asks: "I have ONE QUESTION. How do I as an employer know, POSITIVELY, if I have an illegal worker?"

Well, you can't. Not positively. However, you CAN go up to the Social Security Administration web site to easily verify a person's social security number. If the information you get back isn't consistent with the rest of the person's paperwork, don't hire them. Sure, mistakes will be made one way or the other, but requiring an employer to just do that would go a long way towards preventing the problem.

Rico,
Hello again, a quick trip to bls gave me this information in the employment by industry section.
Agriculture employs 256,660 fte. Manual laborers are 227,750 of that, or 89%. Machinery operators are 8%, and all other are 3.5%.
Does that help or hurt your argument? in other words, with these numbers can you restate your point?

Aaron,
The university at which I work (UC) is heavily involved in California agriculture, and I'm not aware of the situation you speak of, that is un-harvested crops due to lack of manpower.
Factually, according to the USDA, California's winter crops were off of the 2004 level by less than 1%. 2006 Spring crops are producing at the same rate, but those numbers won’t be out until September.

Who is this axis person? His posts are the height of ignorance; unsubstantiated rumor, a stunning lack of information on the history of the country, a basic misunderstanding of the issues, wild accusations with no facts, no training in economics, business, marketing, and a suspect understanding of politics.

axis, you must be from Canada, am I right?

Rico says about verifying a legal resident, "you CAN go up to the Social Security Administration web site to easily verify a person's social security number."

No you can't; you can verify A SSN. Who knows if the SSN for THAT PERSON is the one I am trying to employ. Illegals are using VALID SSNs on their paperwork.

Can you not think through this enough to understand the issue? Let's just put it this way, for employers to effectively comply would REQUIRE EVERY CITIZEN to carry a sophisticated card that authenticated them as a citizen. It would require some sort of biometrics that would PROVE the person HOLDING the card was the person for whom the card was ISSUED.

Looking up a number on a website WILL NOT WORK.

LaMano,
Everyone should listen to what you have to say, I’ve been through this as a small business owner that employed only a few workers, and representing a large corporation that employed hundreds. Both are complicated, fraught with messy regulations that, like steve’s logic, sound good to a government pencil pusher but don’t work in the real world. Like you, I’ve seen the most sophisticated methods of gaming the system; a few valid SS#, and illegals can get hundreds of jobs under many different names, all phony.
The small business owner shouldn’t have to do the job of the INS, you should be presented with information easily verified and get on with the business of running your business. Good luck with that.

Bane,
I appreciate the fact that SOMEONE has a more completed understanding of the issue. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why others have not thought this through.

Certainly, there are employers that ignore the law and employ illegals at will, however, most business people want to comply. We just need the ABILITY to comply.

Of course, if the feds did their jobs by controlling the borders, employers WOULD NOT HAVE vast numbers of illegals to employ.

LaMano,
Here at the university we run every employee through a government background check, (note the irony; taxpayers paying us to pay another government agency to make sure yet another government agency didn't drop the ball!) but I couldn't afford to run my potential employees through the same background check in the private sector, I suspect your business couldn’t afford the photo, fingerprint and SSN check we do for government jobs, nor should you have to cover that expense, in my opinion.
I believe there are employees of the University that are here illegally, and still they get through the system, who would steve imprison for this? the governor?

Aaron,
Sorry I missed this before, you wrote,

“Through their contacts in the political system, greasing the palms of BOTH parties, corporate America has created grotesque tax evasion schemes …”

The government allows for different methods of calculating inventory, depreciation and capital expenses that could be most beneficial to the corporations; if you understood accounting I would take the time to explain why, but suffice to say that investment and taxation are at odds when it comes to valuation. One shouldn't preclude the other.

Bane, I can always count on you to call my hand. But I don't begrudge that. Rather I appreciate it, I really do. I have learned more from you than anyone else on this site. That's a good thing. In fact, that's what it's all about, IMHO. I can't possibly know everything about everything. But I'm willing to learn. And I'm willing to change my views according to what I learn. I hope everyone is like that. I'm not inclined to hold my breath on that account, but that's also what it's all about, right? So with that in mind...

1. Until you provided some verifiable statistics on the question, I had no idea what the composition of the "agricultural industry" was. In my defense, I think I made that reasonably clear. I merely asked questions predicated upon the fact that Sowell provided no insight at all into the facts he presented. He sourced nothing with regard to his statistics, and when that happens it always raises flags in my head. Unfortunately that happens all the time these days, under the cover of "journalistic expediency". And if it was just that, then Sowell could be accused of glibness and nothing more. But even more unforgiveable was Sowell's flagrant and misleading attempt to fold the whole "jobs that (native) Americans won't do" question into a ludicrously large parcellation that included an entire industry. His statements thus feed on people's ignorance on not one but two different levels. Sowell is a learned and nationally known personality, with many books and articles under his belt. I can only assume that he knew what he was doing. And that I find seriously insulting.

Your statistics helped to put things into perspective. But I still wonder about the definition of "manual labor". How inclusive is that category? Does it include just workers in the field? Apart from that, there is no way to tell whether Sowell is using BLS statistics, some other source, or totally making them up. I don't know. Do you? I think the best you (or I) can do is guess.

2. This is to LaMano... You said, "you can verify A SSN. Who knows if the SSN for THAT PERSON is the one I am trying to employ. Illegals are using VALID SSNs on their paperwork."

I presume you know much more about this than I do. But I was under the impression that many illegals DON'T have valid SSNs -- at least not valid in the sense that they are consistent with their other paperwork. I'm not questioning that some do, but my understanding is that most don't. And when they don't, then their other paperwork won't match up. Is that wrong?

I probably shouldn't have said anything about the SSN issue. The fact is, I was just going on what I heard from various sources which I never bothered to check out. I have no first-hand knowledge. I own a small business, too. But everyone in it is a partner, and everything we can't do ourselves we out-source to other companies. Thus, we don't have to deal with I-9s.

But as a followup question let me ask you this: if there were such a thing as a national ID system that you could use to easily verify the legality of individual workers, would you be for it? And if not, why not?

Rico,
I tend to agree with Sowell’s statement; as you know here in California the United Farm Workers won a long battle against the corporate farms to unionize the workers. There are thousands of migrant farm workers that are citizens by virtue of birth or naturalization from the 1986 deal, that move around the State following the harvests, as it has been since the days of Steinbeck. A smaller group follows the migrants, this consists of illegals that work in locales where they can blend in for a while, then move on. The corporate farms tend to hire the same group year after year.
If anyone doubts the work these people do, take a trip to Castroville when they harvest the artichoke. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the men and women that stand in the hot sun, bent at the waist, grab the artichoke with one hand, cut through the stalk with the other, and then toss the artichoke over their shoulder into the large canvas bag they carry on their back. Then repeat the process until the bag becomes too heavy to carry, empty it and start over. You can't imagine what hard work this is until you see it first hand; I couldn't do it on my best day 35 years ago!
This is why I favor some type of guest worker program; I’m just not smart enough to figure out a way to keep it safe from abuse.
On the SSN; LaMano can answer, but it has been my experience that the fake information is doctored to match the legitimate; get a valid Social Security card in the name of Rico Ramirez, (or Mustafa Ali, or Seamus O’Reilly or Banier Wolfcastle) and suddenly you can have a driver’s license with your picture and the name Rico Ramirez (or Mustafa Ali, or Seamus O’Reilly or Banier Wolfcastle). If you’re lucky enough to have a family member that is here legally, dozens of cousins can work under his/her name.

Rico asked, "if there were such a thing as a national ID system that you could use to easily verify the legality of individual workers, would you be for it? And if not, why not?"

I wouldn't mind if there was a national id, many people would. If I am at risk of being fined or imprisoned because I EMPLOYED SOMEONE (heaven forbid) then I MUST HAVE the ability to verify they are legally employable. I don't care if you embed them with a chip as long as the gov't provided the chip reader for me.

It must be very sophisticated and fool-proof, otherwise, it's just a boon for document preparers.

Remember, there are states that give illegals DRIVER'S LICENSES.

As for the SSN, the identity theft people are pros. They do it 'comprehensively', ironically, just like the Senate.

Bottom line, how does a guy, say, with a small restaurant, PROVE that when Miguel applies for a job as a dishwasher that he is legally in the US? If he provides a valid SSN, how can he know that the person in front of him is the person for which the SSN was issued? The only way is to have something 'in' the id that must verify the holder. Pictures are a start but they can be outdated rather quickly and can be easily falsified.

Let me give you another real-world example. Lin Kwan Kim presents a legitimate ID for her job. She has 3 sisters and 5 aunts and cousins that all use her legitimate ID when THEY go for their job. How do you prevent this? Pictures? Fingerprints?

What if I hire Miguel to trim my bushes?

If illegals are much more RARE, because the borders are much more SECURE, most of the issue goes away. More importantly, the terrorists would not have an easy walk into this country. Post 911, this should be a REQUIREMENT.

There are already those that believe nukes are now in place in order to blackmail America or respond to an attack on Iran.

LaMano,
For us "round eyes" we're not sure if Lin Kwan Kim is a he or a she. Dozens of cousins, Aunts and Uncles, too. Identity theift targets people with unusual, or non-gender specific names.

See that? We're having an honest, civil discussion about some serious issues regarding the immigration controversy! For the record -- I mentioned this in another topic a while back but it might bear repeating -- I'm not Hispanic. My "ricorun" tag extends from an inside joke. My heritage is French Canadian, Scottish and Irish, and I am a veritable freckle farm. Nonetheless, I've been mistaken numerous times for Geraldo Rivera -- and Phil Jackson a couple of times (I was sitting down at the time). Go figure, lol!

Anyway, you lost me in your last comment to me, Bane. You start off by saying that you generally agree with Sowell, then you talk about the United Farm Workers and you followed that with a discussion about the fact that you couldn't have picked artichokes even back in your prime. Somehow all that applied to the whole illegal immigration issue, and the question of whether there are jobs Americans won't do, but I'm afraid you lost me. I mean no disrespect, but I'm afraid I really can't follow your logic.

LaMano said: "I wouldn't mind if there was a national id, many people would. If I am at risk of being fined or imprisoned because I EMPLOYED SOMEONE (heaven forbid) then I MUST HAVE the ability to verify they are legally employable. I don't care if you embed them with a chip as long as the gov't provided the chip reader for me."

Well, there you go -- implant a chip in everyone crossing the border and supply all potential employers with chip readers. Problem solved! Lol! Actually, the chip idea is a little over the top (not to mention unworkable). But a digitally encoded fingerprint or retinogram isn't. The other issue is getting the various ID agencies to talk to each other. As it is, the IRS doesn't talk to the INS, and rarely does either one of them talk to the state DMVs. The situation now is ridiculous, and has to be corrected, IMHO. Assuming success in that regard, then I think it is possible to restrict illegal immigration at the real choke-point -- at the point of employment, in other words. Short of that I really don't see how any attempt to restrict immigration would work. A wall might help for a while, but in the end I think it will end up being a monument of futility. In the mean time, though, I'm not likely to sell my Halliburton stock, lol!

Obviously illegals are popular because American Business has forgotten how to innovate or manage effectively. America's employers don't want to compete for American workers, because our government, through decades of dangerous inaction, has conspired to provide an endless supply of "low cost alternatives" to hiring legals.

Anyone who says different is delusional!

Even with all the fruit rotting on the ground in California, I didn't notice shortages, or unsustainable price swings. Did any of you encounter the unavailable kumquat or cuke! The overpriced peach or pear? I do a lot of charitable work around Dallas, and as far as food donations go, most grocery stores provide us with an abundance of fruits and vegetables on a regular basis. Apparently there is, at least in some locations, an over abundance of product. Perhaps if Fruit and Vegetable growers had a handle on how much the market can consume, or focused on JIT distribution, rather than how much mass quantity It can grow, wages, employees, and effects on mother earth might improve.

Seeing that much of the Katrina reconstruction will be publicly funded, paid for by insurances, etc... the massive hiring of illegals cannot be viewed as anything less than employer greed taking advantage of the situation.

Has anyone ever consdiered that employers who depend on paying less than competitive wages and benefits for their employees may not have a product or business model that deserves to flourish in the marketplace? Certainly not at the expense of the American taxpayer!

Let's do a simple hypothetical. One that disregards those that benefit from hiring illegals, and those who are negatively impacted by illegals.

Lets assume, for arguments sake, that America was still a democracy. Let us further assume, that we can agree that a simple definition of a democracy could be summed up by the phrase "majority rules".

Given these assumptions, if the majority of America's citizens agree with, and support enforcement only immigration reform (i.e. HR 4377), and further assuming that it is the duty of our elected officials to craft and enact legislation reflective of the views, values, and interests of the America majority, would not arguments contrary to the stated will of the majority of America's citizens be simply self-interested justification for that contrarian position?

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
~Thomas Jefferson, March 1, 1801.
The majority isn't always right, or just.
~ Bane, May 26, 2006

Sorry Rico (who's not Rico Rodriguez, anymore than I'm Banier Wolfcastle), you’re assuming I was using logic. .
The points are these,

1. I agree with Sowell that 75% of Agricultural workers, field workers are citizens or have the legal right to work here. There is a % of illegals that mix in, but the majority of legalized workers do not want the illegals in “their” fields as it makes things hard for the legalized ones; INS checks, suspicion in the communities etc.
2. UFW affords the legal workers to a decent wage, working conditions as good as they can be under the circumstances, and encourages legalization of the workers.
3. There is always need for more workers in these industries; the legalized workers aren’t enough, or more appropriately corporate farms could use more workers and would be more efficient. Therefore, a guest worker program is not only beneficial, but desirable. If the assumption is that Americans won’t do these jobs, the assumption is wrong; there aren’t enough Americans that are willing to do these jobs. Neither you nor I could handle 10-12 hours in an artichoke field on our best day. Well, I couldn’t, you’re much younger than I maybe you could do it, but would you want to?

As far as I am concerned we have 32 Senators and the Democrats have 67 :(

Bane said: "If the assumption is that Americans won’t do these jobs, the assumption is wrong; there aren’t enough Americans that are willing to do these jobs."

So let me see... if you have 10 slots available and Americans are willing to take 7 of them, doesn't that mean there are some jobs left that you can't find Americans willing to do? Methinks you just proved the opposite of the point you were trying to make.

For the record, no, I wouldn't be much good in an artichoke field, nor would I want to be there.

And you're probably right that legal workers don't want to be toiling alongside illegal workers for the reasons you mentioned -- it's not a benefit to them. The ones that benefit the most are those that hire them. It also might help to keep prices down, so consumers also benefit to a certain extent. But that has to be weighed against the load on social services which those same consumers will end up having to pay for.

It's a difficult question, no doubt about it.