Ahhh...but we DO know. They came here illegally, therefore they are already breaking our laws...therefore by simply coming here they are causing our country harm. Look at all the money we then spend accomodating them. They cause harm the instant they cross the border illegally. To think otherwise would be like say bank robbers don't cause harm until they're caught. No, they cause harm the instant they commit the crime.

I still fail to understand all the supposed controversy over illegal immigration. It is illegal. What is the controversy all about then? If we aren't going to enforce our immigration laws, then we should stop having them. Does discussion of enforcing immigration laws cause such controversy anywhere else? I highly doubt it. Maybe we should take a lesson there?

I'll say it again.

Breaking the law is not, in and of itself wrong or harmful in any way.

The law's purpose is to protect human beings, if it fails to do so breaking it may simply be prudent.

Like it or not illegal immigrants are doing what's right for themselves and their families. I say again that I'd be the first under the fence if it meant earning a future for my children without doing more harm that an honest day's work.

We can argue the financial aspect, but the moral high ground is theirs.

disagree. The moral high ground belongs to those who equally look for ways to take care of their family and come to America legally.

That begs the question of why?

There is no moral obligation to obey a law when a higher value like survival is at stake.

I think people assume too much about legal authority, its force lies in practical punishments, it is a whole different animal from ethics.

For most iwho wish to immigrate legal immigration is not practical.

And yet, many do follow the laws and wade thru the lengthy process of legal immigration, perhaps never to be awarded it. I know people in this predicament. I think the real question for us as a country is, how do we want to respond to the real problems in our immigration process? And do we want to reward people who've forced their way in simply because of geogrpahic proximity, understanding this comes at a cost to all of the other needy people out there who also need to feed their families, and may make a better contribution to society as a whole. I reject the notion that because an unexpected person shows up at my doorstep, I am obligated to give up my right to decide whether to invite him in. Maybe my extra spot at the dinner table was already reserved for someone else.

Let's not get the wrong idea about our immigration policies, they are not by and large structured to provide for the economically needed (political refugees).

It is purely a judgment call as to whether one feels obligated to help those in need who one is actually in a position to help, but since all they ask is the chance to work for a living I find it hard to call the idea offensive.

..but make no mistake, compassion has nothing to do with the primary opposition to amnesty.

Yes, we are in a position to help. My contention is that we as a country should choose whom we want to help, not to have that choice taken away by people who show up and then demand rights. And yes, I do feel many illegals have a sense of entitlement as evidenced by the rallies and protests in recent years. I understand that it's not a one-sided issue and that employers have been turning a blind eye to the problem for their own benefit. I favor heavy fines and jail time for any employer who knowingly exploited illegal immigrants. But that doesn't mean I absolve the people who broke the law for their own benefit. Many in the same predicament choose the legal option--why is that? Do they not claim the moral high ground?

Illegals are not *asking* for the chance to work, they are taking it. And that comes at the expense of others who would like that chance too. I find the idea of rewarding such behavior absolutely offensive.

I find blaming people for crossing a fence to feed their families highly offensive as well.

The fact is we as a country do not choose immigrants based on economic need and most Mexicans know that. Sure some choose to apply, but not the unskilled/semiskilled laborers that cross illegally because they know they don't stand a chance.

It comes at no one's expense, legal visa quotas aren't affected by illegal immigrations.

It certainly does come at someone's expense--we do have a finite amount of resources that become unavialble for other people, other issues. I absolutely believe that our immigration policies need to be gutted and thought out more clearly. I just don't believe amnesty is the way to do it. What is to stop more people from showing up once they know we don't care about our own laws? Why even have borders? A feasible solution to this mess we are in has to be stiff enough to prevent people from sidestepping the law. I don't see this bill, which is already in the process of being gutted, doing that.

We have finite resources that aren't close to being tapped.

The fact is the border are not sealed and immigrants will continue to cross regardless of whether amnesty is an option, they didn't come for citizenship they came for a meal.

No penalty will prevent that, deportation simply puts them back where they started from, why not just cross again?

The only permanent solution is sealing the border completely or an economic revival in Mexico.

In the meantime why again are we punishing people for responsible behavior?

Deportation solves nothing and costs too much.

Let's not talk amnesty. Let;s talk something else. What if said people were allowed to apply for a work visa, with no path to citizenship. Would that be enough?

Basic economics: Increase the supply of workers and businesses and consumers benefit, laborers (particularly the unskilled in the case of our poorly controlled southern border) suffer. In a semi-socialist state poor people receive more in taxes than they pay. Whether immigrants are a net receipiant or payor of taxes depends on what range of benefits they receive. Given the full range of benefits of US citizens they would certainly be a net receiver of tax dollars.

So nobody here finds our free trade agreements with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA) have not been a big driving force in the illegal immigration problem? When NAFTA went into effect, hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Mexican farmers were run out of business (LINK: Mexican Farmers Hammered by NAFTA). Our own actions have caused considerable damage to Mexico's economic well-being. Big business got a nice handout, but lower-wage earners were displaced from jobs. Where were they to turn to? We only allow a certain amount of visas granted to immigrants from Mexico, well under the number affected by NAFTA's policies. Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been adamantly opposed to NAFTA and other free trade agreements. He points out how these policies have benefited wealthy multinational corporations at the expense of lower-class citizens of other countries.

A true story (analogous): when a co-worker of mine decided to buy the land next door and tear down an existing house, he was quite surprised to find all the mice living in said house crossing into his place. I don't want to compare Mexicans to mice (lest anyone misread my analogy), but he complained about the mice and exterminated them. When I pointed out that it was largely his fault, he said he felt the mice were a nuisance and moved in on his territory. Unremarkably, he is also heavily anti-illegal immigrant.

*edited to repair backwards sentence*

No. In fact, we tried that, and it was a disaster called the Bracero Program. If there was a way to ensure that Mexicans wouldnt be even more exploited through a guest worker program, I might be more inclined to agree with one. However, our past and current experiences with Mexican workers clearly point in the other direction.

I've said as much here and here. Without the Mexican government passing out their own agricultural subsidies and modernizing farming equipment on a scale that gives farmers a competitive chance against our own agricultural market (most Mexican farms are labor-intensive) it doesn't make economic sense for Mexicans to work in Mexico, even when foreign companies invest there.

A friend of ours who works at Honda related how the automaker built an assembly plant near Guadalajera. Honda can't find Mexicans to work there even though they pay more than farmers. The plant is not as advanced as the one she works in. Are these people are supposed to work harder for less money? We must really think Mexicans are culturally or biologically inferior if we expect them to stay in Mexico instead of adapting to market forces by exporting their labor to the U.S. where an advanced, efficient economy means higher wages. Honda is trying to retain employees by offering coupons and other gimmicks, but a young workforce doesn't want good deals at a grocery store offering already wage-depressed produce and meat. A young workforce wants decent benefits and enough income to make a decent living and buy a decent house.

NAFTA was supposed to give the U.S. access to cheap labor and higher profits. It started out that way, but NAFTA can't discourage or mitigate pressure on our southern border without addressing the displacement effect U.S. tariffs and subsidies have on Mexico's economy. It's depressing to see so many people criticize illegal immigrants while corporate interests stay largely out of public view and safe from public criticism.

Finally, Mexico bears some of the blame for this. Some of it lies with the fact that the liberal party maintained a majority in local and federal elections through a clientalistic system. If your town wanted government assistance, your town had to vote for the Partido Liberal Mexicano. Recent inroads by the right-of-center Partido Acción Nacional should restore political competition and increase government planning, improving infrastructure in areas of Mexico largely ignored by the Partido Liberal Mexicano and stimulate GDP growth.

We will not stop illegal immigration if we eliminate subsidies, but I think addressing our end of the problem will reduce illegal immigration to a manageable scale so border law enforcement is not overwhelmed and can work with other government agencies to address terrorism.

Not surprisingly I agree with kimpossible and Lesly and must quibble with deng.

First, allowing illegal immigrants to apply for work visas is amnesty and I assure you most opponents would identify it as such. Most people are stuck on what they think is the "rational" concern of legality and they will want punishment. Second the number of visas would have to be comparable to the number of illegals and the wait time short, as in under a year.

Otherwise the demand side of illegal immigration will not the altered.

I would agree so long as this option allows immigrants to earn money to feed their families without being exploited.

...though I would point out that children born in the US will (and should) remain citizens.

Lesly and FargoUT bring specifics that only back up my characteristically terse wrap-up of the issue.

Only an economic revival in Mexico can ever stop illegal immigration short of closing the border entirely.

Personally i would love for our government to work to make that happen in conjunction with Mexico.

Then we can close the border to deal with a real issue like drug traffickers.

Its funny how harmless people catch so much trouble from talking heads whilst cocaine traffickers are an after thought.

Makes one wonder where our priorities are as a nation.

Oh and deng's post confuses the public sector picture with the overall economic affect. When it comes the GDP illegal immigration shows its benefit to the nation as many economists would attest.

So you have said that before--I just didn't catch it in my perusal of the thread. Sorry about that. Sometimes my attention span wanes.

I don't want to come across sounding like I blame America for Mexico's problems--they have as much responsibility to bear for the immigration problems (if not moreso) than we do. However, I find it foolish and naive to ignore our impact on Mexico while condemning illegal immigrants. It's a difficult subject with no easy answer, and simply saying, "They're here illegally, throw them in jail or send them back home!" is absurd and irresponsible. Our nation was founded upon immigration and, had it not been for the natives' belief that land could not be owned, illegal immigration at that. Or at the very least, unethical immigration. Although since we did give them gifts of disease-riddled blankets, subsequently killing many of the natives, I suppose illegal does still fit. I often joke that those against illegal immigration merely fear a repeat of history.

I also agree with turnea that our illegal immigration debate has turned our attention against real problems with real consequences. It would be one thing to hear about illegal immigration and its negative effects on our economy if I didn't turn on the TV every day and hear about how booming our economy really is. If illegal immigrants don't come here to work, we'll find some other cheap form of labor and, I'm quite certain, involving outsourcing. I am rather sick of the illegal immigration debate without acknowledging our government's failed abilities to prevent outsourcing, which is far more detrimental to our work force than Mexicans who will be doing janitorial work at Wal-Mart. It's the contradiction of those who fight against illegal immigration but prop up private sector and the government's giveaways to big business. How many jobs have been lost to companies sending them to India? Look at the products in your home--how many of them are from China?

It's hard to discuss one issue without acknowledging others--our economy does not reside in a bubble, and illegal immigration isn't simply Mexicans crossing our border. I'm losing focus here, so I'll end my post now. I just think that we can't simply resort to platitudes and pseudo-patriotic babble.

Turnea, throughout this and similar threads you appear to be arguing that you think we should dispense with immigration policy entirely. I have asked you to state if this is the case or not...but you have yet to do so. Why? Either we should have immigration policies or we should not. Having immigration policies without enforcing them is the same as having no policies at all. So, which is it? Seems like a simple and direct question, no?

I'm sorry if I haven't directly addressed the issue, I'll make up for that now.

I am an advocate of immigration polices and believe that we should actually seal the border from unwanted crossing.

I am far more concerned with the traffic in illicit drugs and would see that brought to a halt as soon as possible rather than the fuss over illegal immigrants.

I would not advocate such action before the principles that guide our policy are radically changed.

Our policy even now favors skilled workers and excludes the majority of would-be immigrants.

I argue that on humanitarian grounds that exclusion be put to an end.

An immigration policy need not crush the hopes of millions of people who deserve a shot at happiness as much as we do.

Thank you...now I believe we have a much better basis for a discussion. Seems like we are in synch that immigration policy needs to be enforced...but the issue is what exactly that policy should be. I am also in favor of expanding our immigration, however probably not nearly to the degree you seem to be in favor of here. My reasoning, like yours, is fairly simple...I think a nation needs to look after its own citizens first. We do have limited resources, and we simply don't have enough to care for those all over the world looking for a better life. Keep in mind that bringing over millions looking to feed their families will have a double drain on our economy. First by lowering wages, second by increasing the support costs to care for many of those who come over. Heck, we don't even have nearly enough to pay our bills currently, we certainly can't stand the strain of this double economic burden. I would prefer working to improve the economies elsewhere, creating better paying jobs for those who need them.

I would actually be sympathetic to that line of reason if the current situation did not belie the idea that poor immigrants form an unbearable strain.

The fact is our borders are pretty much open. Anyone from Mexico who really wants to get in does eventually.

I do not advocated increasing immigration above what we can bear, but current levels can not only be tolerated, but are actually beneficial.

Changing the policy does not mean opening the floodgates, but those who are already here give us a good idea of how much damage legalizing about that amount would cause...

...not much.

I advocate moving the bar back to a few million, like the 12 we have now. They aren't exactly killing us.

The first two things that come to mind about illegal immigration, and this bill in particular:

Firstly, it's obviously unfair to the large body of legal immigrants. While a legitimate presence does have some advantages over "Z visas" in the immigration bill, not paying the hefty fine in particular, most are superficial enough to warrant angst. If a distinction can be made between illegal and wrong, then we can make a distinction as well between right and unfair. In this case, even if this law is practically the best thing we can do, its still unfair.

Second, being undocumented is harmful in and of itself. There is an added risk associated with letting someone into the country without knowing anything about them, particularly their criminal background. Risk is a cost, and undocumented workers are, by the very fact we know nothing about them, riskier than documented workers. Therefore, undocumented workers are more costly than documented workers. If we had documents on every single illegal alien, we could more easily take out the ones who are prone to causing trouble, and let the ones in who would benefit the economy stay. By not providing information, illegal immigrants deprive us of knowledge vital to assessing their (perhaps criminal) intent.

This idea is taken (and applied) neatly from financial markets. Whats a more risky investment, a company that you know meets certain research criteria, or a company you know absolutely nothing about? By the same logic, an immigrant who passes background checks and makes certain information available is less risky than someone we know nothing about.

Of course, as 9/11 demonstrates, no one is risk less. But the logic behind risk remains perfectly intact.

The Immigration bill makes this a mute point, however. Immigrants who apply for a Z visa eventually have their background checked, probably as much, if not more, than a legal resident.

Furthermore, even though no one can say definitively immigrants pay more in taxes (yeah, like those immigrants standing outside Home depot pay income taxes, right? At best, sales tax, which doesn't cover federal expenses) than they take in services, its a safe economic bet they bring more to the economy than they take. This is also a mute point, as the bill would force these workers to pay all forms of taxes and probably place restrictions on social services they could apply for.

Thus, I'm game for the bill. Its actually shocking to see so many liberals supporting it, considering the application fee of $1500, and the hefty fine for illegally immigrating in the first place, which is upwards of $5000.

Its also startling to see the humanitarian aspect flaunted so heavily. Considering the arbitrage, if such freebies are granted over and over again, the (economic) wage differences for entry level jobs between Mexico and America will equalize. Higher wages, when constantly being flooded with a supply of workers, cannot be maintained forever.

Then again, perhaps a low wage is still better than no wage at all.

And the question is why do “we” have to feed them? Where is their oil money going in Mexico? What is the government doing.


With your twisted logic in hand we should offer free access to half the world – that would love to come here “for a meal” etc.


And breaking the law is not IMO “responsible behavior”.

The law's purpose is to protect human beings, if it fails to do so breaking it may simply be prudent.

Like it or not illegal immigrants are doing what's right for themselves and their families
NO. The “law” is our law to protect “us” not them. Mexico has it’s own laws and by the way they enforce their immigration laws one hell of a lot better than we do.

And we don’t have to “deport” them. Just keep them from working or collecting welfare and they will just go home!

It is potentially harmful only in a secondary manner, not of itself.


Looks like minimum wage law is good for something...


That has nothing to do with our own response to illegal immigration.

Blame Mexico if you want but they call it a blame game for a reason.


I disagree on principle, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Ah, but potential harm (risk) is a cost. And cost is harmful (I assume).

To relink:



I'm guessing illegal immigrants are so lucrative to hire because of their cost. By forcing employers to pay them more, your taking away their competitive advantage.

Not to mention that, Card and Krueger arguments aside, the minimum wage leads to unemployment. In fact theres a thread about this somewhere:Minimum wage

Repealing such laws would be beneficial. After all, its more humanitarian to provide low wage jobs than no jobs at all.

A commonly asserted aphorism which is about as true as "time is money".

Which is to say it illustrates a related concept but is not strictly true.

In other words, no it isn't.


So then they can compete fairly with American labor, fine by me.

As for the minimum wage debate, that is a whole 'nother can of worms, but we need not worry about runaway wage depression anymore than now. Let's face it, illegal immigrants are already working here.

Yes, but why are illegals working here? Part of it is certainly that they need the money. The other part is that business needs their labor. But do they need the labor because American workers can't be found, or because paying illegals is cheaper? I suspect the latter is more prevalent. If that is indeed the case, then documenting illegals will force their wages to go up--which I think is fine. But if wages go up, then will there be enough Americans now willing to work at this rasied wage to get the job done? In that case, why do we need illegals?

You ducked my question. What gives the Mexican “illegal alien” any rights over any other potential illegal alien in you twisted logic???? Certainly ther are people in Asia and Africa worse off – should we give em free transit here?


The reality is we are not responsible for the people of Mexico (or any other country) - their governments are and to say because they are poor and hungry they have a “right” to come here illegally is ludicrous and illogical.





Good point and this is the key to getting them out of the country without “deporting them”. If they cannot work they will just go home – and I will bet that the new immigration bill that passes with be weak on enforcement for companies that hire illegal aliens. If this happens the whole this will be less than worthless – it will be another bureaucracy that does squat.

Ah, the slippery slope

The point is to balance their concerns with those of our own citizens.


I think mass transit of the poor from around the world would be needlessly costly and could quickly overwhelm our resources and form a true drain on our economy.

Our current group of illegals however are a manageable burden.

I also support increased foreign development aid to help the poor who can't immigrant, but that's another issue.


They may not have a right to come here. I didn't say that,

I said it is the right thing to do and it is.

I'm shocked! Actuaries spend hours calculating the money value of such risks. This is a very straightforward application, not a misapplied maxim.

To illustrate given:
- Fighting crime cost money
- There is a certain risk to becoming a criminal

We can say, the greater the risk of becoming a criminal, the higher the cost.

An example:
If there is a 5% risk chance an undocumented worker becomes a criminal, versus a 2% chance a documented worker becomes a criminal, and the cost per criminal is $100, then the extra, expected criminal cost is ((5% x $100) - (2% x $100)) .

As long as there is risk of a cost, risk is costly. In our case, their is a risk of crime, and an associated cost of crime.

As I said, this is almost a black and white, textbook example of risk and cost in action. Its akin to an insurance company not accepting clients without proper documentation. Why? There is an extra cost associated with bearing the extra risk.

Fair enough

My only point was that, if a flood of workers come here, due perhaps to lax immigration policy, wages will drop. The illegals already working here are benefiting from the premium granted by our laws. If you drop the laws, there will be added incentive to come here, creating more workers and lowering the wage.

While this indeed might be beneficial to the economy, the humanitarian aspect of "they make so much more here" will vanish.

“Current” is the right word and the slippery slope. And the number will only grow dramatically as we make it clear we could care less about out border. Then as now people like you will whine about medical costs and lack of jobs for the poor etc. etc..

You cannot have it both ways.



Ya sure it is – same for every poor person on the planet. But that is not the question is it. They have no right to be here and should be booted the hell out.

This is key. The last time we said, ok you're, here, we don't want to deport you so we'll accept you, it led to increased numbers of illegals. Why do we expect the same course of action to cause a different result this time around? Because we've included some flimsy language on border control and enforcement? I would be far more supportive of any guest worker program if the funds and determiantion to actually secure our borders were in place.

Sure, but until the border security is in place deportation "booting them the hell out" won't help either.

My approach is a very practical sort of humanitarianism, they're here, if I were them I'd be here too, they ain't leavin', they aren't too much trouble, let's cut a deal.

Is this immigration deal good policy? Why or why not?
The immigration debate is a Republican Red Herring. It gets the focus off the failures of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war and onto something the Republican base can sink their teeth into, hating people with Brown skin. The Republican voters of this country are the most shamelessly racist anti-progressive group the world over. Only in Australian, where they used to hunt Aboriginies, could I find racism that compared with the Republican base.

Is the immigration deal a good policy? It's irrelevant and in 15 years, we'll be having the same discussion when there are 20 million illegals. Change our foreign policy toward Mexico. Stop shipping our auto jobs over there and not allowing them to unionize. Repeal NAFTA. Stop sending subsidized farming goods over there that undercut the prices of the Mexican farmer and you won't have so many people flooding the borders trying to find jobs. Stop allowing the World Bank to deplete their national treasury so the government can't provide basic services to their citizens. We start doing some of that and we won't need an immigration deal.

If I could break into your racist rant for a minute, let me add that I don't know anybody against legal immigration. Yet those tolerant "progressives" like yourself call some of us racist because we oppose rewarding illegal behavior.

Now with that out of the way, I'd like to ask the more open-minded here a question I've not heard anybody ask about this amnesty bill: If you support this amnesty bill, how do you reconcile the idea that the rest of America contributes to the service of our armed forces, police departments, fire fighters, etc while the illegals don't?

Are the illegals getting a pass on having to contribute to the welfare of our society which includes common defense and public service? Or do we lower the bar to allow people convicted of breaking our immigration laws to enter services previously forbidden due to criminal activity?

Quite simple. If they were legal residents, they would pay taxes and subsequently support the services of armed forces, police departments, fire fighters, etc. Should people be prevented from entering law enforcement because they've had a speeding ticket? And given the lax standards of our armed forces currently, they seem to accept anyone, even criminals! Well, except those open-and-proud gays. They can go to hell. Pardon me if, as a gay man, I find your assertion that illegal immigration is such a threat. I've had to hear about how gays getting married would lead to the destruction of the family unit. I highly doubt amnesty for the illegal immigrants currently residing here would suddenly result in an immense wave of immigrants flooding our country. At least no more than occurs now.

Is the immigration deal a good policy? It's irrelevant and in 15 years, we'll be having the same discussion when there are 20 million illegals. Change our foreign policy toward Mexico. Stop shipping our auto jobs over there and not allowing them to unionize. Repeal NAFTA.


Soooo we should take (auto) jobs away from Mexicans in Mexico and repeal NAFTA and this will stop them from coming here?

Illogical at best. Why in the world would anyone want illegal immigration when this country can have all the LEGAL immigrants we need? And the worst kind of illegal aliens at that.

They are generally poor and un educated and thus take jobs from our poor and even worse than undermining the minimum wage they send most of what they make – 50 billion a year – back home! How stupid can we be allowing this nonsense to continue.

We don't want another 20 million!!!!!
:

The ones that are criminals are still here. Why not take a shot at removing this underground culture that we have?
Is this immigration deal good policy? Why or why not The path to citizenship could be a little more difficult IMO and the border security portion(read wall) could be better. This is good policy by political standards though. It's good policy because no policy is worse here.

I'm with Turnea on this one. Securing the borders is fital to national security. How would blocking this current bill help do that? John McCain summed it up perfectly:

I agree – why would the criminals come forward for a fine and a long wait, coupled with lots of paperwork to be “legal”???? The whole idea is stupid at best – and wasteful as it spends billions on another expanded government agency that will have no effect.

The ONLY way this could ever work is if companies that hire these people believe that they will be caught and face a very stiff penalty – including jail time. To do this the ID issues have to be dealt with and ICE needs to be expanded.

Lacking this imo nothing at all will happen, and the fact that many of the big cities and many small ones specifically tell their cops Not to check peoples immigration status even when arrested makes the whole thing less likely to be even slightly effective.

IMO good security will start some time after the next terrorist attack on out soil and not before.

Well, I don't know if this has been defeated in committee but it's one more reason to pray for gridlock. To help the feds figure out who is elligible to work here and who isn't, they want U.S. citizens to get approval from the Department of Homeland Security. God almighty, new meaning to the word Republicrats. According to the ACLU, DHS will create a No Work List. You guys know how that works (no pun intended), right? I'll give you a hint. It's kinda like fighting terror by taking the judiciary out of the equation. It means DHS's Employment Verification Eligibility System:


The CBO estimates installing this system will cost up to a billion dollars. Who knows how much it will cost to operate. It will cover everyone, including current employees. I can see it now. One day you show up to work and your boss tells you you can't stay. You petition for redress except you can't face your accuser and they don't want to see you in court. And why the Democrats would put faith in DHS by giving it this huge responsibility is beyond me. DHS is perhaps the world's largest bureaucratic repository for political hacks:

The bill will fail so it seems to be moot. Unfortunately no system that does not prevent illegal aliens from working is worthless. They come here for work (at any price) and if we can come up with a way to prevent the forgery and identity theft that now allows this to happen we will go far to eliminate the problem. Without it – don’t bother.

IMO the lesser of 2 evils will be the bureaucrats since at least they are (or will be citizens) who don’t send 50 billion a year “back home” while taking jobs from Americans.

I'm not surprised someone who doesn't mind government expansion, rendition, disappearances, basically any government initiative to keep up "safe" doesn't have a problem with expanding government power. After all, Big Brother is just looking out for our welfare, right Ted? Just like Uncle Sam's plan to intervene on behalf of our oil companies is an example of our good intentions towards Iraqis.

DHS is already a huge agency that can't even integrate Social Security and immigration years after its creation. I know because I have to apply for FASFA with my alien registration number until I fill out a form and send it to Social Security. I'm not going to support appending an agency to an already bloated department. A new bureaucracy isn't prevention, Ted. It's expanding government powers in the name of your sacred cow, national security. Perhaps allowing the government to decide who can work and who can't work without the ability to challenge the government is okay with you, but my political faith is not limitless.

Should we really worry about Big Brother lesly in a country that can’t find 12-20 MILLION people and in fact has no idea how many illegal aliens are really here??? I will not keep me up at night.





I never said I was I favor. but doing nothing will not work either. What’s YOUR plan lesly???

You keep talking about the millions of illegal immigrants taking jobs from Americans, but this doesn't add up. Otherwise, why would President Bush be touting the national unemployment levels of 4.5% as of May 2007? If we ballpark the number of illegal immigrants to 12 million, that means if the remaining 4.5% of the unemployed were to take those jobs, we'd still be short 5 million people. Where exactly do you suggest we find these 5 million to fill those jobs now emptied as a result of forcing all illegal immigrants out of our country? (Link: U.S. Department of Labor)

Furthermore, even if the 12 million were exporting $50 billion out of our country, $70 billion is still being spent in our borders. That may not be good, but taking out $70 billion from the economy would probably harm us more than the $50 billion we currently don't see.

I know this part of the bill will not keep you up at night. That's the problem. It doesn't phase you that the government can unilaterally decide you shouldn't be flying. Why should the government unilaterally deciding you can't work make a difference? Nor does it matter that after billions of dollars and expanding the government to a previously unprecedented amount it is unable to find 12-20 MILLION people. Naturally, we have to surrender our reason and defer to the government. That's the Ted Method, and the Ted Method requires unquestionable faith, or at the very least, passively supporting every unconstitutional initiative and hope it doesn't make things worse.


The Ted Method also includes indifference towards any crackpot idea as long as it comes from the government. I think you are already familiar with my "plan", Ted: fine companies (you know, try enforcing existing law), double or triple border patrol, set up a virtual border, raise a physical border in areas where the terrain will assist the border patrol in funneling illegal immigrants for easy detainment and deportation (there's no way we're going to raise an effective physical barrier hundreds of miles long), and phase out agricultural tariffs and subsidies starting with the top farming benefactors.

I fly all the time as do many millions of others. Sure the stupid government makes mistakes and as I SAID I could care less (and prefer) if a private company does it but we need to STOP the damn criminal illegal aliens from coming in working cheap and taking Americans JOBS. Do you get that lesly?? And if that means we have a way (however) that prevents employers from hiring these slime balls I am all for it.





And I agree but you cannot punish “companies” when the paper work that allows one to work is so easily forged or stolen can you. And to enforce the “law” you need “lawmen” And since you hate “government” people doing the checking lets contract it out. I am a conservative and I don’t want government doing anything but if you think Congress (and esp. liberals there) will not want to do this job will millions of buracrats you are dreaming lesly.

You failed to acknowledge my point, but this new argument--that we need to stop illegal aliens from taking American jobs--is positively ridiculous. The argument that illegal aliens are breaking the law is obvious. They would not be "illegal" aliens otherwise. However, in my opinion, this is similar to the arguments that white Americans were using to justify their ownership of slaves in the 1800s. Rosa Parks broke the law when she moved to the front of the bus. There are many instances of people breaking a law which is inherently unjust or immoral. I consider our immigration policies to fall into this category of poor legislation.

I do agree that we need our borders monitored and possibly sealed as much as possible. But contrastly, I think the methods for allowing immigrants to become legal citizens is unnecessarily convoluted, time-consuming, and costly. Those individuals who want to come to America to look for work aren't making enough money in Mexico to afford our immigration processes. In the fight for life vs. borders, I fall on the side of life. And if an illegal immigrant needs to cross a border illegally to gain employment to feed his family, I don't really care. I think we need to relax our requirements and allow for a much more streamlined and cost-effective immigration policy.

And I haven't even mentioned that if companies can't afford to hire cheap labor here in America, they'll simply outsource and ship those same jobs to China or India or someplace where they can pay cents per hour. The immigration policy must be viewed in connection with our trade agreements. They rarely are. So long as NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO exist, our immigration problems will not cease. This debate is far more complex than resorting to simplifications of "illegal" aliens breaking our immigration laws.

Back to the topic at hand, the immigration bill is a step in the right direction, but does not go far enough in addressing the real problems. This is probably the only area where I actually agree with President Bush. Crazy as it may be...

Is this immigration deal good policy? Why or why not?
I'm glad you asked me. No it's not a good policy. At least for the American people and their social fabric as a whole, in its entirety.
There are detention camps being built and manned across the US. The illegals are being ushered in so, in the future, when they decide to get angry at the way they're (going to be) treated, there are facilities to place them. It's the backbone of the coming martial law Bush says will happen in the future. That bill isn't a preventative measure to protect Americans. It's a bill of action, not prevention. When it comes, the illegals will be the first inmates. People who say "If there ain't no blue Zyklon-B to see, then the Nazis, innocent they must be" will be next....

Oh really – on what basis? If youy think all the jobs illegal aliens do “no one else will do” You have NO clue all of the reality. I have posted the reality. Only 5-15 % of the jobs are “field” labor and they would pay more if illegals were not willing to work for peanuts.





Again dead wrong. Illegals are big in construction and many other jobs that cannot be “shipped out” anywhere.

I already answered this a few posts ago--you can go back and read it if you'd like. I have never argued that Americans won't do the jobs illegal immigrants do--I have argued that there aren't enough Americans to take up the number of jobs which would suddenly be vacated if all 12 million immigrants were sent out of the country. If you take the 4.5% unemployed, according to the US government bureau of statistics, roughly 7 million people, and try to fill 12 million vacancies, you can see the obvious flaw. It's simple math.

*edited to correct spelling*