Redstate

I totally agree with you here.  Why is illegally entering this country taken so lightly?  I guess that is the million dollar question.

On another related issue, Bill O'Reilly was talking in hour 2 of his radio show today about an illegal immigrant who killed a young mother in her home.  And to top it off, he was arrested prior to the killing, but was never deported.  I'm going to listen to the whole hour when I get a chance, but come on.....this is ridiculous.

More minute men needed. It will have to be the people of the United States with a grassroot effort from both sides to get this done.

It is clear that neither the Republican or Democratic parties want to shut the borders down. I suppose there are just too many hispanics they want votes from.

In a 3 yr effort in San Diego, 14 volunteers and myself reported 176 violations of illegal immigrants working in the area. The companies, names of illegal employees and addresses of said employees were handed over to the INS over a 6.5 months period.

Of the 176, a single incident was investigated and then not prosecuted. 175 of them the INS claimed they never received the information from us. We have undisputable proof they did.

In a 9 yr effort in El Paso, Texas, the same study was instituted, Over 12,000 illegals were identified, not a single one was followed up by the INS. Again, claiming they never received documentation from us. Somewhat impossible since the info was forwarded to 7 INS locations and the state capitol while Bush was in office there, it was totally ignored.

In Miami for the last 2 years, over a 1,000 illegals have been identified, mostly cuban. A local INS agent (Cuban) that we handed the information to for prosesution informed us to stay out of it or we could face some "INTERESTING" reprisal.

In southern California, the California taxpayer now payes more money to treat illegal immigrants in our hositals thatn we do on our own people that pay taxes here.

I have an idea. When an illegal is caught the first time, they are allowed to leave and rethink their crime after a 90 day prison sentense. If they are caught a second time, they are placed in a Governmental work camp for a period of 2 years. They are then released and sent back to their country to rethink their crime.

If they are caught a 3rd time, the penelty becomes far reaching. A minimum 15 years in the work camps or until they die.

For every illegal caught for a 3rd time from let's say Mexico, the Mexican government will see a decrease of $500 of financial support from the United States for every illegal caught no matter what the program is we are helping them with.

If after one year the Mexican government cannot decrease the number if immigrants coming accross the border then we begin to slash trade agreements with them. After a 5 year period if illegal immigration has not been controlled, then a complete and total closure of the border should be instituted and all trade stopped in it's entirety.

Again, in the end, throughout all of history, only extreme penalty in the pocket book seems to work, the final option os to shoot anyone who moves anywhere near the border.

...impose a million dollar fine per infraction for companies that hire illegal immigrants?

Sure, we'd pay more for houses, fruits and vegetables picked in this country, hotel rooms, restaurant meals, etc. etc.

But we'd stop the incentive for illegals to come up.

Without companies and individuals hiring illegal immigrants, there would be no reason for them to come to the states.

and that was brought up by the Simpson's episode in which Apu faces deportment.

What you're saying is so understandable.  And really, your only crime

was violating U.S. law.

-- Marge to Apu, "Much Apu About Nothing"

This statement holds both overlooked realities:

1. That illegal immigrants are criminals.  People who break the law should have a just punishment.  They are not all Valjeans, but most just wanted a better life.  This is a reason, a mitigating reason, but not an excuse.
   
2. That we cannot simply deport all the illegals that exist in this country today.  They are our neighbors (for some of us anyway) and their plight is understandable.  Tracking them down and deporting them would be cruel to them and their families, cause even more international disdain for the US, and shake our economy to its roots.

That said, militarizing our borders while simultaneously granting amnesty to those already here is a patently absurd solution.  I am not sure what is a good solution, though how can anyone argue against beefing up border security and reforming immigration law to make it more streamlined, fairer to immigrants, and fairer to the current US population?  Meanwhile, there must be an acceptable solution that addresses the second reality I mentioned above...

Someone (might have been here) observed that Americans probably do not have the stomach to do the sorts of things that would have to be done to truly close the borders.  I personally consider that a good thing, but it does leave us with the problem.

Market theory tells us that prohibition generally doesn't work.  The illegals want to work here, and we have jobs for them to take.  The obvious solution is a guest worker program that can keep track of everyone, regulate the flow, etc.

Of course, this idea went over like a lead balloon,  hammered from the left and right for reasons dealing mostly with ideology.  Is it a perfect solution?  No.  But its better than what we have now.

Work camps? Whoah up there, pardner.  Sheesh.  You don't cut off the supply, you stop the demand.  If you really want to go that route, you severely punish the firms that hire illegals.  No jobs for them, no illegals.

"That said, militarizing our borders while simultaneously granting amnesty to those already here is a patently absurd solution.  I am not sure what is a good solution, though how can anyone argue against beefing up border security and reforming immigration law to make it more streamlined, fairer to immigrants, and fairer to the current US population?  Meanwhile, there must be an acceptable solution that addresses the second reality I mentioned above..."

A few comments on your statements and on previous posters comments.

#1) Agree completely with the militarizing of the borders.  Its a poor attack at the symptom of the problem.  It doesnt fix the causes and IMO it hurts the US more than it helps in the long run.  Quite frankly, if the US militarizes the borders, I'd consider leaving the country.  I have no desire to live in a police state.

#2)Somone suggested that imposing huge fines on those who hire illegal aliens would stop the problem, yes it would - but again, attacking the symptom.  Its simply not realistic.

The reason both parties do nothing to 'fix' the problem has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with 'wooing' the hispanic vote.  It is primarily because there is a political reality which does not allow movement in either direction - on the pain of loosing EVERYONES vote.  On one hand, they could do what was suggested above, stop the flow of illegal immagrants, through huge fines or even militarized borders.  People say, I don't mind, I'd pay more for dishwashers, fruit, etc.  No, no you wouldn't.  At least the vast majorities of americans wouldn't.  They would riot.  The price of fruit and vegitables would, at the very least triple - most likely it would go up by a factor of 10.  You'ld have to pay minimum wage, have 40 hour work weeks, and insurance.  Your grocery bill would go from maybe 10% of your income for the average american family to 30%.  People would riot.  (and this is just groceries, what about the restraunt and entertainment industry, the construction industry, etc...)  

Perhaps you say that, well, the US could get rid of all those labor laws (and I'm sure there are a few people on redstate who are all for that).  a) its not going to happen.  Just try and get rid of the already low minimum wage.  b) The unemployment rate in the US is already so low it would be difficult to fill all the jobs taken with illegal labor at the moment, certainly at the present pay scale.

So what about option #2.  We stop making it illegal for people to come into the country - e.g. we open up immigration to significantly higher than current levels.  Still haven't fixed the problem.  If they aren't here illegally, then they would recieve pay and benefits according to US law, which makes it too damn expensive.  Still haven't fixed the problem.

Which is why noone will touch it.  They'll pander to their respective bases about it, but they are leaving well enough alone.  

I'm going to say something shocking now - I actually think the Bush proposal for the guest worker program is the best solution I've heard to date on this issue.  It sounds like a workable compromise that allows people to work legally without totally screwing the US economy.  

. . .as long as it comes along with a streamlined deportation system and a permanent ban on US citizenship for anyone caught illegally in the country.  I have no problem going after the businesses who employ illegals in bad faith--but the illegals themselves shouldn't get off scot-free.

illegal immigrants are arriving on the shores of virginia every day. some come in tire tubes and others come in shuttle boats driven by liberals. they're infesting our countryside and damaging the purity of this nation.

but few people really know the true danger of illegals, because the liberal media doesn't want to tell you. they're floating up on their tire tubes towards the ocean shore and snatching up children. i recently read a report on newsmax.com that told me that this was a problem especially in new orleans where these free loaders are floating up from mexico, stealing children, then trading them on the black market for illegal drugs and big sombreros.

this rice and beans crowd needs to be locked up. it's time we took a real stand and threatened military action against mexico if they don't stop sending these illegals our way. but it won't happen soon because the liberal media won't tell you the whole story.

This is your one warning. Read the posting rules. We try to keep this a classy place.

Next time you post a comment like this, wave bye-bye.

I missed the homosexual = illegal immigrant link.  I didn't know so many illegals were gay (probably because they're not).

The views of us who are politically aware are relatively unimportant in this matter. In the general publics view perception truly is reality. In 1968/69 the public "knew" we had lost the Vietnam War. The reality is that we had the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong defeated but that didn't matter. The perception was that we had lost, so we lost.

The current public perception on both the sides of the non-political isle is that illegal immigration is one of the major current issues, if not the major American issue. On the left (union members) and the core right the belief is that illegal immigration is ruining America. And what they view as is illegal immigration is the Hispanic immigration from via Mexico.

None of the facts or proposed programs, either Republican or Democrat, matters; the public is aroused and they want action.

The real question is which party or which candidate will tap in to this anger. The storm is building and it's my view that who ever taps into this anger will be headed to a big political victory.

...a fine, who would hire illegals?

Without jobs, why would illegals come here?

The problem with Immigration policies as proposed by the President is that it is all supply side, and nothing on the consumption side.

The supply side is the whole guest worker, legalization track and other steps which have been discussed before.

But what's being done on the consumption side?

Restoring the validity of common forms of ID

The Real Id, amendment current defense authorization bill is one step which will create a national standard for the issue of driver licenses.  At least if your state wants driver license issued by the state recognized as a "official" identification for interstate travel and entering federal buildings.

Reducing the ability to use false documents to obtain legal employment.

Representative David Dryer R CA has a bill which will soon to be introduced which seeks to develop and field a secure form of the Social Security card.

A link to an a recent article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/04/MNGJOCJN2C1.
DTL

No one is talking yet about enforcement activities which seek to go after unscrupulous business which employ illegal. Expect for those Lefties and Unions going after Wal-Mart for their own reasons.

Here's the thing however

Are these measures in effect creating a de-facto national ID card? How do these moves sit with Conservatives?

These moves in total do contribute to a "big-brother" Government to some extent, and one has to give some thought to the price in erosion of our civil rights and are these measures worth the price?

I would say "yes", others may have a different opinion, but one thing is clear to me, sealing the boarder alone will not work.

is for Mexico to become a first-world country.  If they had jobs there they wouldn't come looking for jobs here.

That said, I'm from south Texas, and frankly, I sympathize a good bit with those folks.  My Dad hired one or two on occasion for ranch work, and I know of another fellow who came up every spring for years on end to work at another place.  I see them working all around here, and working hard, too.  

They might be the new Irish/Italians/South Slavs, but they aren't freeloaders.

and cost a bundle in services.

That we cannot simply deport all the illegals that exist in this country today.

We will not have to if we arrest the employer - the jobs will dry up and they will depart voluntarily.

 They are our neighbors (for some of us anyway) and their plight is understandable.

Do you not want the criminal out of your neighborhood? Why don't I give a few homeless  folks some tents and sleeping bags and let them campout on your front lawn?

 Tracking them down and deporting them would be cruel to them and their families,

Is it cruel to tell the law breaker to depart - begone?

cause even more international disdain for the US,

France and Germany are  deporting their illegal aleins - why is it that we can not?

and shake our economy to its roots.

Our economy will survive just fine.  More American will find work.  Wages and labor will meet a happy balance.  

If you think our economy can only survive using illegal labor then why not go back to indentured servants?  That would do it one better.

Put some acceptable provisions in President Bush's Guest Worker program that conservatives could support.  Bear in mind that this is a "Guest Worker" plan and not an immigration agenda.  

NOTE --While discussing this plan, Mexican President Vicente Fox said the Mexican workers did not want to migrate.

1. Who would be eligible to apply?  

 Only individuals residing outside of the United States of America and those who are in the USA in a legal status (Tourist, Student, etc.).  

 If someone is currently here illegal they would need to exit and get in line.

 This program would apply only to the worker, not the family of the worker.

2. Would the Guest Worker be eligible for Food Stamps, Low Income Housing, or other forms of welfare?  No. If the Guest Worker received benefits from these programs the government would in effect be subsidizing the employer by supplementing the Guest Worker's wages.  If the government subsidized the worker's pay the effect would reduce the Income and other payroll taxes.
   
   
3. Would the Guest Worker be eligible for Earned Income Credit, credit for elderly or disability, child care, or other such tax deductions?  No.  The worker would not be eligible to claim any deductions other than them selves.  
   
   
4. Would the Guest Worker pay into Social Security or Unemployment?  No, as they are not immigrating they could not receive these benefits.  They would pay into Worker's Compensation and therefore will be eligible to receive payments, rehabilitation, and care.  They would have to be medical care at a State approved medical treatment facility.
   
   
5. Would the Guest Worker be eligible for medical care?  Only emergency medical treatment due to fact it would be a wage subsidy as stated above where the government would be paying.  If the diagnosis was that the required medical treatment was not acute but routine the patient would be given written advice and or prescriptions and told to purchase the medication at their local pharmacy.  The cost of diagnosis and or emergency treatment would be recouped through payroll deduction by billing the employer.  The worker, their employer, or the two together would provide the medical coverage.
   
   
6. Would the Guest Worker be eligible for subsidized educational programs? No, the worker may receive monies from charitable organizations for education and training.  The monies would have to be paid directly to the accredited learning institution.  The employer may provide training to the employee.

You ask as if Americans "own" these jobs.

This post just stinks of that rotten troll stench. So clearly a trolling post.

Productive members of society are now an enemy to be rounded up and deported?

extremely productive people from China in the next year to the United States. They would work cheaper than the Mexican's and South American's, are more willing to educated themselves and learn the language and culture of the area. Have very good understanding of the concept,"When in Rome", and could outstrip and fulfill your requirements to the tee.

Yet, a few American's might be a bit angry that they and their families for sometimes centuries have built, worked and paid taxes for a system they were to enjoy, because they worked for it. NOw S. Californian's are paying for illegals at a rate that is costing them more than they are spending on themselves. This is ok with this guy above, haaaaa.

I have many family members in El Paso, Texas. In 1970, that city was the 18th largest in the United States. It was 74% anglo, 15% hispanic as the major races and a variety of other that made up the remainder. It also enjoyed the 9th highest wages in the country and had the 6th strongest financial capability of any city in the U.S.

Fast forward 35 years to today. With completely unchecked immigrantion, an estimated 45,000 to 115,000 illegal crossings every morning (that's right we're not counting the rest of the day) all come over to work and bring that money back to Mexico that night to help that local economy bleeding El Paso dry for 35 straight years.

Today El Paso in home to 4 of the 10 poorest zip codes. It has the lowest wage rate for any city it's size in the entire country. It's local government is absolutely on the edge of total financial collaspe and would not be running at all if not for federal subsidies. Your not lucky to get a job even as a professionally trained individual, your lucky to get any job at minimum wage. The best and the brightest minds of the area have long since left because making $20,000 as a well trained professional doesn't pay your food bill much less any home. AS the rest of the country went through a real estate boom for the last 5-7 years, it remains the only city it's size in the U.S. to see a decrease in land value and the entire area has been turned into a 3rd world area.

Don't believe me? South West Airlines fly's there for virtually nothing, since no one there has any money. You can take a weekend and probably spend less than 300 to 400 for a couple of people including hotel room rental car and food. Yeah it's like going to Mexico, even the prices.

Go take a look at one of this countries most historically significant cities in our history. Go see what it once was just 35 -40 years ago. Look at how pretty that place was, how clean, how prosperous.

Now look at what a policy of not taking action to stop immigration has done to it.

Go ahead you can go see it with your own eyes, the evidence doesn;t have to be waited for, it's there today, for all to see, what will happen to city after city after city in America.

Yeah, you've got yours. Your ancestors came in here and took land from my ancestors. But now that you have yours, yeah let's seal the borders. Screw the "land of opportunity" rhetoric this country was supposed to be built on.

Yes, new immigrants will bring competitive pressure. But that is their right. The idea that a country (especially one founded on immigration like the US) can just refuse entry to somebody who just wants to come make a living is terrible and filled with latent racism and classism.

I'm sorry all those brown people had to go ruin your white El Paso. A bunch of white people came and ruined our red America.

I'm half Cherokee, family from all over Oklahoma, but mostly from Tahlequah and Ada.

I'm mostly sure a good numer of blacks were also sent there with us if they were thought to be half Indian and since my Uncle "Charlie Brown" (102 yrs old) is as black as tar I am even more sure. We were sent there after mostly white men and Mexican's took our land long before anyone else was here.

My other half is 1/4 Mexican (oh, you didn't expect that)and finally finish with a 1/4 Irish, as those ancestors worked on the railroad and fought in the war.

I don't care what happened, this is today. I don't care if it's illegal immigration from Sweden, England, China or the Moon.

The only thing that is important today is to look at what happened to one of our nations proudest cities and what happened to it because of uncontrolled immigration.

This is your future America. If anyone knows, I know. I've seen it happen to my Nation over 500 years ago, I've seen it happen in my lifetime with a city I once knew, and I am seeing now happening on a large scale nationwide.

I'm not an American Indian, I am an American that cares deeply about what I have already seen happen before that is happening again.

There should be ZERO rights for any illegal immigrant in this country, absolutely ZERO rights. I understand the plight of people wwho are repressed, trust I really really know first hand.

I know how many American lives have been lost to keep what we have built for ourselves. I do not see that any illegal alien has any right to anything whatsoever when he is in this country.

I would deny all medical attention as brutal as that might seem. I would deny all educational access. I woul ruthlessly hunt them down one by one by one and deport them regardless of how long they have been here, they knew the risk when they came and now it's time to pay the piper.

And most importantly, I would give them the arms, training and knowledge neccessary to overthrow a government in Mexico that has been corrupt for so many years. Nothing more than a few hoodlums from the Juarez mafia control virtually the entire country now. I actually grew up with two of the current mid to high level bosses.

The FBI makes deal with them across the El Paso border, so does the INS. I personally know of at least 50 American INS agents in that city on cartel payroll that let the drugs and illegal good come in. Most agents that I personally know, tell me the number is more like 250 American agents. Most, if not all of the city council is in the pocket of the cartel asw well as very long fingers that reach all the way to members of the state senate.

I love the Mixican people, they are my people. What I hate is that they have no chance to escape the corruption that gains institutional status as each day passes. What I hate is the institutionalize status quo of corruption that every single latin American country seems to be suffering from and are doing a very good job at importing it to the United States as each day passes. We have already lost a once great city to this influence of Institutionalize Latin Corruption, How many do we lose before we do something?

Oh, by the way, try to know the person you are talking to first before you make accusations that make you look less than intelligent.

When the spokesman for Immigration doesn't see being here illegally as a crime what chance do the rest of our efforts have.

Isn't there some way to bring some sort of charges against federal government officers who knowingly fail to do their duty? Misfeasance? Malfeasance? Nonfeasance? There are only about a bazillion federal laws, this must be covered by one of them.

be able to have a decent national debate on the immigration issue because it seems like such a difficult issue to get a hold of.   i find it hard enough trying to reconcile my own opinions regarding issues of access with the broader economic picture.

perhaps this is why so many people revert to reactionary default mode when confronted with this issue: either "close the border" or "f*** the border".

in principle, i lean towards the latter. but, of course, that would have a serious  negative impact on american workers.

some questions:

Why work to increase the free movement of capital while prohibiting the free movement of labor?

What is the feasibility of legislation requiring "american" companies that outsource production/services to adhere to a certain level of labor standards for their foreign workers?

What is the feasibility of legislation requiring "american" companies that outsource production/services to adhere to a certain level of labor standards for their foreign workers?

There is a fundamental difference between the two fruits you are comparing in this question. An illegal immigrant who enters this country will get to take free advantage of certain benefits they would never enjoy in their home countries. A company that sends jobs overseas is perfectly within the realm of reason when they compensate their workers commensurate with the overseas market, rather than prevailing American conditions.

For instance, my church has a large missionary presence in Africa, that consists largely of native African ministers, many of whom receive financial support from the folks in America. In many regions where they work, they receive a salary of approximately $30 a month - a wage that would be reckoned "slave wages" here in the United States. However, $30 (USD) a month is a very respectable wage for their locality, and would probably put them in the top 10% of earners in their job market. Should we be forced to pay them 100 times their salary so that they'll fit our American model of compensation?

Likewise, if an American company moves into an overseas area and seeks to compete where the workweek is 60 hours instead of 40, should they be forced to provide overtime on 40 hours instead of 60? That's an effective way to cripple our overseas market, and our at-home economy as well.

And out of curiosity, why does taking advantage of cheaper labor make a company "american" instead of American?

MachoNachos

It's very interesting indeed to see the way the papers are spinning the Chamberlain story. I thought I would also add this stomach turning story from the NYTimes as further evidence of the MSM's complicity with everything that is bad for America, including illegal immigration.

What is particularly odious is that this is not a conservative/liberal issue. You can observe even within the context of this thread that some of our most strident liberals are also the most opposed to illegal immigration. I think that both left and right get behind the "secure the borders" mantra for different reasons, however. Conservatives, because they have more of a tendency to have respect for the rule of law. Liberals, because they realize that the people who get sucker-punched in the gut by illegal immigration are the poor.

But there is no cause so politically offensive that the NYTimes will not champion, especially if it's bad for the future of America. Observe how they miss the whole point here:

"The intention is to prevent hijackers and terrorists from getting licenses that would let them get on planes," said Benjamin Bratter, an immigration lawyer who is appealing an order of deportation entered against Mr. Medina in 2001, arguing in part that a previous lawyer had botched the case.

Actually, the intent is to prevent people from entering this country illegally - whether it's to commit terrorist acts against our buildings or our economy.

 "But look at who gets caught up in this - a guy like Jorge, a lay minister, a father of two. This can't be the intended result."

I am a paid minister, and also a parent. Does this mean that I am also exempt from obeying the laws of this country?

It should fairly be oberved that these statements are not the statements of, say, the NYTimes editorial board. But they are, at the very least, horribly irresponsible - and they are reproduced prominently in this article with no rebuttal whatsoever from the author of this story. I doubt, somehow, that the statements of, say, Pat Robertson on judicial nominees get such a free pass from NYTimes writers.

MachoNachos

That's why I phrased my original post as two oft-overlooked realities.  The left overlooks that fact that illegal immigrants BROKE THE LAW.  That is easy to understand in an abstract sense, but if you see these people as human beings simply wanting a better life, you overlook fact that the means they chose were illegal.

But the right overlooks the real problems that are raised from a "deport 'em all" outlook.  Specifically, I'd like to respond to all your points.

The reality is that the illegal are taking jobs and cost a bundle in services.

I wholeheartedly agree.  While there is some indication that Americans don't want these jobs, not only are there plenty of legal Americans who could use jobs but filling jobs with illegals simply keeps these jobs low-paying and with no benefits (so they become even more unattractive; a vicious cycle).  This in turn costs our government because that's who pays when they get sick.  On the other hand, they get no preventative health care and no insurance.  Bad for all.

We will not have to if we arrest the employer - the jobs will dry up and they will depart voluntarily.

Again I agree in part.  Cracking down on employers who use illegals would address both the tax cheating aspect and the immigration aspect.  But this won't solve the problem, it is simply too many illegals and too many employers.  It would leave a gaping hole in our economy and raise prices to unbearable levels.

Do you not want the criminal out of your neighborhood? Why don't I give a few homeless  folks some tents and sleeping bags and let them campout on your front lawn?

I invoked Valjean for a reason.  Most of these people are not criminals who will put a knife to your throat for your wallet.  They are criminals who want to live side by side with you who broke the law to get here.  Again, this is not an excuse for breaking the law.  But don't conflate tresspassing with assault.  And, no, some of these criminals I don't necessarily want out of my neighborhood, because many are good people at heart (I invoked Apu for a reason, too).

Is it cruel to tell the law breaker to depart - begone?

It is when they have lived here for a long time, may have family who would stay behind, or if it would necessitate the physical location and arrest  ("tracking down") of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men, women and children.

France and Germany are  deporting their illegal aleins - why is it that we can not?

So there will be no political repurcussions if we track down and deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?  None at all from Mexico or Central America?  None at all from the UN?  None at all from humanitarian organizations?  Or should we just forget them all?  Don't need to work with them on these and other problems with international scope?

Our economy will survive just fine.  More American will find work.  Wages and labor will meet a happy balance.

I'm glad you have faith in the free market.  But while wages and labor take their sweet time adjusting to one another, employers will face having to hire one person to perform the job of three illegals because now they have to pay a living wage, give benefits and pay taxes for the position.  Which of course they should do anyway, but forcing them to do it all at once, or even in the space of five years, would raise prices astronomically.  This would exacerbate inflation and the weak dollar, not to mention not fly well with most of us who already strain to make ends meet.

If you think our economy can only survive using illegal labor then why not go back to indentured servants?  That would do it one better.

In an ideal world we would have no illegals in this country.  Again, realistically, we cannot ignore that it is a part of our economy, and in some places our society, that cannot simply be removed like a cancer and then all will be well.  I am not arguing for illegal immigration, simply acknowledging the fact that mass deportation and subsequent militarization of our borders is not a viable solution.

a section which frequently describes the hardships of everyday New Yorkers and is distributed in print only in the NY metro area.  These hardships are often caused by laws, local and national, which might be sound but still have unintended impacts.

Meanwhile, Tuesday's national news page featured a more balanced article on the subject.  Some excerpts:

State officials complain that the new requirements will add a costly, complicated burden to the issuance of driver's licenses, which has been their responsibility for almost a century. Civil rights organizations and privacy advocates say that they are concerned that a standardized driver's license would amount to a national identification card and that a central database would be vulnerable to identify theft.

...

Supporters of the law say it addresses important security problems and note that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used driver's licenses as identification when checking in for their flights, and that a few had expired visas.

Supporters also say the measure will help control illegal immigration. Caroline Espinosa, a spokeswoman for NumbersUSA, a group that lobbies for tighter borders and tougher immigration laws, said, "This is really targeted toward national security, but a side effect would be discouraging illegal immigrants from coming into the United States and making it more difficult for them to open a bank account, buy a house, rent a car or buy a car."

While the article I cite above has its own, more subtle bias (the critics' qualms are presented in paragraph 3, while the supporter's points are presented in paragraphs 9 and 10), you can hardly say the NY times is not providing balance.  Bias, yes, there's some, but it's subtle and not of the scope you imply.  The Metro article is not representative of the general style of how the NYT, or much of the MSM, is providing their principal covering of the Real ID initiative.  If you think schlocky "little-guy-versus-the-government" human interest stories should be passed through a political filter, take it up with the NY times metro section, or Inside Edition for that matter, since they've all started to become the same.

The US Government is accountable to no one. Nobody has the authority to charge them with anything, except maybe an international organization, but illegal immigration is not a international issue, it's a US issue.

If our elected officials are not going to carry out our wishes, maybe we need to jump to the next step, which is, as our Constitution provides, form a new government when the current one isn't working anymore.

. . .have any problems with my conditions, as if there aren't any illegals coming in, the fact that if they did they'd face quick ejection and a permanent ban on US citizenship wouldn't be an issue.

Right?

The unemployment rate in the US is already so low it would be difficult to fill all the jobs taken with illegal labor at the moment, certainly at the present pay scale.

At what is sacred about the current pay scale? And no, it would not be "difficult" to fill all the jobs. There are plenty of Americans who would come out of the woodwork to do those jobs. (Remember: the unemployment rate only counts people looking for work; there are millions not even doing that). As with anything else in the market, if you pay the going rate for it, supply and demand will equalize.

Re: I would deny all medical attention as brutal as that might seem.

That is immoral and indeed evil. I would not live in a nation that allowed people to die in its street when it had the means to save them.  Even Tim McVeigh and Ted Bundy got medical attention in jail.

Give them emergency treatment, and then deport them.

I think that I share a lot in common with many conservative bloggers when I say that my interest in the NYTimes extends exactly as far as links that I can find on the very front page of www.nytimes.com. I found that link from that page. I had no way of knowing that it was from the Metro section of the print edition.

in recognition of the existence of multnationals. (and the cayman islands)

in big, bold letters says New York/Region.

Click on that header, and you get redirected to the metro section.  Some other metro section headlines, these from this morning:

May 6, 2005

New York Region

Facing Surplus, Mayor Plans to Spread It Around

2 Blasts Before Dawn Shatter Windows and Close Third Avenue

Fixated on Stadium? Mayor Says No, but His Letters Differ

Political Memo: Delay at Ground Zero, Bad Timing for Pataki

Mayor Cleared in Stamford After Months Under Scrutiny

Queens Construction Firm Accused of Bribery

TV Hit Man Is Offered Deal to Avoid Jail in Assault Case

and the ever-popular:

Grisly Discovery Near Train Tracks

My point being that it would take 30 seconds to realize this was a schlocky human-interest piece from the Metro section, and about 30 more seconds to find the more balanced article I cite above.

that I was refering to is the current wage rates given to illegal workers.  Obviously there aren't 'americans coming out of the woodwork' to work at that payscale, because it isn't happening.  There just aren't hordes of destitute americans being payed under the table to pick fruit ala Grapes of Wrath - which returns to the point I was making that you obviously missed.  

If you want Americans to do the work currently being done by illegals, the cost of living is going to go way up and the shock to the economy would be huge.  This is why neither party will actually 'fix' the problem.

I don't know about that.  I don't think the shock to the economy would be that severe, I think the shock to the American people that they might actually have to work to earn money would be more severe.  As a nation, our ego's have been inflated beyond belief when it comes to work ethic.  Especially the sentiment that "these people do jobs American's won't do."  That angers me to no end, why won't we do these jobs, have we suddenly become too good to mow grass, paint, build houses, pick fruit, or whatever.  American's only "won't" do the jobs, because it's been beaten in our heads that we don't have to.  

I won't accept that American's just "won't" do the jobs and that's why illegals are ok.  I think it's better re-phrased as American's would do the job if they could live on the wages paid.  I'm sorry, but no one, regardless of where you live in the country, can afford to support themselves completely on minimum wage, it just can't be done.  Here in NJ, you are lucky if you can support yourself (food, apt, utilities, etc) on $12/hour.  

I think the cost of living is going up in some states due to the fact that they are now supporting the benefits that illegals get when they are in this country.  

I don't know about that.  I don't think the shock to the economy would be that severe, I think the shock to the American people that they might actually have to work to earn money would be more severe.  As a nation, our ego's have been inflated beyond belief when it comes to work ethic.  Especially the sentiment that "these people do jobs American's won't do."  That angers me to no end, why won't we do these jobs, have we suddenly become too good to mow grass, paint, build houses, pick fruit, or whatever.  American's only "won't" do the jobs, because it's been beaten in our heads that we don't have to.  

1) i didn't say that american's wouldn't do those jobs - i said they won't do those jobs for the benefits (~1/4 minimum wage + nothing) that illegals do the jobs for.  You can't argue this - I can prove they won't do it because they ARENT doing it.  When I lived in san diego there were parts of town where you would see a bunch of Mexicans waiting on the streetcorner.  They were sitting there waiting for some guy in a pickup truck to ask them if they wanted to work for the day picking avacados or building a house, for ~10 bucks and lunch.  There was nothing to stop a bunch of American citizens to sit there on the street corner and get the same job.  (BTW, is that how its still done, or did it go more underground?  Its been a while since i was in SD).

second: shock to the economy:

Its obvious, I dont know why I'm getting arguements about this either.   Lets take agriculture again, because its the most important sector - currently, if you can hire 1 illegal to pick fruit for 10 bucks a day, for maybe 10-12 hours a  day, with no FICA tax, no paperwork, no insurance, and no legal recourse.

Now, replace that job as you say, with an American who presumably is now being payed enough that they would do the job.  Now you are paying some guy 50 bucks a day, for 8 hours of work, + paperwork, + FICA.  Maybe some benefits, maybe not, lets forget about those.  There are also OSHA standards you better follow, and they get break time etc etc..

Now, your telling me, you don't think the cost of those heads of lettuce just went up by a factor of 3 - 10 times their previous price?  The shock to the economy is real.

In fact, whether or not people realize it, this is exactly the same debate/problem in the 'outsourcing'/'free trade' debate.  Instead of shipping jobs to china because the chinese labor is 1/10 US labor in real dollars, we are shipping hte labor to the US.  Its identical in economic 'shock' value.

Any time you rapidly shift the economic system, there are big consequences.  The illegal immigration labor market has been in place for so long, that wages in the industries they are employed in have fallen to its natural market level.  Now, if you suddenly shut off the supply of cheap labor, bam - there will be BIG shocks in the market that won't dissipate quickly - after a decade various affected industries will reach a new balance, but voters aren't going to be particularly happy in that first 4 years when groceries prices go up by 10.

I wasn't trying to say you were wrong there, I actually agree with some of your points.

My beef is with the way our nation has become in general.  Horrible work ethic, overall laziness.  I know several small business owners in the labor trades, and they just cannot find Americans to work, not even for $12-$14/hour with benefits and profit sharing.  They try to hire high school kids or college kids and they just don't work.  I think that is the problem.

I also would hope that people might be willing to pay a little bit more for services and produce because they know that the work was done by real Americans and they don't have to be as worried about the possibility of illegal immigrants having no consequences for their actions, as well as our national security in general.

I know I would.

There are some people willing to trade away civil liberties in the name of "stopping illegal immigration" - and that is unacceptable to me.  Do we really want to have things like a national ID card?  Would we trust Hillary Rodham Clinton with this kind of power?

The other question is, what other unintended consequences might develop?  And yet, those who ask these questions (or who decide the erosion of civil liberties is unacceptable) are labeled "OBLs" or worse, just because they are not part of the Michelle Malkin "Amen corner" on this issue.

The law's been broken - by a lot of people.  I don't dispute that.  However, the question we need to ask ourselves is, "What do we do about it?"

I think there is a huge problem with deporting them all - the methods that would be needed would probably offend the sensibilities of a lot of Americans.  Plus, we'd soon find out that the folks getting rousted would be folks who weren't really hurting anybody - and in some cases, came here illegally for perfectly understandable reasons.  Soon, what was supported in the abstract (strict enforcement of immigration laws) would shatter against the brick wall of reality.

I think approaching the issue from perspectives of both supply of and demand for illegal immigrants makes alot of sense.

I would also add a more streamlined legal naturalization process to this.  Mexican immigration, illegal and otherwise, fills an important part of the southwestern economy.  If we let them in legally, they'd be at least paying taxes into the system and more able to live and spend their money here in the US.