Hispanic Pundit is right, that the kinds of immigrants the US wants is people who will bust their butts getting where they want to go, keep their noses clean, making a business happen where none was before, and raise their kids to be exemplary citizens of the country they have immigrated to.

Joe is right that the borders need to be controlled to keep the real baddies out.

But there is one other problem. It takes almost 20 years to get through the legal immigration waiting list from Mexico and the Phillipines. Instead of letting energetic 20 year olds immigrate we are making them wait until they have been crushed by a poverty stricken socialist government for 20 years before they can immigrate. Then we make their kids and wives wait 20 years before they can follow. This is not only cruel, with no good reason, it is stupid of us. Why do we want them to wait until they're 60 years old before they feel like their chosen country, the greatest country in the world, accepts them and their family? The waiting lists and quotas need to be adjusted. More mexicans and sudamericanos allowed, more filipinos and others who live in countries that were once American colonies, less moslem brotherhood believing refugees.

And with the drug law changes in Mexico we can ship our few unproductive stoners their way as a kind of swap for their hard-working immigrants and entrepreneurs. More liberals for them, more conservatives for us.

I think the same as Joe.

1. Build a wall. Do that first. Till you do that, everything you say or do to ease the difficulties of illegals just creates more of them, overloading the moral resources of charity.
2. Increase legal immigration from Mexico greatly. Make it nicer and easier to become a legal immigrant. But don't relax the requirement to become really American.
3. Make assimilation - not salad-bowl separatism - a high national goal.
4. "Grandfather clause" - amnesty for those on the right side of the wall.

Don't blame the illegals already in place for having made mock of the law. Blame legislators who also made mock of respect for the law by making "laws" lacking in the means to enforce them. Build the wall, then amnesty the politicians too.

This is a very soluble problem, it just isn't being solved.

If the problem is solved, it will be of immense benefit for America to be next door to Mexico. As opposed to, say, Algeria.

Bismark apparently remarked that God looks after fools, drunks and the United States of America. I would not question that on the basis of America living next to an unlimited supply of basically Western-oriented, Catholic, generally compatible people.

But I think you have to hug the stranger, but also demand that he cease to be a stranger.

I think the idea of "guestworkers" is a terrible one and should be dropped. "Gastarbeiter" is a bad word and bad idea from Germany. This is not the time to be copying bad ideas from Europe. Like the Germans would be the authorities on the best and kindest way to handle the strangers living among them?

The only people you want living in your country in large numbers (I mean, as opposed to tourist and so on) are U.S. citizens with full rights, and people who won't be happy till they are 100% Americans. The right kind of people don't want to be guestworkers.

That's almost all from me, since it's not my country. But one last thing (in this post anyway): the example of John Howard in Australia shows that border control can be a steady election winner. The opposition will howl and damn you as every kind of inhumane villain. But they will lose, over and over. There's working class votes to be had in this issue.

Joe, excellent post!

"National unity is the basis of national security." Justice Felix Frankfurter

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Senator Daniel Webster

Frankfurter's quote is from an early 1940's Supreme Court decision denying the petition by some Jehovah's Witnesses to excuse their children from required recitation of our Pledge of Allegiance. Webster's quote is from an 1832 debate when South Carolina first threatened to secede from the Union.

I was watching Washington Week in Review over the weekend when the story came up about the proposed Spanish National Anthem, Nuestro Hijmno. Martha Raddatz was dismayed that President Bush unequivocally stated that there was only one National Anthem for all Americans, the Star Spangled Banner, and it should only be sung in English. She smirkingly explained that Bush was just playing to the Republican base. One of the other panelists noted the strong negative reaction on talk radio and many Weblogs. Gwen Ifill, WWR's moderator, then commented: "Why does it matter if some people sing a Spanish version and other people sing an English version? As long as they sing about the same principles, it should be okay, right?"

At which point I started yelling at the TV about the dangers of Balkanization, and divided loyalties, and cleft countries, and civil war.

It was almost as if Ms. Raddatz, Ms. Ifill, and the other panelists had never learned that our national motto is E Pluribus Unum; out of many, one. Perhaps they believe a switch to a national motto of E Pluribus Pluribus; out of many, many, would be more inclusive and less judgmental. Or maybe they're just clueless about the dangerous long-term implications.

I agree with Pangloss (20 freaking years?!? fix that!), and David Blue. And James Jones, too, for that matter.

As to rules #1 and #2. We made those selection rules.

We can change them.

BTW "when you live outside the law you must be honest".

Rule #3.

We have some close 3rd generation Mexican friends. I speak better Spanish than they do.

These things take time.

BTW the current aggitations are a perrenial. Last with high intensity was 5 years ago.

And before that it was the Jews, and before that it was the Irish.

BTW I had some suggestions about what to do here:

http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2004/09/lets-close-borders.html

The lowest cost way to reduce the number of illegals coming to America is to make it easier for them to come and go.

Because we have made the expense of entry high the border acts like a one way ratchet.

I see this going like drug prohibition: for the same reason - it is driven by economics.

We will tighten border controls. We will have roving gangs of INS agents. We will have a national ID. We will need mine fields, and attack dogs. Shoot to kill orders.

SWAT teams breaking down doors at 3AM looking for the "wrong people". We will take their property and send them back where they came from.

Or we can look at this as a problem of integration and fix it.

America and Mexico are uniting. We can do it easy, or we can do it hard.

Personally I can see big advantages to having another 100 million Americans in very short order.

It is going to be expensive. Look at the East/West German unification. And they didn't have a language barrier.

BTW the American economy right now would be adversely impacted by the extraction of 10 million workers. Doesn't any one consider the economy?

I have seen the integration in our schools.

Kids are learning the Constitution in Spanish. The rule of law etc.

This is not a bad thing, because they can teach those still in Mexico in their own language. The cultural exchange is not just one way.

I believe that when enough Mexicans have had a good experience in America they will go home and change their country.

These folk are not yet the enemy. Why would we wish to push them in that direction. I don't see the profit in it.

There are some important points being missed, not just here, but in the imigration discussion as a whole. Having worked and travelled throughout much of non-urban, non-tourist Mexico let me attempt to frame a bigger picture from the Mexican side of the border. I am also going to split this into two comments for greater clarity.

Most importantly, there are at least two (arguably three) very different streams of immigrants headed into the US. Northwestern Mexico (Sinaloa, Sonora, and the Bajas) has been outlaw country for centuries. Most of the California and Arizona immigration comes from this area comes from this area, and many of them are not nice people.

In contrast there is what I like to call the Interstate-35 crowd. These folks come primarily from areas south and east of the Guadalajara-Monterrey axis, particularly from small cities, towns, and rural areas. These folks are now all over the central and eastern US.

There is also the 'vaquero'=cowboy (think 'buckaroo') crowd from Durango, Chihuahua and Coahuila. The seem to stay in their own general neighbourhood, as I have never encountered someone from that area outside of west Texas and New Mexico.

The huge flow of I-35 immigration really began as a direct result of the marijuana interdiction policy a generation ago. Before that time it was possible for young men to make excellent money harvesting pot in Michoacan and surrounding areas. The element of illegality added an important bonus -- proof of courage and resourcefulness.

Resourceful, courageous, high-earning young men are seen by the young women as much better candidates for husbands. The lazy Mexican has always existed, and still does. No sane Mexican woman wants one for a husband.

Guess what has become the current generation's 'proof of courage and resourcefulness'? I'll give you a clue. It isn't legal immigration.

Any approach to illegal immigration that does not recognise the huge cultural differences between source areas -- and in particular the proof of courage and resourcefulness aspect -- will be at best only partially successful.

Mexicans now constitute nearly a quarter of the population in the small city (pop 6000) nearest us. I definitely prefer them to the white trash they've displaced.

This is not the first time the US has had to deal with a massive influx of immigrants from a culturally and linguistically distinct adjacent source area. In the 1930s well over a million Quebecois poured into New England for better economic opportunity. Most spoke no English, and it was said that they would never assimilate -- because they were adjacent to their homeland. They did.

So will the Mexicans. The interesting political question of the 21st century will be whether the Mexicans eventually act like the Italians or the Irish ... our two other large influxes of nominally Roman Catholic immigrants. The Italians are largely Republicans (now), and the Irish remained Democrats.

Mexican immigrants constitute the source of a massive (unofficial) foreign aid transfer, since they send home at least 20 billion dollars per year. It is important to recognise that these transfers are direct and thus bypass almost completely the corrupt and incompetent government. That is not a bad thing. In fact it has probably prevented a Chavez-style marxist takeover in Mexico.

Massive Mexican immigration is also having the decidedly beneficial effect of blowing the psycho-sclerotic old American 'race' debate to smithereens. It is long past time that the 'one drop' approach be dumped. Mexicans will help (maybe even force) us to judge people by the "content of their character, and not the colour of their skin." That also is not a bad thing, unless you happen to be an identity-politics left wing demagogue.

Finally, this is almost certainly a temporary phenomenon. There are highly credible reports (see BJ Wattenberg's book 'Fewer') that the fertility rate in Mexico is now down to replacement rate, if not a bit below. If true, it means that in fifteen or twenty years there will be vastly less immigration pressure simply because there will be many fewer Mexicans looking for an opportunity outlet.

We should definitely deal with the problem, but we should recognise its underlying internal differences, its unintended benefits, and its generally temporary nature.

Good points being made all around--it's not simple. Thinking back to Fire Ants, let's be sure not to set policy that brings us Unintended Consequences. The kind of policies proposed in this Spring's Silly Spasm of Congressional immigration reform proposals.

Two thoughts.

1. Whose debate is it? Is this a search for the best outcome for Mexico? For the illegals already here? For the present citizens of the US? For some particular racial or ethnic group? If you pose the question that way, most Americans have no problem answering--policies should benefit Americans already here and our grandchildren. All other interests, get in line. That means, among other things, creating a path to citizenship for the de facto (i.e. illegal) permanent residents who are already here. I don't want my grandkids living in an apartheid society.

We need to recognize that while most parties give lip service to the idea that immigration reform should benefit Americans and America, some powerful interests don't actually believe this.

2. First, build a wall. David Blue #2 has the right of it. Like it or not, most of the illegals who are here today--and their children and grandchildren--are here to stay. Most have no future in in their country of origin to return to. The American public will not countenance a deportation policy that is Draconian enough to be effective under these circumstances. It would take hearts of stone to do so.

So here's the unintended-consequences part. Whatever solutions we come up with for today�s illegals is going to be a tremendous incentive for the prospective illegal immigrants of tomorrow. �Whatever Gringos say, if I can make the trip al Norte and get a job, I�ll be in within twenty (2006 - 1986 = 20) years.� (For you young'uns, 1986 was the year that Reagan and Congress solved the Immigration by combining Severe Barriers to Future Illegal Immigration with the Last.Amnesty.Ever.)

Heartless though it sounds, the first order of business must be to make it much harder for the tens of millions of wannabe illegals to get here and settle here.

1) Build a wall. This issue transcends politics, it's straight up national security. We'll probably need a fence at the Canadian border as well. I have yet to hear a coherant counter argument and its flat out shocking no-one is running with this ball politically, at least anyone high profile. Its not rocket surgery, the Chinese figured this one out before Alexander the Great was born.

2)That will put friction on the tide, but it wont stop it. We need to address things from a market based point of view. We need cheap labor and Mexico needs jobs and opportunity.

3)We arent going to do massive deportations and we arent going to crack down meaningfully on business, those are just two facts of life- we should dwell on what is possible, not what ideally should be. We also cant fix Mexico, we've been trying for years.

Our best solution is to acknowledge that we've been luring lawbreakers in for years and both sides are going to have to swallow some pride and accept the injustice of it all. We should get past it and set up a worker program so we can keep track of who is in and out, and tax them. Make a negative into a positive. This isnt just a matter of compasion, its an economic imperative. Those young workers if flushed into the system could quite possibly be the fix we need to keep Social Security afloat.

Both sides need to swallow their pride and accept what is possible and what is necessary. There is a compromise possible here that will be extremely beneficial for everyone involved.

Bart Hall, those are two tremendous comments. You've provided a sociological/anthropological explanation for the phenomenon I've seen firsthand and heard others note on many occasions: that the attitude towards Mexican immigration in Texas is very different from the view in California. In Texas it seems to be considered mostly benign. In California there seems to be a love-hate, co-dependent character to the attitudes towards Mexican immigration.

Disclosure: I'm a fifth-generation or more American on all sides. I think I'm a realist about immigration i.e. I neither romanticize it nor do I demonize it.

On Joe's three points I am very concerned about security, somewhat less concerned about illegality, and even less concerned about assimilation.

First, let me talk about assimilation. We have never had laws in this country that compelled assimilation. We did have laws that, for good or ill, ensured that the ethnicity and racial makeup of immigrants tended to recapitulate the ethnicity and racial makeup of the resident population. And we did have a national consensus that immigrants would assimilate and institutions whose primary mission was ensuring that end: the public schools. Now that the public schools have become centers of political activism and at best neutral towards inculcating a pro-American attitude in students the public schools are now the main barrier to assimilation. I'm not sure how you correct that without eliminating the public employees unions and, since the public employees unions are the main prop of today's Democratic Party, that will be impossible.

I believe that American culture is so vibrant and effective that it is irresistible and, once the barriers are removed, assimilation is inevitable. You will be assimilated!

For those who are concerned about the primacy of English: the only way to ensure that is through constitutional amendment. Depending on the wording of the amendment, its implementation, and its enforcement that will bring problems of its own. I'm not concerned that new immigrants won't speak English. I'm concerned that their children won't speak any language that's recognizeable outside their neighborhood and won't be literate in either English or Spanish.

Now, security. This is not the 19th or even the 20th century. With the power of today's weaponry and the hatred that perhaps even a small number of people have for us we need to take different measures than we did in the past. That's the fack, Jack. If “wall” is a euphemism for extraordinary border security, I'm for it. Better start guarding the guards as well. The pressures towards corruption will be irresistible. Audits all around!

BTW assimilation to American culture is a good bit of what the war that we're in right now is about. Our enemies very obviously believe that without strenuous measures to opposed it the Islamic world will tend to assimilate Western culture (and American culture in particular). Check your handy online copy of Qutub's Milestones. Who are we to disagree?

[1] Security. If millions of illegals can get past America's southern borders and disappear, with active and organized facilitation from both the Mexican government and its criminal class, then so can al-Qaeda. Or organized agents of countries like Iran. Post-9/11, that's simply unacceptable.

But they don't. Note the lack of exploding cars or snipers killing people at random. The reality is that for some reason al-Qaeda and other terrorists aren't smuggling themselves into the US under the tons of cocaine and thousands of immigrants. IMHO, that's because these threats have been vastly inflated, largely for domestic political purposes.

[2] Illegality. This, too, is a self-selection. Unsurprisingly, accepting millions of people whose self-selecting feature is disdain for laws that inconvenience them is not seen as a net positive. Contrast this with immigrants who come through official channels, and thereby demonstrate a respect for those laws that ensures the foundation of a successful and safe society.

Yes, yes, what we need are good little obedient sheeple who will line up and jump through all the little bureaucratic hoops we put in front of them without complaining or attempting to circumvent them. They will make much better servants than those who show contempt for our "laws". The current crop of disobedient rabble from Mexico will be much harder to control.

[3] Assimilation. We wouldn't be having this debate at nearly the same intensity if America's credo was still patriotic assimilation. But it is not, which creates significant long-term vulnerabilities. As Herbert Meyer explained in Why Americans Hate This 'Immigration' Debate, the problem is "not a growing population of foreigners among us, but rather a growing population of foreigners among us who aren't behaving like immigrants." That's because most of the institutions that once taught people how to "behave like American immigrants" no longer teach or celebrate the things that transmitted and shaped those attitudes.

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own."

If "America" stands for any value worth having, that value is LIBERTY. Liberty doesn't have much to do with building new Berlin walls, "assimilation", or "the society" in the sense that you are using it.

"National unity is the basis of national security." Justice Felix Frankfurter

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Senator Daniel Webster

"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, ..."

Godwin's Law

seconding #16

First integrate the workers into the legal economy.

Keeping them illegal does have some benefits if there is little enforcement:

They will never get back any Social Security taxes paid on their behalf. Which is the real beauty of 500 guys with the same Social Security number.

It is very dangerous to try and "fix" a working system. Even one that is working "badly". There may be unintended consequences.

Think about this you "wall first" folks.

The harder we make legal entry the lower the quality (as in civilized) the entrants.

Bart Hall points out that if crossing the border is no longer a "macho" thing those with an exagerated sense of macho will stay home or go elsewhere. Not a bad idea.

BTW Bart points out that with improved pot interdiction came more illegals.

You can never do one thing. The human is very adaptable to changing environment.

Be very careful.

Which troubles me. I don't generally see much care or concern about second order effects (like the economy, the family live of the guest workers, hungry children in Mexico etc.)

The $20 bn a year sent to Mexico as pointed out acts as a kind of foreign aid. Except the Mexicans work for it. Seems like a good deal to me. Plus they eliminate the (corrupt) middle man.

I think whole sale dissruption of this population exchange will have unforseen negative effects. We can catalog all the bad stuff happening now. There is no way to imagine how much worse it will get. Did Nixon think that by cracking down on border pot transfers that he would be starting a wave of illegal immigration? And developing an American (hydroponic) grow op industry?

I see a lot of linear thinking here:

If we outlaw alcohol think of the number of problems that can be solved.

We arent going to do massive deportations and we arent going to crack down meaningfully on business

The Japanese don't have illegal low-wage labor, they have robots.  Why the heck don't we put some money into mechanizing those agricultural jobs that we "can't do without"?  The advantage is that a machine doesn't drive drunk, won't qualify its offspring for food stamps, and isn't going to enlist in divisive political movements.  The people who build and service the machine are going to have high wages, high education and be far better for the country.

Those young workers if flushed into the system could quite possibly be the fix we need to keep Social Security afloat.

engineer-poet,

So nuanced. So sublime. So well put.

Worthy of your name.

Think of this:

All those illegals using our medical services for nothing have enlarged our medical service sector making it better able to handle a mass casualty attack.

There are benefits (not always obvious) as well as costs.

All those illegals using our medical services for nothing have enlarged our medical service sector making it better able to handle a mass casualty attack.

See here.

#23 Dave,

I am not proposing a broken windows fallacy. I acknowledge that there are sunk costs.

To get the added surge capacity we could pay the extra help to be idle or we could pay them to treat the under treated.

Now I will grant that no such decision was made to do such a thing. None the less we do have increased surge capacity out of our increased costs.

We are not richer because of it. In fact we are poorer. However, we are more capable also. This has value offsetting some of the costs.

One thing that I don't see discussed much by the pro-illegal people is the fact that a rather substantial majority of the American public wants illegal immigration to end. Don't they count for something? Aren't the representatives elected to do their will?

Why is it that I get the distinct impression that many of the pro-illegals really just have the GOAL in mind, and will take up whatever argument of convenience happens to sound good at the moment? Remember what was said back when some folks complained that illegal aliens were putting a great burden on the social services of the communities that they lived in? Their "advocates" loudly proclaimed that illegal aliens didn't avail themselves of the amenities of the welfare state, mainly because they were afraid their illegal status would be discovered and they would be shipped back home. But then comes Proposition 187 in California which would have denied benefits to the illegals. All of a sudden the very same people who claimed that illegals didn't suck up social services were then howling that the passage of such a law would cause untold human misery to huge numbers of people.

And the same thing applies to many of the arguments, or rather unsupported premises, that are being bandied about now, such as:
(1) We can't deport 12 million people. Its impossible. Yes we can. Not all at once, but yes we can, even if it takes ten years or twenty to do so. And if we actually get tough about making employers verify the social security numbers of the people they hire, a lot of these people will deport themselves once they can't find any work.
(2) They are coming here in the true spirit of America, and should be welcomed with open arms because they are the embodiment of the spirit that made America what it is today. This is garbage. Utter garbage. They are coming here to make money. If Mexico bordered China or Iran and there were jobs there where they could make substantially more money than they could make in Mexico with the same ease that they can now with coming into the US they would be doing just that. Its the money. Its not "American values" that are drawing them.
(3)They come here to do the jobs that Americans won't do. If this is the case, do you really think they will still be doing them once they go down the "path to citizenship" and become American citizens? I doubt this. We'll just have a lot of poorly educated people with families who aren't capable of holding jobs that pay much more than minimum wage. And they will be American citizens, entitled to food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, Medicaid, etc. If you doubt this, just come down to the border areas of Texas which are veritable black holes of "social services" dollars.

First: Bart Hall, thank you for your great comments.

Hi, tcobb.

One thing that I don't see discussed much by the pro-illegal people is the fact that a rather substantial majority of the American public wants illegal immigration to end.

OK. It is a problem that politicians are doing what they want (I don't know why) and often not being straightforward on this issue. As you say, they are talking instrumentally - saying anything to get the results they have in mind. That's very bad. The issue is far too serious for that.

(1) We can't deport 12 million people. Its impossible. Yes we can.

Yes you can, but will you want to? If you build a wall, stop illegal immigration, make it a major aim to assimilate those in place, and show obvious progress toward that end, will people demand that all twelve million already in place be kicked out? And if the time frame is twelve to twenty years, and you start a few years down the track (after building the wall and encountering problems with the assimilation drive) by making serious efforts to kick out the most criminal and obnoxious one million, will voters demand that you keep going and kick out all the others as well?

I think it is reasonable to say you have the right and in some sense the power to do this, but it is definitely not happening.

(2) They are coming here in the true spirit of America, and should be welcomed with open arms because they are the embodiment of the spirit that made America what it is today. This is garbage. Utter garbage. They are coming here to make money.

True. But I think America needs more Americans. (Not "Mexican-Americans" or "South American Americans". I want Australia's greatest ally and friend to continue to be a great nation, not to become a polyglot boarding-house where the people don't have too much in common. That is is my main interest in this.)

I think you should welcome with open arms those who want to be and will be real Americans, regardless of whether that was their initial or main reason for going to America.

Those who want to wave the American flag as their flag are the ones you want, or as I think should want. Those who want to wave the Mexican flag or some other flag over U.S. territory and will only wave the American flag for tactical reasons are the ones I think you should let go or if pushed kick out.

If you fish for real Americans, I think the catch may be enormous. (Even taking into account what Bart Hall said.) If people don't fall in love with America at first, they may have kids who do, and that's good enough.

(3)They come here to do the jobs that Americans won't do. If this is the case, do you really think they will still be doing them once they go down the "path to citizenship" and become American citizens? I doubt this. We'll just have a lot of poorly educated people with families who aren't capable of holding jobs that pay much more than minimum wage. And they will be American citizens, entitled to food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, Medicaid, etc. If you doubt this, just come down to the border areas of Texas which are veritable black holes of "social services" dollars.

The main reason I wrote this reply was to acknowledge a down side to my position, to be an honest arguer, like the admirable Alfonso "Hispanic Pundit" Trujillo.

If what I wanted happened, the cost of labour would rise, with economic problems, and the bad consequences you point to are more than likely.

At present the price of unskilled labour is depressed by a large voluntary helot class because it consists of aliens with no rights or bargaining position. (Now some of them want the rights and the bargaining position but still not to be real Americans, which I think is a position that should be rejected with scorn.)

I want to end that class, by stopping the flow with a wall (or by fencing and security measures amounting to a wall), by replacing the flow with a flow of legal and hopefully patriotic immigrants with full rights, and by assimilating and giving citizenship to potential Americans already in place.

Therefore, by definition, there will be nobody willing to do "jobs Americans won't do," as all will be Americans, with the rights and the bargaining position in relation to capital that America citizens have. If this didn't result in increased labour costs and economic problems, it would be a sign something was going badly wrong.

Golf club Republicans who want illegal labour to remain common so they can keep exploiting rightless voluntary helots should not get what they want. They should have to pay decent wages to the staff. I don't want Americans who want illegal immigration to stop to be losers, and I don't want the illegals to be losers, but I want those exploiters to be losers.

As for the rest: live with it, work to fix it, work to make it a temporary problem and not a chronic, hereditary one. This is the cost of a united nation with rights for all and an acceptably dynamic demographic profile.

Compared to the problems of countries where the population is imploding or where the newcomers are not fodder for assimilation but effectively colonists for an alien and ultimately unfriendly civilisation, I think you will be lucky to "just have a lot of poorly educated people with families who aren't capable of holding jobs that pay much more than minimum wage."

Golf club Republicans who want illegal labour to remain common so they can keep exploiting rightless voluntary helots...

Add the bosses of slaughterhouse workers, fast-food workers, and construction laborers, and you have the economic pro-Open-Borders argument in a nutshell. It's not right that employers should have to pay the wages that the market demands. That's the legal, non-grey, non-black market.

Oh, wait...

If assimilation means anything more than learning to speak english it's an outright racist comment. So define patroitic(?) assimilation(does that mean join the Marines?).

A thought to ponder period. Assume you build the wall on all the borders and amnesty everyone here( regardless of where you're from-I am looking forward to seeing the numbers on this one) and allow everyone waiting in line in(one time deal), what is going to happen to the PREVAILING COSTS to any business in America?

My guess is it would go up and we would create another welfare dependent class potentially unless we further reform welfare. For these reasons alone I do not think immigration will ever be addressed in a meaningful way simply because to many people lose.

If you build a wall, stop illegal immigration, make it a major aim to assimilate those in place, and show obvious progress toward that end, will people demand that all twelve million already in place be kicked out?

...making serious efforts to kick out the most criminal and obnoxious one million

This is the cost of a united nation with rights for all and an acceptably dynamic demographic profile.

Re: #27 from AMac: (big grin)

#28 from Robert M: "If assimilation means anything more than learning to speak english it's an outright racist comment."

Good. I've had it with white guilt, I think it's sick, stupid and counterproductive.

Let's have a Latin League: if you use Latin letters (like those on your keyboard), if you have no problems with clock faces and movie titles that go I, II, III, IV or IIII, V and so on, if your year starts with "February" and goes on in Roman style, if you get your laws from "senators", your race is correct and you are in. Roman Catholics qualify automatically, as will many neo-Pagans. Toga party attendance is at least worth noting on your racial purity checklist.

#28 from Robert M: "So define patroitic(?) assimilation(does that mean join the Marines?)."

If they'll take you, I think that would be perfect.

#28 from Robert M: "A thought to ponder period. Assume you build the wall on all the borders and amnesty everyone here( regardless of where you're from-I am looking forward to seeing the numbers on this one) and allow everyone waiting in line in(one time deal), what is going to happen to the PREVAILING COSTS to any business in America?"

They go up. That's intentional. Hurrah for labour!

Those who want to wave the American flag as their flag are the ones you want, or as I think should want. Those who want to wave the Mexican flag or some other flag over U.S. territory and will only wave the American flag for tactical reasons are the ones I think you should let go or if pushed kick out.

Did you see the pictures of the "pro-immigrant" rallies? There were more Mexican flags displayed by far than the US stars and stripes. I agree with what you say here. Such people should be pushed out. It appears that there are quite a few of them, and no, I don't think the burden of proof should be laid on the bona fide citizens of the US to determine which are which.

As for the rest: live with it, work to fix it, work to make it a temporary problem and not a chronic, hereditary one. This is the cost of a united nation with rights for all and an acceptably dynamic demographic profile.

With all due respect, a majority of the American people don't want to live with it, and they do want to fix it on a permanent basis by simply cutting illegal immigration off. Its really too bad that the more "enlightened" people don't like this, and it is truly a shame that we have an unholy alliance of the Left and the Right in the US that want the illegals to come in. A majority of Americans wish to see this end. The American voters are in many ways like the Ents in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. They are slow to anger, but when it happens, their wrath is unstoppable. If they were wise, the politicians in both parties should start to pay attention---now.

In answer to #29 from Engineer-Poet...

I said: If you build a wall, stop illegal immigration, make it a major aim to assimilate those in place, and show obvious progress toward that end, will people demand that all twelve million already in place be kicked out?

#29 from Engineer-Poet: "Deportation IS a major part of assimilation. You target the ones who are obviously not Americans (by their behavior) first. You keep public support up by documenting how much taxpayer money you're saving, how much crowding you're removing from the schools, how much test scores are going up, and how much traffic, sprawl and other ecological damage is going down."

Try a little tenderness. The idea is to get people, especially kids, to love America and yearn and need to be part of it, not to make them live in fear and shame.

I said: "...making serious efforts to kick out the most criminal and obnoxious one million"

#29 from Engineer-Poet: "Every dishwasher, gardener or nanny who puts kids in taxpayer-supported schools and on food stamps is plenty bad."

I strongly disagree.

I said: "This is the cost of a united nation with rights for all and an acceptably dynamic demographic profile."

#29 from Engineer-Poet: "I'd prefer to make MY cost of family formation acceptable, not theirs, thankyouverymuch."

I'll take this opportunity for a song interlude.

The road is long, with many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where, who knows where.
But I'm strong, strong enough to carry him.
He ain't heavy - he's my brother.

So on we go, his welfare is my concern.
No burden is he to bear, we'll get there.
For I know he would not encumber me.
He ain't heavy - he's my brother.

If I'm laden at all, I'm laden with sadness
That everyone's heart isn't filled with gladness of love for one another.
It's a long, long road from which there is no return.
While we're on our way to there, why not share?
And the load, it doesn't weigh me down at all.
He ain't heavy - he's my brother.
He ain't heavy - he's my brother, he's my brother, he's my brother

#31 from tcobb: "Did you see the pictures of the "pro-immigrant" rallies?"

I did, and I was not a happy camper. That land belongs to our friends the Americans. Only their flag must fly in authority in their land. Those Mexican flags were a challenge - and proof of a lack of loyalty.

There were people there that should be pushed out. Not just a few.

I said: As for the rest: live with it, work to fix it, work to make it a temporary problem and not a chronic, hereditary one. This is the cost of a united nation with rights for all and an acceptably dynamic demographic profile.

#31 from tcobb: "With all due respect, a majority of the American people don't want to live with it, and they do want to fix it on a permanent basis by simply cutting illegal immigration off."

With all due respect, it's your country and only you decide and only you should decide.

I was just saying my bit, because this is a friendly blog. That doesn't mean I think non-Americans should get a say in who stays in America. My opinion is the opposite.

#31 from tcobb: "The American voters are in many ways like the Ents in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. They are slow to anger, but when it happens, their wrath is unstoppable."

I've read Americans comparing themselves to Ents many times online, in various contexts, often war.

The Ents were doomed because they had lost their Ent-wives, and they weren't making little Ents. I would prefer a different future for ourselves and our friends and kin in the United Kingdom, America and so on. But I've done my pro-life rant before, and I won't further revisit the topic in this thread.

Dave and AMac -- Re #16 and #17:

Thanks for noting T.J. Madison's attempt to silence debate on the relationship between assimilation and national unity by playing the German National Socialist card. If TJM new a little more about Justice Frankfurter and the period of American/World history during which he served on the Supreme Court, he would be much more cautious about implying that Frankfurter was a supporter of Naziism or Fascism.

Of course, he also managed to imply that Senator Webster was a supporter of Fascism. This requires a truly stunning level of ignorance about American history before the Civil War and Daniel Webster's rank as one of the greatest Senators of the 19th century.

So much to comment on, so little time!

I posted this at Rantburg but it applies here too.

The basic problem is this:

1) There is a market for cheap labor that can be treated like slaves. These are the Mexicans and others.

2) There is also a market for expensive labor that can be treate like slaves. These are the H2-Visa holders.

*So... if you legalize either of these groups then it is hard to abuse them.

Once it is hard to abuse them they will lose these jobs. Then two things happen.*

1) They live in Barrios, Slums etc.. until they are able to crawl out kicking and screaming... and the majority go on welfare for a long while.

2) The employeers who used to abuse them look for new labor they can abuse. That labor flocks to the US and the whole cycle repeats.

"National unity is the basis of national security." Justice Felix Frankfurter

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Senator Daniel Webster

"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, ..."

T.J. Madison, you really didn't like my selection of quotations on the relationship between national unity, national security, and national liberty. (TJM #15) Do you have a substantive argument to contradict the statements of these great Americans of the past?

Apparently not, since you decided to imply that these are statements supporting Naziism or Fascism.

Did you know that Justice Felix Frankfurter was a Jewish immigrant to the United States? Link Did you miss the approximate date I mentioned? (Early 1940s) Guess who we were at war with then? Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. It was a little conflict called World War II.

Do you remember which ethnic/religious group was singled out for "special attention" in the Nazi concentration camps? Here's a hint: Most experts believe over 6 million of them were killed or worked to death.

Still don't get it? It was the Jews!

So let's recap: You believe that the statement, "National unity is the basis of national security", by a Jewish Supreme Court Justice during World War II is evidence of Nazi political sympathies.

Okay, TJM, good luck with that opinion.

>>They are coming here in the true spirit of America, and should be welcomed with open arms because they are the embodiment of the spirit that made America what it is today. This is garbage. Utter garbage. They are coming here to make money.

Wow, way to just go and insult all American businessmen by implying that making money isn't an essential part of being American -- you know, Free Enterprise, capitalism, freedom of exchange, etc.

TJM#15, it's possible that you really meant to apply your implication of Nazi/Fascist political sympathies ONLY to Senator Webster. Maybe Justice Frankfurter's quotation was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Let's take a look. You said:

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own."

If "America" stands for any value worth having, that value is LIBERTY. Liberty doesn't have much to do with building new Berlin walls, "assimilation", or "the society" in the sense that you are using it.

"National unity is the basis of national security." Justice Felix Frankfurter

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." Senator Daniel Webster

"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, ..."

No, it sure looks like you meant to include Justice Frankfurter along with Senator Webster as Nazis/Fascists. BTW, nice quote from Star Trek about the Borg's galactic strategy. ("Resistance is futile.....") Was it from the Next Generation series, Deep Space 9, or Voyager? Do you get many of your ideas for the successful development of our civilization from Star Trek?

You contend that the sentiments expressed by Senator Webster are Fascist or are evidence of Nazi/Fascist political sympathies. Well, that would be kind of difficult because he made them during a famous speech in 1830. Link Naziism and Fascism did not even exist as political theories at that time.

Senator Webster was opposing a creative theory of states rights developed in South Carolina called nullification. Under the theory of nullification, all States of the Union had the right to withdraw from, or nullify, any Federal law they disagreed with. They also had the right to secede from the Union at any time.

The doctrine of nullification was one of the pillars in the theories used to justify secession by the Confederate States. In 1830, South Carolina's slaveholders were primarily interested in nullifying a tariff on imported manufacturing goods. However, they also used the threat of secession to gain more leverage in the US Congress.

Daniel Webster recognized that the break-up of the Union into individual states or regional groupings of states would be devastating to their ability to maintain independence. By 1830, the United States had already fought two wars with Great Britain and an undeclared naval war with the French. Russia still owned territory in N. America. All of these nations were more powerful than the young United States and were expanding.

Webster recognized a reality that TJM denies: Without external liberty, there could be no guarantee of internal liberty. Without the power that came from national unity of all the states, it would be far more difficult for any individual state or region to maintain its independence versus hostile Great Powers.

Webster also recognized the strong possibility of immediate Civil War or later conflict between the divided states of the former Union.

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." "National unity is the basis of national security." These were wise words in the violently competitive 19th century and wise words in the violently competitive 20th century. The 21st century is probably going to be even more violently competitive than the 20th century.

I think we should continue to follow the wisdom of Frankfurter and Webster.

------- Even if TJM believes the United Federation of Planets would consider their policies Fascist.

>>T.J. Madison, you really didn't like my selection of quotations on the relationship between national unity, national security, and national liberty. (TJM #15) Do you have a substantive argument to contradict the statements of these great Americans of the past?

>>Apparently not, since you decided to imply that these are statements supporting Naziism or Fascism.

Sure. Let us begin.

I have a real problem with nearly all statements of national unity, national greatness, national (inevitable coercive) collective action, national will, national "security", etc. Here's why: Imagine we made "making America strong" a real priority and actually became serious about "eliminating threats to America." The first thing to notice is that lots of people seem to be acting as a "drain" on the American economy. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the bulk of the immigrants from Mexico qualify. It's quite evident that basically everyone in prison is a serious drain. Various people on public assistance are likely to be there permanently as well, including but not limited to the physically and mentally defective and some unfortunate elderly whose children lack the means to care for them.

I have a radical proposal: Let's round up all these people, as well as various others who obviously contaminate our Culture (pornographers, tax evaders, dissidents, etc.), and interfere with our Science (fundamentalists of various flavors) and deport them. They are a net drain on America, why should we as real productive Americans tolerate them any more than the immigrant horde? Collectively these undesirables act as a fifth column, sapping America's strength and leaving us vulnerable. Of course the problem with deporting these people is that there's a real limit to other countries' desire to accept them. Fortunately, good old American know-how will come up with a way to deal with these undesirables, an inexpensive Final Solution to the problem of all this dead weight.

Any serious, consistent application of National Greatness principles will inevitably reach this point. Hitler's problem wasn't fundamentally that he was a racist, or "insane", or a warmonger. All these things were side effects of his intense patriotism overwhelming all other concerns. He was sincere in his plan to make Germany the greatest nation possible, and many of his most horrible actions make quite rational sense in this context. For him, advancing the State and Society was supreme, and the individual was just a cog, a resource to be allocated or expended as necessary. When people call Hitler a megalomaniac I'm suspicious -- I suspect he was ready to sacrifice himself if necessary to further his political objectives. IMHO his dedication to German National Greatness was sincere.

The key moral error here is elevating the importance of the society/nation/State above that of the desires of the individual. Once this error is made then all the sacrifices and scapegoating, all the murder and mayhem, follow logically. This moral error isn't specific to a particular culture or nation -- it's just as likely to affect an Israeli Jew or a Persian Muslim or an American Christian as it is a 1930's German. Many of the post-holocaust Jews, in particular, learned the wrong lessons from Hitler. They concluded that racial solidarity, national unity, eliminating the Other, etc. were essential to survival and went on a campaign of ethinic cleanisng and theft (though not genocide) almost immediately. I sometimes refer to the "Great Jewish prophet Hitler" in this context.

[None of the above is particularly pleasant to read (or write). Godwin's law is typically invoked by people who don't have much empathy for Hitler or people like him, for reasons that are rather understandable.]

TJ, (and M Simon)

I don't have a ton of time, so I'd invite you to consider this: your precious liberty, which you value above all else, is only safe so long as a goodly chunk of voters (need not be a majority, but can't be just a couple percent, either) values it as well. If you let in a bunch of voters who aren't inclined to value it, then you're screwed. If your libertarian/anarchist priciples compel you to let in a bunch of poorly-educated future voters with Marxist inclinations who can easily be manipulated by race-obsessed politicians, then your libertarian utopia will quickly become a socialist/separatist hell.

Culture matters.

As for your various idiotic straw men: Berlin wall, Borg, Hitler: they only make you look like a fool. Since nobody is proposing to round up dissidents, prevent Americans from emigrating if they choose, or suck our souls out and make us half-machine slaves, the relevance of your analogies is, shall we say, limited.

I might just as well say that your elevation of the "desires" of the individual over the needs/wants of society logically leads to widespread rape of children, wanton murder over parking spaces, etc. Which I am willing to presume you oppose.

Try a little tenderness. The idea is to get people, especially kids, to love America and yearn and need to be part of it, not to make them live in fear and shame.

One we could handle.  A thousand we could handle.  But even the biggest elephant can only take the burden of so many leeches.

#25: "Its the money. Its not "American values" "

Don't Americans value money?

The importance of #2 above, the illegality, is not getting enough attention. The illegal immigrant community has created a sub-culture within our nation that not merely must live underground but prefers to live underground.

The corrosive effect of this on our civil society cannot be overestimated.

Re: #43 from Robin Roberts:

My agenda is, first build a wall, them press in various ways for assimilation. Bring in great numbers of legal immigrants to replace the river of illegals, press for assimilation as a vital national goal (that will be a hard one because schools are key here and unfortunately teachers do not agree), amnesty and try to assimilate those who want to be Americans and show signs of being good ones, and try hard to kick out, say, the worst million of twelve, would-be re-conquerors and the out and our criminals and menaces. I'm not saying this would be easy, but I think this is what should be attempted, and I think the average results would be very good.

Does this assimilation agenda adequately address your concern with a culture of chronic illegality, or is there something important I have left out that should be done?

Could you talk a bit about the corrosive effect of of the present situation on you civil society, and how you think that corrosion should be undone, now and for the long term?

In advance: I'm inclined to agree with you. I think the market for labour that can be treated just like slaves is a recurring problem that we should not bend to but tread on.

When you create a class of people who lack the rights and standing of others under law, a line has been crossed, and you should try to get back to a situation where all are patriotic citizens equal according to the law. You want a community of only free and equal citizens. Free and equal citizens who stand in solidarity with a system of laws that are really in force, not winked at and ignored.

If you don't turn back, if you go on in the direction of satisfying the market for labour that can be treated exactly like slaves, there's no logical end-point but somewhere you've already been - and the culturally corrupting after-effects seem to go on forever.

Of course you dealt with that and will never revisit it, but I think this bit of history should put a sign next to the road leading to ever greater satisfaction of the market for human labour without human rights, a sign saying: "Wrong way, Go back."

#41 from Engineer-Poet: "But even the biggest elephant can only take the burden of so many leeches."

Children are not leeches, they are the future.

Dave,
I was not refering to your comment, but to the original posting. The effect I'm refering to is that the class of people are not created by their illegal status, the people who prefer being underground are selected for and therefor dominate the class of people in question. Ultimately, regardless of any question of fault, a culture of underground results that remains even when their status is no longer illegal.

The corrosive effect is that of all underground subcultures, higher crime rates, lifestyles dependant on criminal or fraudulent conduct, instability of family life, etc.

Indeed, children are the future.  If they are trained to devalue intellectual achievment, indoctrinated into ideologies which lead to Balkanization instead of E Pluribus Unum, and otherwise educated to be un-American... that's what the future will be.

That's not a future I want to see.

Re: #46 from Robin Roberts: Got it. Thanks.

#47 from Engineer-Poet: "Indeed, children are the future. If they are trained to devalue intellectual achievment, indoctrinated into ideologies which lead to Balkanization instead of E Pluribus Unum, and otherwise educated to be un-American... that's what the future will be.

That's not a future I want to see."

In pushing assimilation, I'm pushing e pluribus unum, exactly.

You will never have assimilation if you have self-contained enclaves with their own culture, let alone continued immigration which maintains, expands and reinforces them.

It may take a little fear to get people to take assimilation seriously.  Look at Hispanic high-school graduation rates.  More than a third of Hispanics (35.9%) 18-24 lack even a diploma; are they ever going to be more than a permanent underclass doing "the jobs [European] Americans won't do"?

The Pew Hispanic center says that dropout figures are overstated because e.g. Mexican education usually ends by grade 6.  Unfortunately, even discounting the deficiencies of the first generation only cuts the dropout rate to 15%.  This is higher than the Black dropout rate of 13.1% and more than twice as high as the non-hispanic white dropout rate.

If we ever want to assimilate these people, we need to force them to take education seriously as a condition of setting foot here (and throwing out the ones who haven't).  Crowding our nation with people who can't qualify for any job which requires advanced reading skills (which increasingly includes the armed forces) is a one-way ticket to third-world hell.

You and G.W. Bush may like the idea of being one of the elite over a vast mass of rabble, but I don't.

#49 from Engineer-Poet: "You and G.W. Bush may like the idea of being one of the elite over a vast mass of rabble, but I don't."

That is a misrepresentation of my position, which I have already explained sufficiently.

Your proposed program will never yield the results stated by your position.

Amazingly enough I see lots of good comments to an ever growing situation. We spend many millions to feed/care/support & house many of these illegals. They are here to carry on there own way of life as they show little respect to our culture by changing there ways...hence...Learn english...Nothing wrong with keeping your cultural ways as many forieners have but for crying out loud you want to live here learn our ways we should not have to change our ways to suite there coming here...We go to there country we must know there language in order to fit in and understand there culture...
Another thing I note is that many say: "Take care of the boarders first." I agree! We spend so much money on gathering them up at the boarders once they cross/place them in facilities/feed them/medical attention and so forth that should we relay all those funds into putting up a better boarder we might cut our cost of tending this situation...We build what we consider some of the best state of the art prisons in the world and maybe we should look at the way we use our fencing system for those prisons...I mean we are already wasting money on trying to keep them out as it is...Or for that matter to assist in there remaining here...
They are a great asset to our economy I agree and they do work there asses off with jobs most Americans would not do...Sooner of later though they are are gonna move up the chain though as they are hired for there low cost payments to keep big businesses or for that matter even small businesses moving...As for lazy Americans...I've worked hard all my life and I am proud to say most of those I know around me have as well...For that matter many of us as teens had to start some place on the bottom and work our way up...Including as a kid mowing laws for extra cash...
Security to our homeland is a major issue...Our faltering funds to help support the needy/sick/handicap are in question/Social security is another issue since social security card numbers are being used by illegals to obtain work here...For that matter to obtain many other aspects of our culture such as Drivers License/Birth certificates/passports/ID's...
Maybe we should offer to open the boarder up and just move into there homeland and run there country as well...Force them to speak two languages...Wave our American Flag there...Claim Equal rights...Then everyone can be happy...I mean really we will have more elbow room...Land to build on...Places to plant our crops...And we can rid them of there corrupt government...Yes I am being humorous! Remember they want to come here...We do not want to go there and live...LOL...
Freedom of speech...Yes my Grandfather fought in WW1 and family members fought in World war 2 among many of the other battles we took up afterwards...Am I entitled to my opinion? You bet your ass I am! So is everyone else that is an American Citizen...

I have a question and an idea.

1. From people who know, is it impossible for your average Mexican to provide the necessities of life for his family in Mexico? If so, why? If not, why do so many people risk illegal immigration?

2. Here's my idea. Please tell me why it won't work. What does it cost the American tax payers to "support" a family of illegal aliens in this country? Take into consideration medical bills and everything else everyone has talked about above. Could we offer a program whereby families who are here illegally could get a free trip back to where ever they want to go in Mexico along with half the money they would have cost us? Let's say that is $7000. Wouldn't that be enough to start a small business or buy a descent house in Mexico? By doing this, we'd solve the problem on this side of the border and help to solve the problem of dire poverty on that side. If I'm not taking something obvious into consideration, let me know.