Immigration

Our nation was built by the hard work of immigrants, legal and illegal. If you think the cost of food is high now, you couldn't imagine how expensive a head of lettuce would be if an american union worker had to pick each head. Our system needs to recognize the importance of migrant workers and allow those who have jobs to come into the country to do those jobs. Let the farm owners worry about how they hire their help but let immigrant workers in to do the work.
I firmly believe that an "illegal immigrant" should not be able to work, get a driver's license, welfare, healthcare, or put their kids in school. But we should make it easier for workers to come here "legally" because we need them.

I like the idea about earning citizenship by service in the military, but, obviously, that's not enough. Here are some more thoughts.

1. A temporary worker program, possibly two (one for agricultural workers, the other for everything else). First choice, for non-agricultural workers, would go to those already here, with steady jobs and no criminal record.
2. Go after those who hire illegals. After giving the means to check eligibility for employment, fine employers something like $1,000 per illegal employee per day employed.
3. Reinterpret the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be in line with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's "permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity [by a foreign government]" as part of the test for birthright citizenship. Since illegals cannot, by definition, have a "permanent domicil and residence in the United States", being subject to deportation upon discovery, their children, as well as the children of tourists, would not be citizens. Same for temporary workers. That may take another amendment.

And, of course, English should be the official language for all government business. If nothing else, that will avoid the problem of which translation is the correct one.

While I agree to the prospect of opening the military to enlistment by illegal immigrants, I also believe that we must offer more "path to citizenship" plans, in addition to loosened immigration quotas.

Our nation achieved greatness largely because of our immigrant populations. These populations were villified and prosecuted at the time, but one or two generations later, each of them was fully integrated into American life. They added their own cultural twist on the American dream, and we are better now because of it.

These populations didn't have an "official language." They learned English at their own pace because life was very difficult if they didn't speak it. There is no need to institute English as an official language. It will only serve to discourage immigrants that can offer valuable cultural and technical knowledge to our nation.

The policy on "birthright citizenship" must be addressed. Receiving citizenship after birth in the United States is overwhelmingly abused; many people come here simply to have their children. Children born in the United States should only receive citizenship if (1) their parents are United States citizens OR (2) their parents have held legal residency in the United States for 5 consecutive years. In the case a child is born in the United States to illegal parents who cannot prove residency, the child automatically receives citizenship upon turning five years old. This policy ensures that all of the children who were born here and integrate into our school systems are citizens of the U.S. This policy is growing in popularity and not addressing it weakens your stance on immigration.

This story from the AP wire should be food for thought: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/aug/08/lt-mexico-migration/

It is telling us that net immigration from Mexico has slowed significantly from the peak in 2006. Why? Could it be that because of the Great Recession there are very few jobs available for anyone here, including illegal immigrants?

I have long believed that the way to control illegal immigration (from any country) is to control employment opportunities, and not by building walls.

We *will* eventually turn around our economy and begin hiring again. When we do so, we should have employment laws with real teeth in place. Hit the employers who try to deprive American citizens of reasonable wages by hiring those who are not here legally.

To your point Jim, I can tell you that an automotive rebuilding shop I know in AZ saw its biz drop by over 25% as these folks went back home due to the Great Recession. The owner misses them!

LCarter, concur with all you said.

One reason why illegal immigration is a bigger problem than it could otherwise be is because legal immigration is unnecessary hard and convoluted. A skilled person in a high-paying field with shortage of workers can get permanent residency in two years in Canada from the moment they set foot in the country (going via the provincial sponsorship route, which requires coming to the country on a work visa first and working there for a year, and then applying for PR), and then citizenship in three more years of residing in the country. US is much slower than that, and it can easily take over a decade, with no certainty that either PR or citizenship will ever be granted at any stage in the process.

Note that this directly affects American citizens as well, as people on temporary work visas (H1-B etc) who have applied for a green card and are waiting for it are highly dependent on their employer (because if they change employer, they have to start the process anew, and if they don't find a new job right away, they get kicked out of the country immediately). Consequently, employer has more leverage against them in the job market, and can pay less and demand more working hours without fear of workers leaving for greener pastures, which undermines the labor market for everyone.

On the other hand, H1-B should be revamped so that companies can no longer easily fake "unfulfilled demand" for skilled labor in areas where there's none in practice just so that they can bring in cheap workers from third-world countries. Not all companies that hire H1-Bs practice this, but there are numerous documented cases.

Undocumented workers as skilled labor competes with American citizens and reduced the wages of those citizens who are able to gain employment.

The solution is to do all necessary to stop employers from hiring undocumented workers.

No job opportunities significantly reduces illegal entry.

I think there is currently a policy that allows foreign nationals to serve in our military and receive a fast tract to citizenship as a reward. Extending this to current undocumented residents could be acceptable. However, what happens to the families who are here with them? Will the government be providing for their care? Or will they be required to return to their native country to wait until they can reenter legally? That would present a serious hardship for many.

What about those who don't qualify due to age, physical health, etc? Could there be some sort of other national service program for them?

English as the official language is fine. However, I believe we need to encourage Americans to learn additional languages in today's world and seek opportunities to use them.

From personal experience I learn it was near impossible to retain a second language without the ability to use it. We should not stigmatize the use of additional languages by anyone. We lose if we do that.

Assimilation is necessary, but we also need to respect and not stigmatize the participation in the heritage, customs and traditions of other cultures. They enrich our nation and all who open themselves to intercultural sharing. I have benefited by work and living experience with multiple cultures from around the world, and living in a harmoniously integrated city.

The J1 program is something that needs to be looked at. It is a double edged sword, and has abuses related to it. It is insourcing that effects jobs of citizens here in some areas.

I agree with you SteveLee. Visas should be easier for immigrants who are working because they are our workforce. Without their help, I think it would be somehow difficult for us to find workers. This is not about being selfish, it is about giving the immigrants a chance. Besides, a short-term loan isn't needed because they will also pay for it.

I think the Laws of the Land must be enforced !! Illegal Behavior should not be rewarded. If it is, then all those who followed our nation's laws in good faith are FOOLS !!!

We have 15+ Million unemployed and millions more on govt. benefits. We need to get jobs to them before we bring more foreigners in !!

New Migrants into the USA must respect Our nation's right to Protect it's Borders and people and also enact and enforce naturalization laws. !!. We must be independent as a people. All Work will get done including agriculture or we won't eat..simple as that...

Jim E.

I agree completely jimeckland. And I'm the son of an immigrant, actually. To me the whole idea of amnesty is insulting on multiple levels. Doubly so that people would seriously propose using migrants to fight wars in countries we have no business being in.

I certainly agree that an illegal immigrant who chooses to serve the US should be granted citizenship and the rights than come with such an honor. However, the major problem with illegal immigration in the US today is not the occasional introduction of a few military age individuals at a time, but whole families, including the young and old who might not take advantage of such an opportunity. In Latin America, much as it was long ago in Anglo America, aging family members look to their children and grandchildren for assistance, not social welfare programs. By only allowing "immediate family members" the ability to enter into US citizenship along with military immigrants, some who might have relied heavily on those individuals for support. While citizenship might not be offered to most extended family members of serving military illegal immigrants, perhaps a more efficient pathway towards legal status for some might be made available.

I disagree with this stance on immigration.

The legal immigration process should be reformed in order to increase its efficiently and to attract the highly skilled workers we desire. Our legal immigration process is and should remain the only path to citizenship. Where it can be improved we should reform it. Benefits such as job skills training and educational classes should be provided to our legal immigrants; those that have respected America enough to obey our immigration laws. Suggesting offering citizenship (or even legal residency) and extra benefits to those that came to America illegally or overstay illegally is rewarding criminal activity, enticing others to perform the same action in hope of achieving the same rewards, and sending the dangerous message that people should only obey those American laws they like and feel free to break the laws they don’t like.

I would also strongly oppose illegal immigrants serving in our military as they neither deserve the honor to serve nor should be eligible for the benefits. In my opinion, suggestions of this kind are once again looking for ways to reward illegal activity. For legal residents only, I support our current procedures of allowing their citizenship requests to be expedited for their military service.

I am a very strong supporter of legal immigration. A migrant’s first interaction with our nation should be one of respect. Coming to America illegally or remaining illegally are crimes that compound as time goes by. The longer a person stays in America illegally the more severe their crime. The idea that a person that has been in America illegal for an extended period of time should in some way be excused from the crimes they have committed and be eligible for a “path to citizenship” is flawed. The worst offenders should be deported and denied re-entry.

The illegal immigration debate has declined into whether some foreign nationals should be permitted to ignore our immigration laws, come into our country any way they like or remain when they should have left, and then wait around for amnesty or some other “path to citizenship”. Extra points and consideration for them if they get married and/or have lots of kids; then these criminals can use the “don’t break up our family tactic”. Anyone that dares to speak out against these criminals is labeled as racist, anti-immigration, or both. That is nonsense. I am as passionately in favor of legal immigration as I am passionately opposed to illegal immigration.

Whatever the solution to our immigration problems, I believe it should focus on the following goals:

1. Reforming our legal immigration to attract both the diversity and the highly skilled individuals we seek.
2. Discouraging illegal immigration by removing incentives and performing no actions that reward this criminal behavior.
3. Reforming birthright citizenship to only pertain to children where at least one parent is an American citizen or a legal resident.
4. Prosecuting and punishing individuals, organizations, and businesses that aid and abet illegal immigration.
5. Securing our nation's borders
6. Prosecuting and punishing illegal immigrants.

As an aside…
I have always wondered how people reconcile the whole “USA is and has always been a country of immigrants” rhetoric with our having Native American citizens. Is it assuming that there are no more 100% Native American descendants in America? And as such that everyone in America is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants? Was there a scientific study done that proves this? Just wondering.

As to your aside, as I live near Native American lands, and am the son of recent ( 1950\\\'s) immigrants. One way people reconcile it is by not uttering such abolutist dogma. Have immmigrants truly helped define the United States? ABSOLUTELY! All of us, INCLUDING Native Americans, (whose \\\"Longhouse\\\" religion forms as such of the core of the U.S. Founding Documents, as does Christianity or the natural law of Cicero ) have formed what it means to be \\\"American\\\", as in U.S. citizens and believers in the freedoms the Constitution grants and all the promise it still holds.

Here in NY, to me, it means that Federal law trumps whatever NYS is trying to impose on our Native Tribes. Their lands really ARE a foreign country and only the US Feds ought have any authority, tax or otherwise. I.E., Honor Native Treaties.

BTW, I am rethinking my unanimous agreement with Lcarter, as regards the official language stance. I beleive if we look into the \\\"system\\\" our multiligual conciliation has formed, we\\\'ll find that much of this transalation is not to help gain sueful employ, incorporate a mechanics or housekeeping business, but for gaining access to social services. This is not the paradigm that has characterized most of immigration to the US over time. From the Native Americans who must have traveled far and wide from their prehistoricahomes, to the earliest European settlers by sea, to today\\\'s productive immigrants and foreign visitors many who came to these shores have sought the promise of freedom, and respect for the individual and personal property it promises.

The Black American experience lies outside this \\\'ideal\\\' paradigm, but the contribution of America\\\'s \\\'slaves\\\' to what it means to be American today, is boundless, so what bad luck gone good!

The key to it , is to all share in what we view OURSELVES to be, if we could be, model citizens. Work hard, pay your fair share, speak good English, etc.

And also a system that would not have created 3rd and 4th generation families who still dont speak English and require a translator to access the public services system. That simply shouldn\\\'t be happening on taxpayers\\\' money on a number of different levels.

By defining these very broad preferences including language, it might lead us into a more palpable, more efficient, system of legal immigration. My fear is that any broadened sytem of legal immigration has the potential to become an excersize in government contol of the individual, which must be managed carefully. You know, racial profiling gone amuck. Yet, if we remove all race, creed and color, and speak to only WHY the potential citizens want to be here, and if they can pull their own weight, or have sponsors who can, I hope we can forge a very workable Federal policy and put an end to individual States trying to ease the problem by themselves.

This is one area where the maybe the largess of the Fed authority and reach hasn\\\'t gone far enough? Hard to imagine for fiscal conservatives, but I\\\'m asking anyway.

I agree with much of what you have written. I completely agree with you on the enormous impact of immigrants in America. However, I still believe it is wrong to discount the Native American population of the country; regardless of how small it is compared to the immigrant population. You did touch on the Native American reservations. I should point out though that not all Native American tribes have reservations and that there are more Native Americans living outside of these reservations that within them. For me, the whole “American equals Immigrant” thing is the absolutist dogma. One of America’s core strengths is our diversity; a diversity of people and culture that has received contributions from both our immigrant and native populations.

I disagree with “lcarter” and feel that “American English” should be made the official language, but not to the extreme of trying to remove other languages from business usage. With the amount of diversity we have in this country we likely have more languages being spoken here on any given day than anywhere else in the world. As you pointed out there are important reasons to maintain a multilingual stance in many communities. I still lean more towards ensuring there is at least one universal language in our country to tie us all together; and currently American English is the language spoken by the majority of Americans. Worst case scenario in my opinion is having two communities within America that cannot speak with each other due to differences of language. I would also be concerned about having registered voters that are unable to understand the words or policies of their official in order to make informed voting decisions (and things can be lost or inadvertently altered in translations). I would not make English a requirement for immigration though. Language can be taught; more work should be done to ensure that new immigrants get the opportunity to receive a quality American English language education.

I agree completely with your last paragraphs. In line with the Whig philosophy, an immigrant’s merit (especially character) and their reasons for wanting to migrate to America should be the primary deciding factors. Although it should be stated that if diversity is one of the goals you will still have to look at things such as race, ethnicity, etc. in order to discover which populations are underrepresented.

Jonathan, I agree with most of what you have stated, but I strongly encourage you to toughen your stance on "English only." My mother, who legally immigrated here as a teenager, managed to learn the language. I do not buy the "melting pot" blather, as while yes, we are a nation of immigrants, we also have our own distinct culture, and part of that culture is the English language. People are free to speak whatever language they wish on their own, but to expect government to encourage or reward the lack of desire to assimilate into our culture should not happen.

As far as the Whig's position on this issue, there's not much "meat" here, and what is here isn't very tasty. While rewarding illegals with citizenship for serving in the military sounds great, I agree with the other poster who stated that there should be NO incentives for illegal immigration, including citizenship via military service, as it's exactly that - an incentive. But, reform the immigration laws? Yes. I also think that citizenship via birth (aka "border babies") needs to end. I'm also not buying the "need for foreign labor" argument wholesale, as while there may be a need for low-skilled migrant labor, many tech companies can find skilled workers; they just don't want to pay for it, and I don't see why we should relax immigration laws to foster their greed.

HI MDBuck. Are you saying that your mother learned English “before” she immigrated to America and that I should toughen my stance to only allow English-speaking people to immigrate to America? If this was not what you meant then I apologize for misunderstanding and would ask that you clarify how I should toughen up my stance.

My own stance is still that American English can be taught and therefore need not be a condition for immigration. I have seen new immigrants in my area go from lacking any English ability to being able to read, write, and converse in the language; all in less than a year by taking intensive American English classes. If more work is done to ensure that new immigrants get the opportunity to receive a quality American English language education, I don't think we would need an "English Speakers Only" requirement for our immigration policy.

I was advocating more of a “cultural pluralism” position (with American Culture as the dominant culture and American English being the Official language). While I believe an American “melting pot” would be ideal, American people are so attached to their differences that a homogeneous American society, while good in theory, is not what we have in practice. That being said, we should still be enforcing American culture as the dominant culture and do all we can to prevent multiculturalism. Multiculturalism would divide people along cultural lines without uniting them under the larger American culture. In my opinion, both foreign-nationality-based and ethnicity-based cultural identities should therefore always be secondary to the American cultural identity; along the lines of cultural pluralism.

Also, Immigrants should not be coming to America to create their own self-governed countries/fiefdoms and attempt to separate themselves from American culture. Rather, they should be learning all about American culture, becoming a part of American society, and determining which parts of their cultural heritage would enrich American society with its addition (art, music, dance, etc.).

On a side note, I wish our own American speakers were more multilingual. The founders of our country were able to speak, read, and write in many languages. Currently, we have American-born citizens who can barely speak American English (even though it’s their one and only language). When foreigners can speak American English better than American-born citizens, we have a big education problem.

BTW, I dont know where we got off on this sending illegals to the military thing. The 'model' MWP speaks of is the same "unoffcial" model my father went thru. He was allowed passage for his family and a promise of citizenship ( and a job at a GM plant - those were the days) for his service. Now, this was the 1950's, it was something being run by the Army/OSS, so its not completley scalable, but thats the model. Not being an illegal here and then being recruited, but applying for a postion as part of your immigration VISA.

And we hope everyone realizes that when you "give away" citizenship, you have effectively made it cheap and free. It is a PRIVELEDGE, not a right. We should HONOR it, not make it a free public good. Citizenship needs to be resepcted, not cheapened. IF you think freedom and citizenship ought be free, I've got some scars to show you, and I'm one of the lucky ones. Its NOT free.

So the next time some pol cries out for amnesty and free citizenship, please, some one slap them silly. They're being much too stupid ( or "political" ) for a true representative of the people.

Most importantly, we're moving towards a solution even in this discussion forum; I might suggest we carry this onto our Rountable platform and truly hash out an immigration policy we can offer the Republic.

Hi Jonathan:

No, I am not advocating a "English speakers only" policy; I just have a little difficulty following you, as on one hand, you say you are in support of "English as official language;" yet you say that it's OK for immigrants to hold on to their own languages to be able to conduct business in them. I am not advocating some kind of law forbidding immigrants to speak in their own language on their own; what I am advocating is that:

- English is the OFFICIAL language of the United States of America. No government business will be conducted in any other language.
- Immigrants should be given some kind of conditional citizenship with full citizenship based on their ability to pass a basic language and culture test (in addition to the basic citizenship test).
- And, holding on to your native language in other than social settings is NOT a part of our culture and should be frowned upon in no uncertain terms.

I do disagree with your statement that we are not a homogenous society. To the contrary, the American culture dictates that women do not wear burkas or walk 10 paces behind their husbands. Our culture does not expect men to wear white robes. There are too many immigrants who want to hold on to their native customs and who are not interested in assimilating into our own distinct and quite homogenous culture. Again, am not advocating laws based on dress, but this type of behavior should be strongly discouraged as it is NOT a part of American culture.

I also think it's not the place of immigrants to decide what of their customs/culture will enrich our society; it is our collective decision as American citizens who are already a part of this culture.

I think we're pretty in synch; I'd just challenge you to sharpen your positions.

I do not see this position as a practical, ethical, or wise compromise.

To require military service for the naturalization of illegal immigrants would effectively make the military into a penal institution for non-citizens.

I doubt this plan would either improve military readiness or instill any love of America in the population of undocumented immigrants.

I do not know about where you live, but in California, \\\"English only\\\" has a strongly racist connotation. It\\\'s the Western equivalent of the Southern Strategy.

Think what you want about the issue. That is your right. I think anything anti-immigrant does not belong in the Whig party platform, if the Whigs have any political aspirations in this century. Follow the demographics.

Nolte, dont be daft. Nowehere was it said it is the only path to citizenship. That would be ludicrous. Its there for those who choose to avail themselves of it, based on physical and mental contrainsts. Secondly, whoever used the term illigal immigrants to serve in the U.S. Military is legally incorrect. It is a LEGAL path to citizenship. LEGAL.

And its no issue to speak your native tongue at home and in social contexts, yet use English as a primary. My whole family did it. I was sent to kindergarten to \"learn English better than the American kids.\"

There is absolutely nothing illogical or odd about that. It ought be the correct paradigm.

My guess is that the majority who think English Only as racist in California are latinos. There are unique attributes to being the largest class of immigrants, calling out anti-Latino rasicm at first blush is one of them. There is nothing racist at all about requiring English to be used in official business. Yet, on the opposite side, there are folks who want to keep America white for lack of a better term. My retort there is, hey the world is brown, get used to it. So some white paranoia does enter into the discussion, even if they cannot admit it as such, I see it clearly. As does the opposite side who is to quick imho, to level the word racist. Racism comes form many persepctives I\'ve realized.

The key here is the U.S. Constitution. If your race, religion or creed allows support of that human, natural law doctrine, and if your path to citizenship grows your awareness and appreciation of how that Documents binds us all together, in additional to a common language, then you have the correct prerequistes. If you can then demonstrate sponsorship by a family or an employer, to me, it ought be a layup.

How the heck could that be considered racist? Utter malarkey, and I call it out as such publicly. I am not politically correct, only logically correct. Meaning folks from CA might not get it.

Oh, and no one here called the Whig discussion racist, it was an outside opinion of what someone might think of it. ?????

DIS-Information Age indeed! Hip Boots are required. Please lets not invoke 2nd, 3rd or 4th derivatives of opinions as truth in these discussions. Especially one as potentially charged as immigration. One your LEADERS dont have the guts to deal with.

That IS a huge part of the overall problem. Assuming opinion as fact, or worse, others opinions as fact. And I will call you out on it. It is my duty as a Whig.

It is one way we stay above the din of opinion, biases, prejuduices, etc, is by being very explicit about them.

gene,

Thank you for clarifying the party\\\'s position with regard to the military service option. The way I read it, it sounded like the party platform was advocating that undocumented immigrants (pre- or post-arrest, it wasn\\\'t clear) would be offered military service as a path to citizenship. I seriously doubt I\\\'m the only one who was confused.

I stated my concerns about English Only in terms of public perception because I feel it is unproductive in a discussion to presume the state of mind of any other participant. Indeed, I do not know who here might be white and paranoid, as you say, who else might be for some unknown reason prejudiced against Latinos (thanks for making it abundantly clear what \\\"illegal immigrant\\\" really means here), and who simply selfishly wants his language to be THE OFFICIAL language, at the expense of any community of lawful and productive immigrants (such as Latinos, or for that matter Hmong or any other refugee group) which has not invested as much time and effort in learning a second language as \\\"good immigrants\\\" like, say, Greeks or Pakistanis or Koreans.

I\\\'m not going to accuse anyone of any particular prejudice. What I will say is this: English Only IS prejudiced, against those Americans who don\\\'t speak English (Does this really need to be said?). English Only is NOT in the Constitution. English IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN the only de-facto language of business in the United States and this does not appear to have harmed America in any way.

So why, on an otherwise fair-minded, logical, and thorough party platform do you have such a powder-keg of prejudice (real or apparent)?

Who's saying that English should be "the only de-facto language of business in the United States"? What has been said is that English should be the official language of government, the language that laws are written in and that serves as the final authority for what government is actually saying.

If you have any experience with multiple languages, you'll know that translation can sometimes be rather iffy. Having legal or governmental affairs conducted in multiple languages is an invitation to confusion.

Gee, as I've been around the block a few times, I considered English the de facto language of commerce GLOBALLY. Anyway, if it is perceived as a powederkeg of prejudice, so be it. I cannot control someone else's cognition, remotely anyway.
As far as prejudice, this from the immigrants son, whose mother tongue was not English, and who was,rather appropriately, ORDERED to learn "English better than the American kids - this is OUR country now."

Maybe my experience is so unique it is not easily understood. Clear as branch water in a crystal glass to me. The language MADE me 110% American, not a XXX-American.( fill in the blank)

What I see in local bi/multi lingual government services is excessive costs in adminsitration and, now here you can level a judgement call on me as this is my judgement NOT MWP's, nursemaiding failure by not forcing folks to get fluent in English.

Nursemaiding failure. Yup, I said it. That is value laden, so you have your target now. On my back, no one elses. I'm not sure that is a prejudicial statement, but it does contain my value set, so.....

A few comments on this topic:

To Mr. Lee regarding the price of food. If farm workers were paid a high enough wage to attract more citizens (say Coal Miner wages) the impact to total food cost would still be very low. It would highest in fresh produce, but fresh produce makes up a very small percentage of the typical household food budget. See the following study for more information: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/binpapers/v3a-2martin.pdf. As an aside, Senator McCain made a statement during the last election that U.S. citizens won't work in lettuce fields at any price...first of all lettuce in Arizona is picked in the winter (60 something degrees) not in the summer that McCain implied (said high temperatures is why citizens would not do the job) and sown in the fall...second of all, if citizens will work in the aforementioned coal mines I think they would pick lettuce in the winter if paid the same wage/benefits.

I agree with the post regarding birthright citizenship. I wish someone would bring a suit to the Supreme Court challenging the citizenship of the offspring of an illegal (Wong was a legal, not illegal resident)>

I also agree with the post concerning workplace enforcement as the smartest way to reduce illegal immigration. E-verify and enforcement are much better than a wall.

If we controlled illegal immigration then wages for service jobs would rise and maybe we'd have fewer people on food stamps, etc.

While I am in support of legal immigration, we need to change the process to one that emphasizes unique skills...very unique, not an excuse to bring in computer folks at a lower pay.

Forgive me if I missed anyone's comment on this point, but I have to say that many illegal immigrants are working in conditions and with wages legal residents and naturalized citizens are typically unwilling to accept. It's perhaps better than what they could do in their own country.

I think the illegal immigrant has a place here. Perhaps what needs to change is how we control the influx of migrant workers (not higher walls and more guns, but better relationships with the Mexican government), and what they do when they're here (work programs that actually encourage farmers and companies that use unskilled labor to employ migrant workers for a specified period.) They would no longer be illegal immigrants... but working, productive people on a work visa.

Thain,

Nowhere in your comment do I read any opposition to illegal immigration.

Nowhere in your comment do I read any opposition to the poor treatment of illegal immigrants.

Nowhere in your comment do I read any opposition to companies exploiting an illegal workforce for personal gain.

In short, I disagree with your stance.