Emily,

The comment on NPR you refer to was on the Diane Rehm Show last Friday.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/03/10.php#10198

You're welcome! (Do I get a prize for finding the link?)

Derek.

Samuelson has another good anti-illegal immigration column in the Post today. The mainstream media is finally coming around to the wisdom of the American people.

As I pointed out yesterday in comments, the Berlin Wall comparison is illogical, and shows just how weak the arguments on the pro-illegal side are. The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people *in*; the US-Mexico Border Wall would keep people *out*. One is immoral and reprehensible, the other is moral and commonsense.

It's the difference between having a lock on your basement door to keep someone imprisoned there, and having a lock on your front door to keep criminals out. One's horrible, the other is great.

Build the wall!

Also, props to Emily: pretty evenhanded summary of the situation in today's posting.

I don't understand what the problem is. The money it's costing the taxpayers to take care of illegals, we could have built the GREAT WALL. They don't buy health insurance on themselves or their kids, and why should they when they know we will take care of the bills. Besides they have passed working for minimal wage, they are taking poor workers jobs, so they can get their family up here illegally. So build the wall before something worse happens.

Emily:

"A wall would create a strong incentive for the illegal immigrants already here to stay here; once an immigrant has crossed illegally into the United States, he would be much less likely to leave, knowing how hard it would be to get back in. It wouldn't solve the problem of people overstaying their visas, and it also doesn't help that a wall would seriously antagonize Mexico, at a time when the United States could instead engage in a bilateral effort to create a workable system of enforcement at the border."

So the reason we shouldn't build a wall is because it will discourage illegal immigrants from leaving the country because it prevents them from reentering the country illegally at a later time? Isn't the *point* of the wall to keep illegals out permanently?

As to getting the ones already in the states to leave after the wall is built, this is a problem best taken care of after the wall is built. Then we can focus our efforts on locating illegals already in the United States and "encourage" them back home in vans and buses. They can think about how best to "best" the wall from the Mexican side of the border.

The fact is, the majority of Mexicans (58% in 2002) felt that the Southwest United States rightfully belonged to them. 57% felt they had the right to enter the United States without United States permission. Any "bilateral" attempt that forces a Mexican president to seriously address illegal immigration from his/her side of the border will kill them politically. We are doing Vincente Fox and any future Mexican president an enormous political favor by keeping this a unilateral issue, since the majority of Mexicans think US immigration laws and borders do not/should not apply to them.

To the future cheeky Mexican president who declares "American President ______, I demand you tear down this wall" we can simply remind Senor Presidente that the Berlin Wall was built to prevent emigration, not immigration. The analogy is meaningless.

This is not to say that I 100% support the wall. But if the wall is so effective that current illegals will stay here rather than risk not being able to return (illegally) then that is reason enough to build the wall.

Although I don't want ANY illegal immigration, I don't agree to build a wall (could mine the area, instead -- forget Predators. And mines are passive, they don't go off unless someone makes the effort to walk in a minefield -- and kids shouldn't be anywhere near the border in the first place).

Walls have a psychological impact, much like the walls of a prison. Erecting it will make the US citizens feel like they are in a prison, too.

More passive deterrants are better, and ones not even the druggies would bother to get around.

SandyK

Sandy, I'm hoping you're kidding. You want landmines on the U.S.-Mexico border? The wall is plenty.

And look, for people who are really turned off by the symbolism of the wall, we can always tear it down if 25 or 50 years from now Mexico's economy improves to the point where there's not a massive influx of illegals.

Nope, walls = prisons in the psyche, DC Dude. Doesn't matter what country it is, they make the inhabitants feel like prisoners.

I wasn't kidding about the landmines, I'm dead serious about them. Folks either do something about the issue and stick with it (and mines will last decades <-- fine commitment and deterrant of not only illegals, but possible terrorists) -- or just let the issue go as being nothing but whitewashed lies in the first place.

SandyK

A wall, unfortunately,is necessary. As for what President Reagan said... he, of course, was talking about the Brelin Wall that was built by the communist East Germans, to KEEP people IN! Our wall would be built to keep ILLEGAL people OUT!
If our elected officials, had done their jobs in the first place, we wouldn't be having this problem. Not enforcing the law to fine businesses who hired ILLEGAL ALIENS, and not authorizing our country's Police officers to enforce the laws at all levels, doomed us to our present fate!

A wall, unfortunately,is necessary. As for what President Reagan said... he, of course, was talking about the Brelin Wall that was built by the communist East Germans, to KEEP people IN! Our wall would be built to keep ILLEGAL people OUT!
If our elected officials, had done their jobs in the first place, we wouldn't be having this problem. Not enforcing the law to fine businesses who hired ILLEGAL ALIENS, and not authorizing our country's Police officers to enforce the laws at all levels, doomed us to our present fate!

Even the Wall Street Journal's argument for illegal immigration are weak; there just aren't any persuasive points on the pro-illegal side. As Emily summarizes the WSJ piece:

"A wall would create a strong incentive for the illegal immigrants already here to stay here; once an immigrant has crossed illegally into the United States, he would be much less likely to leave, knowing how hard it would be to get back in."

Garbage. Illegals who are here already have little incentive to leave. A wall wouldn't affect that much one way or the other.

"It wouldn't solve the problem of people overstaying their visas..."

It would help, since it would reduce the overall number of illegals here, giving the INS far fewer cases to deal with.

"...and it also doesn't help that a wall would seriously antagonize Mexico, at a time when the United States could instead engage in a bilateral effort to create a workable system of enforcement at the border."

Mexico has zero interest in "creating a workable system of enforcement at the border." Remember the comic book published by the Mexican government instructing illegals how to sneak across the U.S. border and what their rights are once they do? Some "partner" of ours. This is our problem, and it's up to us to solve it -- Mexico's interests in this matter are diametrically opposed to ours.

The WSJ isn't really "conservative," either -- it's elitist and neoconservative, funded by and written for members of the big business class. Their interest is in business making more profit, not in the overall welfare of the country. People who read the WSJ do not have to send their kids to schools overwhelmed by illegals, do not go to hospital emergency rooms overwhelmed by illegals, and enjoy the benefits of not paying employment and other taxes on illegal workers at their companies.

Everyone's got their interests here -- it's nice to see the American people standing up for theirs at last.

Build the Wall!

"Debater johnnyg in NE DC says it doesn't have to be a "literal wall" because "armed predator aircraft" can patrol large areas. Um ... isn't that a bit extreme? I daresay that it is morally questionable at best to gun down people crossing the border from a friendly country."

Ok Emily, maybe that was over the top. My point is that drones can scan large swaths of land, employ infra-red detectors/night vision, and if necessary, be armed (e.g., terrorists, other dangerous types and , for example, those attempting to shoot a drone down).

These planes should be mass produced and sent into duty 24/7. The video can be monitored to alert border guards and/or US National Guardsmen manning helicoptors that can swoop in for pickup or to detain law-breakers until other transport means arrive.

Once again Emily avoids the discussion of the Immigration Reduction and Control Act (IRCA), a law the president and many in congress refuse to adequately fund. Getting into America is one thing. But once your here illegally the IRCA is supposed to make it impossible to get a job. Yet its reported 12 million illegals are here, most with jobs. And of course they all came across the US/Mex border, right?

Go ahead, build a wall. Ignore the fact that the president would rather have you talking about a wall rather than his inaction on enforcing the IRCA laws. And once you have the wall, and tunnnels under it, ladders over it, holes blown in it, and a large budget to monitor and maintain it, someone will realize we wasted our money when all we had to do was enforce existing laws on the books and give the money spent to build a wall to the INS and Immigration Enforcement.

Don't let the administration and congress off the hook for not enforcing the law of the land by instead allowing them to spend your tax money on a wall that will do little to stop the inflow of illegals or do anything about the illegals already here.

I moved to Phoenix from WDC nearly two years ago...you get a much different perspective on illegal immigration when you live here. We are facing a public safety/law enforcement issue; we are facing an economic isisue; and we are facing a humanitarian crisis (more than 200 people died in Arizona's deserts while illegally crossing the border in 2004, including pregnant women). Arizona has the most porous border with Mexico; 51% percent of the illegal traffic comes through our state. Our state legislature has a plethora of bills pending to address illegal immigration (it costs the border states much more than other states because the federal government does not adequately compensate us for educating the illegal children that federal law requires us to educate; for health care; for prison beds (11 percent of the inmates in the Arizona Dept. of Corrections are foreign nationals; in border jails, that number approaches 50 percent). And illegal persons are only one type of contraband that is crossing the border: we have the highest rate of auto theft (car insurance rates are insane here); drugs; and weapons. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and Border Patrol agents are too busy trying to track down bad guys who might bring WMD across the border; they no longer have the time to raid restaurants and day laborer sites. So, the states are left to deal with the problem...and we are not equipped, and our hands are tied by federal laws and mandates (local police officers risk lawsuits stemming from civil rights violations if they try to determine country of origin...they get accused of profiling). As for bilateral cooperation with Mexico to address this issue, consider: Mexican nationals in the U.S. send back $17 billion each year to Mexico; that's not an incentive for the Mexican government to stop migration to our country. Also, the Mexican government publishes and distributes brochures to educate its citizens how to safely and illegally enter the United States. Several landowners along the border are facing lawsuits because the defended their property when illegals cross and destroy their properties and kill their livestock (keep in mind, some of these ranches have been in families since Arizona and New Mexico were still territories, before they were states). Again, it's one thing to be an armchair policy analyst without being directly affected by illegal immigration; when you visit our border sheriffs and ranchers, you get an entirely different perspective altogether.

to those who knowingly hired illegals that you wouldn't need a wall...

the other thing is, you really have to start requiring other countries that you trade with maintain and increase standards of labor _at least_ commensurate with what we have here.

and go about repairing the damage we have done to our own economy, by neglecting the peoples here.

outsourcing should be considered over, unless they adhere to US standards overseas.

like this, a brit can be arrested in Bangkok for having sex with a 12 year old, an American can have a sex junket to have that happen, pay someone to arrange that, with impunity...

citizenship should be carried with you and penalties should be the same.

.

out of their citizenship by selling their country

to corporate greed...or on another level, monied, affluent families that conspire to control economies...

as a _family_ way of doing business...

you want integrity in government, require it of your citizens that use American resources, including the government.

.

No wall will ever work permanently. It will be , at best, only a temporary hesitant. Walls will be too easy to overcome.

Instead, we need to stop looking for solutions which will "stop" the problem of illegal immigration and examine why the illegal immigrants are coming into the USA.
If we, then, stop those reasons we will have built a wall that cannot be overcome.

The IRCA, an existing law is a good start. But, it should be enforced and be given funding to enact it immediately and continuously. Moreover, anything that will fine and stop ALL employers from using these illegal immigrants would be helpful. In short, we take the actions that will stop all employment, temporary(6 months) jail placement of anyone entering the USA illegally, no rewards or incentives for anyone living in the USA illegally, and a positive program of informing all, how entry is based upon legal steps to be taken.

These are but a few ideas of stopping illegal entry into the USA. *******************

Emily's fallacy today is in trying to evaluate the usefulness of a wall on its own. A wall only has meaning in the context of a larger immigration policy. For example, a wall combined with strong interior enforcement would mean not only keeping new illegals out, but also deporting the ones already here. Poof! The "they won't have any reason to leave" argument is gone.

By the way, Emily, you should look into how Mexico patrols _its_ southern border. They give whole new meaning to the word 'draconian'. Mexican hypocrisy (strong enforcement of their border, combined with incessant whining when we try to enforce ours) is worthy of discussion and exposure...

Virginia Dare, I think I like you.

Emily also says: "The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board argues that building a wall at all is too extreme a reaction to illegal immigration."

When discussing immigration, the WSJ editorial board is libertarian, not conservative. Conservative would mean preserving the status quo of having a meaningful border. The WSJ editorial page has many times called for a Constitutional amendment stating that "there shall be open borders."

Whatever this is, it ain't 'conservative.'

I have a feeling that Emily may not feel the same way, DC Dude...

if they don't get hired they leave.

enforcement at the hiring level needs to occur....with extremely strong incentives not to hire, like jailtime.

next you need to require that these other countries start, "looking like," America in the way that they treat their people..

there are resources and money in countries south of here...they're inefficiently managed, as corruption steals money from the product.

the less corruption, the more product you get for the buck.

who gives a crap, whether the solution is conservative or liberal?

using electricity may be conservative or liberal depending upon what year it is...

like turn of the century 1900's or now.

don't put yourselves in a box.

there needs to be a system of response, that includes education, not a single response...

as an example:

when the internet first went commercial it had some big failures because there was no infrastructure.

a single thing will not stop the invasion, however the single most important thing would be to stop the hiring, and remove the illegals.

this will be useless without requiring other countries to "get better."

multiphased is the only way, using engineers, not effin theorists.

Is there anywhere else in the world where a country can't build a border fence? Does anyone call the Chinese xenophobic for building the Great Wall? Of course not. I will always support LEGAL immigration, but illegal immigration is essentially committing a crime the second someone steps into the US. An illegal immigrant basically says that the laws of our country don't apply to them.

The easiest way to stop illegal immigration is to target the businesses that use illegals and hit them HARD with fines. How about a $1000 fine per employee, per month? It will be much easier to track down the tens of thousands of businesses that currently break the law than it would be to catch the millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

And furthermore, why can't the government of Mexico create jobs for its citizens? Why does the US have to do it for them?

good posts. Build a wall inbetween them!!! LOL

Why are we so miss-guided and miss-directed on this issue? Because there are people who gain a great deal of weath and power and we are influenced to think inside this same old box.

The first rule we have forgotten is to walk a mile in their shoes! I should not have to elaborate. The second being there are no problems, there are opportunities. Last, always look for a win-win situation.

I do not advocate throwing our borders wide open; but, I certainly agree rather than build a wall we should build a bridge. Why the surge in illegial immigrants? Well, our laws have changed under Homeland Security and we have built a higher wall; no common immigrant, only seeking a decent life for him and his family, can hope to enter our country legally. I've been working for almost a year now to get a visa for my fiancee. It sure the heck should not take so long or be so hard.

Tax payers would spend far less helping immigrants to enter America legally, to become responsible tax paying citizens. Instead of sending their meager earnings "home", they would have a home here and bring their families here. It's a clearly proven law of economics, that by coming here legally, they would create more jobs then they would take away. Since they would earn a reasonable wage, their family would shop the local economy, their income would be spent here in the US.

Instead of wasting our tax dollars on high tech equipment, on walls, on more patrols; we could spend money in a way that would be an investment. Invest in their futures and we invest in ours. They would be adding to our economy and taking care of themselves.

Big companies would not like this, who would they out-source work to if they no longer have an extremely cheap and available source of manpower to take advantage of in other countries? Talk about hurting our economy and us average Joe citizens. They may even have to bring the work right back here where it should be, where everyone in this country would benefit and not just the elite at the top of the food chain.

Yes! Build a fench. In spite of what you read from the pro-immigration crowd, those Mexican workers aren't just taking jobs that no American will take. Here, in Oregon, most of my family is in the construction trades. It is nearly impossible to find a concrete layer, a roofer, a painter, or a framing carpenter that isn't an illegal alien. Wha's more, they are paid under the table - usually around $8 to $10 an hour - so no state or federal taxes are paid. They have taken tens of thousands of jobs from American workers, jonbs that three years ago paid $15 dollars an hour. The same is true of nusery workers, line workers at two local RV manufacturing plants, etc. A common sense approach would be to fine the living daylights out of ANY employer hiring an illegal alien - and include your neighbor who hires a day worker from the back parking lot of your local Home Depot. Make the fine something like $10,000 a day per worker, too, and make it automatic. That and a big tall fench would put an end to this nonsense.

Em, what would be the environmental impact of creating a barrier along the entire US/Mexico border? If memory serves, oil pipelines are elevated so as to not disrupt the movement of migratory animals. Does anyone appreciate the purely practical ludicrosity of the idea of a 2,000 mile barrier fence? Especially when the Mexicans appear to be equipped with "tunnelling technology"?

again wrote:
"if they don't get hired they leave.
enforcement at the hiring level needs to occur....with extremely strong incentives not to hire, like jailtime."

This already exists, at least on paper. The IRCA calls for fines, small for first offenders but they get large including prosecutions if violations continue to occur. All this is in place. No new legislation. No need to push anything through congress. Just a need to get this lazy administration to do its job and stop making excuses. Believe me, once you have your 2000 mile long wall and the illegals keep coming in to join the 12 million already here and IRCA is still ignored, what then? Maybe put sharks in the waters ... oh ... they're already there...

I say build it. Build it high and wide, and then put troops on the border to suppelement the border patrol.

The comparison to Reagan in Berlin is disingenous, in my opinion. That wall divided two Germanys -- one people, it can be argued -- and not two distinct nations.

Illegal immigration is literally stifling us, especially in Southern California. The increased costs in everything from hospitals to roads to prisons, and the degredation of the schools, we can't sustain it.

Building a wall is a bad idea. If you want to slow/halt illegal immigration you need to punish those who hire illegal immigrants, severely. If people are not willing to hire illegals, then you take away that incentive for illegals to come to this country.

On the flip side, we do need a number of these immigrants (legal and illegal) to perform certain functions within our society. That means we need to make it easier for an individual who wants to improve their station in life and is willing to work hard to come to this country and work. This is not a one-dimensional issue.

I don't like my taxes being used to support illegal immigrants, but as an American I don't like the idea of putting a barrier in front of anyone who is willing to work hard to create a better life for themselves.

Forget the wall or any other immigration policy. Immigration is just the reaction.
Any change will have to address the source of the problem -- OUR ADDICTION TO CHEAP ILLEGAL LABOR!!!

I still cannot understand why the U.S.A., the most technologically advanced country in the world, is unable to enforce it's own labor laws.

Why do we tolerate employers who hire illegal aliens (wink, wink) ?

Once we realize that entire industries (agriculture, construction, domestic services) all would COLLAPSE without illegal immigrant labor, then we understand that we are also part of the problem.

It's very simple, no illegal jobs, no illegal aliens. As a side effect, wages for most Americans would rise as well.

What's stopping us -- an inability to hold businesses accountable for the costs that they incur according to our laws. Until we come to terms with that, no wall, landmines, fighter planes, or a multitude of patrols will ever stop the flow.

Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure that illegal immigrants will leave once IRCA is finally enforced, which I hope it will be. I would personally rather be unemployed in the US than unemployed in Mexico. I guess reuniting with their family would be the only reward.

Mark-

"Well, our laws have changed under Homeland Security and we have built a higher wall; no common immigrant, only seeking a decent life for him and his family, can hope to enter our country legally. I've been working for almost a year now to get a visa for my fiancee. It sure the heck should not take so long or be so hard."

There is nothing unreasonable or untenable about a country protecting its border through a more stringent legal immigration policy after an international terrorist attack. Furthermore the United States allows nearly 1 million legal immigrants per year for various reasons.

It is your OPINION that this process "sure the heck should not take so long or be so hard" whereas it is the OPINION of the prevailing legislatures who determine the legal structure of lawful immigration into the country that it should. Why shouldn't it take this long? Because it's unfaaaaaaair to Mark's fiance:(:(:(?

Regardless, as you already know because you've begun the legal process for accessing our country, this is the most generous nation in the world when it comes to legal immigration. We recognize here in the United States that our country was built with the blood and sweat of lawful immigrants from the world over.

Illegal immigration is another matter.

"Tax payers would spend far less helping immigrants to enter America legally, to become responsible tax paying citizens. Instead of sending their meager earnings "home", they would have a home here and bring their families here."

This is precisely what we do not want. If schools, prisons, state and federal funds are taxed to the limits already then legitimizing illegal aliens by inviting their families across will only exacerbate this problem.

In simpler terms tax payers would *not* pay much less welcoming them with open arms and big smiles, they would pay considerably more.

"Big companies would not like this, who would they out-source work to if they no longer have an extremely cheap and available source of manpower to take advantage of in other countries?"

Certainly not the illegal immigrants that you propose we invite with open arms, of course.

You are both naive and uninformed.

hiring would stop.

jail-time is an option.

you could even say, this is a National Security Issue.

You could say, it's a National Guard Issue if there were any at home...it's definitely a federal issue that affect every state.

there has to be some awakening that requires people to feel that we live in a country that is on some level _honest_.

this isn't about blame, this is about logistics and solving a problem, that has to do with damaged economic infrastructure and multiple reasons for the damage.

you'd have to feature _intervention_ at some point to deal with the marginalized and have them part of the economy,

you'd have to address human rights in other countries _again_ or close the doors to them tradewise.

everything used to be made in the USA, there's really no reason it couldn't be that way again....I know a lot of depressed-out-of-work rednecks...

.

James-

"On the flip side, we do need a number of these immigrants (legal and illegal) to perform certain functions within our society. That means we need to make it easier for an individual who wants to improve their station in life and is willing to work hard to come to this country and work. This is not a one-dimensional issue."

There is already a legal immigration cap related to labor needs in the United States. Our labor needs can be met entirely by legal immigrants who are documented upon their entry into the country. If the 500,000 cap per year isn't enough to feed this country's apparently insatiable need for Juans and Juanitas, then the cap can be lifted via the legislative process and we can invite more legal immigrants.

The solution is not to aquiesce to the illegals for no good reason since illegals are precisely the kind of people that lower our standard of living (because they are exploitable in ways that legal immigrants are not).

AgentG wrote:
"Once we realize that entire industries (agriculture, construction, domestic services) all would COLLAPSE without illegal immigrant labor, then we understand that we are also part of the problem."

I totally disagree. These industries used to do quite well with legal labor. What companies have done by hiring illegal cheap labor is:
1) Broken the law.
2) Stopped hiring legal immigrants and citizens.
3) Increased their profits and thus have become addicted to the cheaper labor.

It wasn't always like this folks and it doesn't have to continue to be like this. All it requires is giving law and immigration enforcement the money and man power to do the job. Maybe we could return to the level of enforcement in the 60s when I remember INS agents raiding restaurants all the time. I haven;t seen a raid or even read about a raid in over 10 years.

Build it, and they will not come.

Sully-

I completely agree that this is in many ways as much an enforcement problem as a border issue. I wholeheartedly encourage municipal, state, and federal agencies to enforce the laws already on the books (what a novel idea) as a means of combating illegal immigration.

Sure. Build a wall. Fantastic Idea. But then you have to patrol it. and fix it when it gets knocked down. And fight the drug runners who are trying to get through it. You are going to create a 3000 mile militarized zone across the south west United States.

I am not an expert on budgets, but it seems like this war we have going on in Iraq is pretty expensive.

The problem is everyone thinks you build a wall and the problem goes a way. We used to have a fence in our back yard that had to be repainted every year, not to mention fixed when trees fell on it, etc.

Any long standing project like this is all about exposure. Ask GM. Setting up there healthcare plan wasn't the expensive part, paying the claims thirty and fourty years later was.

There has got to be a more rational way to decrease the incentives for immigrants to come across the border... like say tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and a functioning immigration system that supplies immigrants to fill the jobs that need to be filled.

I'd like to remind your readers that you are not in a bubble and that your actions are noted outside of the US.

Taking a heavy hand at each opportunity is now what you Americans are famous for.

Canada has over half the wolrds fresh water, half the worlds Uranium, the biggest untapped oil reserve and a booming economy. We don't spend our money on shoving our guns in peoples faces.

Maybe we should build our own wall against the soon-to-be debt ridden land of violence.

DC Dude... you gotta work on your facts man. Most immigrants who come return to their country of origin within the first three years of coming to the U.S. at least a couple of times, whether it is to visit family, take money home, or to just spend the holidays. Then they come back and work more.

Your wall is just going to force that laborer to stay here, build a house, move in next door to you and make you mad because his wife's tamales de elote and maduro frito smell better than the same old spaghetti and ragu that you get.

As long as their are good paying jobs and a better opportunity for the future... "People will come Ray, people will most definitely come."

Facts,

If by "going back" the original WSJ article just means "going back to visit for a few months," then what does it matter? It's not important to the debate whether a certain illegal spends a few months in El Salvador before returning to the U.S. -- what's important is keeping them out in the first place. Ergo, build the wall, enforce the laws fining employers who hire illegals, and your illegal immigration problem vanishes overnight.

changing times, changing strategies. Mexico has grown significantly, and not necessarily in positive ways. This country has spent literally billions on trying to improve mexico, only to be answered with policy and rhetoric hostile to american interests.
It bears remembering that the last mexican-american war, while over 100 years ago, did in fact cause a lot of the southern United States to be ceded from mexico to america, and that there are some that haven't forgotten that, and they call themselves La Raza. They believe in La Reconquista, or the 're-conquest' of the southern United States by any means necessary and possible. The 'drug war' is symptomatic of that, as the huge drug importation industry would not be able to operate in Mexico without the assent of the mexican people at large.

I think it's fool-hardy to assume that we can continue to blithely treat Mexico as an ally until there's a full airing of differences in policy that result in ever more people being repatriated to mexico from the US, and new jails and prisons being built in america to house the ones that end up getting detained for various and sundry crimes. Until mexico sees fit to pass laws, enforceable and widely understood laws, that govern the conduct of its' citizens while they're on US soil, and develop solid extradition agreements that result in the apprehension of the high-finance drug lords that are trying to wreck both mexico AND america, that we must seek to use methods such as the border fence to help minimize harm and help mexico on its' path, willing or otherwise, toward reform. When our border patrol agents are coming under hostile fire at the US/Mexico border from persons wearing uniforms and driving vehicles and firing weapons that were once provided to the mexican government for purposes of keeping order and law enforcement, I believe it can fairly be said that the parties our country did business with during those times are no longer in control of those assets. In the interest of not seeing a replay on our own shores, its' better to simply deny entry to america to all.
12 million illegal immigrants whose whereabouts are unknown in america is potentially a huge problem, depending on the intentions and actions of those 12 million. Yes, most of the 12 million are from Mexico...and no, they probably won't go willingly, or quietly...furthermore I believe that daily overflights in manned aircraft along our border with mexico would be a visible reinforcement of our country's intention to handle any disingenuous conduct on Mexico's part with force and precision might be an idea whose time has come.

Hey From the Outside,

If you shared a border with Mexico, you'd think differently.

No, I think you are missing the point.

Let me try and make this simpler. Last year hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the water rose so high that it overflowed the levees and the city flooded.

A Levee is like a wall, only it stops water instead of people, dogs, etc. Well think of the force of immigration like water. There is a huge demand for cheap labor on one side of the wall, and if there is enough supply it will eventually overflow the wall.

People can climb over the wall. Coyotes or Polleros can blow holes in the wall. Planes can fly over the wall. Holes can be dug under the wall.

When immigrants are willing to pay $3000 a person every time they come across the border to a complete stranger with no guarantee that they will actually get to their destination... I'd say that demand is pretty strong, and your wall will be very close to overflowing.

Now I agree that we need to enforce the laws, but (assuming you are a republican) it is our party who refuses to enforce the laws against businesses because those are the same businesses that are paying for elections.

"12 million illegal immigrants whose whereabouts are unknown in america is potentially a huge problem, depending on the intentions and actions of those 12 million."

Shoot Bert, there whereabouts aren't unknown! We just can't afford to get rid of them.

The comment from the DC Dude only goes to show the racial descrimination and inhumanity that we Americans continue to harvest in our hearts.

Although I agree that we have to have a policy to control illegal immigration, I also believe that all humans have a right to try to get ahead. The reason the immigrants come to the US is because they are willing to work hard to provide for themselves and their families, they don't come here to kill people. I realize that there are bad apples everywhere, but that does not mean that hispanics are all bad people.

How about a novel idea... penalize the American employer who illegally hires undocumented immigrants; who use these immigrants by paying them below minimum salary wages; no healthcare benifits and the rest of those benefits that we have and that as taxpayers pay for those less fortunate. Aren't they, the American employer, the ones that benefit the most, yet violate the law. They are the Americans that promote and provoke the illegal immigrant to cross the border.

If building a wall is the only possible solution than so be it. I do strongly believe that other options are out there and we should look at them first. Most and foremost, let's not compare our neighbors (Mexico) to the common criminal (most of them Americans) that live in our neighborhoods commiting crimes.

Which comment was that, Paul?

I think it might have been this one:

"People who read the WSJ do not have to send their kids to schools overwhelmed by illegals, do not go to hospital emergency rooms overwhelmed by illegals, and enjoy the benefits of not paying employment and other taxes on illegal workers at their companies."

Or this one:

" the Berlin Wall comparison is illogical, and shows just how weak the arguments on the pro-illegal side are. The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people *in*; the US-Mexico Border Wall would keep people *out*. One is immoral and reprehensible, the other is moral and commonsense."

Or this one

"If you shared a border with Mexico, you'd think differently. "

You suggest that a) a certain class of people don't deserve to share the same public services as you do (Don't even talk about the money/there are hundreds of papers on both sides that say that immigrants alternatively represent a net loss and a net gain.) A recent one out of UNC says that taking into account all of the costs and benefits, immigrants, even illegal immigrants represent a net gain for our economy.

b) forgetting that walls go both ways, you think it is morally okay to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. (and therefore in Mexico) but not okay to keep East Germans in East Germany (and therefore out of West Germany). What you seem to be suggesting is that east germans and west germans are equals, but Mexicans and Americans are not.

c) That there is something inherently wrong with Mexico that would make someone who shared a border with Mexico think differently because that person has to deal with Mexicans... never mind that you live pretty far away from that border.

Illegal immigration is illegal. Got it. But is it criminal? If everything illegal was criminal and treated as such there would be more people in jail than out, and you could start with the White House, Congress, the Senate, K Street , and their equivalents in every state capital; and then they can move on to YOU for speeding, cheating on your income tax etc. etc. The illegai immigrants are NOT criminals but people, families, seeking a better life. They work and pay taxes. By starting a new life in a new land they are demonstrating they have courage and drive to improve themselves. They should be respected not demonised. They are the kind of people America needs. Yes, they consume health, education resources but so do you. Start by showing some compassion. In your own self interest, recognise that by keeping them in the underground economy (for little more reason than spite) you are condemning them to underachievement and marginalisation. Given a chance, their educated English-speaking second generation will make up for their parent's poverty as immigrants have done over the past two hundred years.
Then think about the current immigration law: It doesn't work. The pull-factor from demand in The US is much, much stronger than the push factor from Mexico. Current law is neither practical nor respected therefore it is not enforced. It is fundamentally unenforceable, like prohibition. (all those criminals). Some businesses (and households) want cheap labour; all consumers want cheap goods and services. By all means regulate immigration. But you have to recognise and deal with two realities: the millions that are already here who need to be brought out from the underground economy; and secondly, the huge domestic demand for cheap labour which is not going to go away. I continue to be surprised at the melange of economic illiteracy, marxist sentiments and economic nationalism which seem to pervade this issue. We know where Marxism and economic nationalism took the Soviet Union; and how economic isolationism in America created the great depression. You live in the free-enterprise system. Freedom, Remember that concept? Get used to it.

Facts People Facts-

The "Fact" remains that the aforementioned reason not to build a wall is utterly ridiculous. That it would discourage illegals from going home --because it would make it more difficult for them to return-- is precisely why we want to build the wall. We want to make it more difficult for illegals to enter the country. If we refuse to build a wall because we want them to go home --just so they can return weeks later after seeing su familia-- then what's the point?

Either the wall is an effective deterrant (as you argued earlier) or it is not (as you recently argued with your nonsensical water analogy). Which is it?

The previous commentors who feel a "wall" won't stop illegals due to supply and demand and evil business owners etc. are somewhat mistaken. A "double fencline" patrolled by the border patrol and unmanned aerial vehicles will no doubt drastically reduce the numbers coming in the U.S. With this flood of illegals drastically reduced the numbers already in the U.S. illegally will slowly dwindle as they are constantly being caught and re-patriated. You can argue about how horrible you feel by this but the fact is that most if not all of our nation's problems stem from overpopulation.

Thanks Eric. Also remember that it wasn't illegal until like 1925 (I don't have the date on hand) which was after most of our ancestors showed up in those big boats where they let everybody in.

Oh don't get me wrong Will. That isn't my argument at all. I was just taking issue with a previous comment.

I think building a wall is stupid because it is a waste of money. I think you get more bang for your buck by using a market oriented approach to regulate immigration.

John's idea of unmanned aerial helicopters and double fence line and cameras and armed guards sounds really expensive.

It would be a lot cheaper to just set up a computer with everyone's social security number. Allow employers to access it and register all their new employees by their SSN, and then penalize the employers who don't. (and know, we don't have that)

Which of those sound cheaper?

Then we can go about figuring out how many immigrants we actually need to fill the jobs we have.

Eric Yendall writes:

"The illegai immigrants are NOT criminals but people, families, seeking a better life. They work and pay taxes."

Well, they are entering the country illegally and using services they are not entitled to. No one doubts that they are seeking a better life, but neither can anyone doubt that their actions are patently criminal.

Illegal immigrants are mostly paid under the table, and therefore do not pay payroll taxes. Your phrasing "they pay taxes" is an old sleight of hand -- sure they pay sales tax when they buy something at CVS, but as you know, that's not what we're talking about.

For those of you who think that having any military presence on the U.S. southwest border is the solution to this problem, you've got another thing coming. Let's think of a good hypothetical situation. Oh, here's one. Active duty Marine is on the border. He doesn't have the responsibility to patrol the border, but he's on the border as part of a military exercise. Uh oh, he sees a person in the darkness trying to cross the border - then, from what he can tell, that person raises what he thinks is a gun in his direction. The Marine shoots. The unknown person is killed. Upon later review, there was no gun involved and the person is a teenage kid. Hypothetical? Nope - happened about 15 years ago. Should the punishment for trying to get to the United States via an illegal land border crossing be death?

You want the military to patrol the border? To what end? To control the tide of illegal immigrants? To shoot down men, women, and children trying to get to the United States? Forget it. No matter what barrier you put in front of them (walls, troops, ditches), illegal immigrants will always try to come to the United States. Why? Because life is better here. Period. Until life because worse in the United States than it does in other countires, immigrants will always try to come here.

Also, you want military to patrol the border? You better sign up then, because there are not enough military personnel out there to cut off the flow of illegal immigration.

As for those who think UAVs should be deployed in droves to monitor the border - how long do you think it takes to make one of those things? Any idea? Six months. The contractors that make UAVs can't make them fast enough. And if they did, do you possibly think there are enough border patrol agents to catch all of them? Come on. Sure, we can take pictures of illegal immigrants, but we sure can't catch them.

One last question. The 9-11 terrorists - of the 19, how many do you think come across the U.S. Mexican border? Exactly zero. How many came across the Canadian border? More than you want to know.

A few points for the pro-illegal alien crowd to ponder:

1. America is not a land of immigrants. Or at least, not entirely. The first arrivals from Europe were settlers, not immigrants (there is a difference). And the African slaves were brought against their will. And American Indians are American and were here already. So the 'land of immigrants' rhetoric leaves out many whites, all American Indians, and most African-Americans. In other words, it's a pretty bad and offensive little slogan.

2. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen is as old as civilization. If you don't or won't acknowledge its validity, you are simply outside of the debate. You live in a sort of NeverNeverLand.

3. If you say that you are against illegal immigration but don't like the "message" that a wall would send, then you need to assess why you think the opinions and hurt feelings of Mexicans are more important than the well-being of Americans.

damn...now they want to build a walll...hhhmmmm...let me guess who is going to put the wall up...of course, immigrants, because the latinos that have papers wont do this kind of work and for damn sure no white men are going to work here...this is just ridiculous...and even if the wall is up, coyotes will make a hole through the wall or even a tunnel to go under...immigrants will always find a way...thats for sure.

Again DC Dude, with the making up facts. This isn't 1990.

Nowadays most immigrants have obtained an ITIN number from your federal government which they use in place of a social security number(technically this isn't allowed, but no one seems to care), and they then use to work at restaurants, textile mills, meat packing plants and a hundred other places that require documentation.

They pay taxes on all this income (actually they overpay) because they never file tax returns.

They also pay property taxes on any cars or property they own, and of course they do pay sales taxes.

I am not sure how old you are, DC Dude, but you may want to consider that in a few years, immigrants may be paying the bulk of the taxes that go towards social security (or whats left of it) so you may not want to be so quick to kick them all out.

Eric Yendall states:
"The illegai immigrants are NOT criminals but people, families, seeking a better life. They work and pay taxes. By starting a new life in a new land they are demonstrating they have courage and drive to improve themselves. They should be respected not demonised. They are the kind of people America needs."

You know what Eric, you are right. America does need these kind of people- to come in the legal, documented way and contribute to society in a legal, helpful way. Please explain to me how they pay taxes, save sales tax? Please explain to me how they don't drive down wages and take away jobs from American citizens looking for work. Because last I heard, being paid under the table got them out of income, social security, while medicaire pays into their health. Sure, I'll be taking out of that too. But I pay into it.

If they have the courage and drive to better themselves, stop making excuses and demand that they do so in a legal way. To say it is fine to do this the non-legal way is an argument based in the absurd, as it can be applied to a number of things that are illegal. Marijuana was on Washingtons list of top ten crops. And that was only what was found and confiscated. Arguably, it could be the most profitable crop in the state. It stimulates the economy by increasing consumption. Should this be legalized as well? I would argue yes, but a great deal would sasy no. The point is not to argue about pot, however, so much as to show you that it is always possible to make 'good' arguments for things that society at large has said 'no.'

Facts People says: "you may want to consider that in a few years, immigrants may be paying the bulk of the taxes that go towards social security (or whats left of it) so you may not want to be so quick to kick them all out."

That assumes that they aren't kicked out first. Do you really think that uneducated manual laborers will suffice as a replacement population for the retiring Baby Boomers? I'm afraid, in terms of skills, education, culture, language, etc., that they are not fungible.

Facts People, if you believe that they are fungible (i.e., that regarding the most important things, Mexicans and Americans are the same), please explain why. It's a pretty big assumption you are making.

Virginia Dare, my ancestors came to this country in 1689 fleeing religious persecution in France.

We were immigrants. We called ourselves settlers becaue we didn't think those Indians "counted". same goes for the slaves that we started bringing over a few years later.

If you don't think this is a land of immigrants you should take a walk through Chinatown in DC, Little Italy in Baltimore, or just take the subway around New York City.

Actually you could just go to Youngstown, Ohio and enjoy the fantastic italian and eastern european cusine that is still available in the mid-west.

Facts, none of the three comments you cited are "racist". It's true and obvious that those big-business types most in favor of illegal immigration do not send their kids to schools that have been overwhelmed by illegals. They send them to private schools or to public schools in wealthy areas.

How you construe the Berlin Wall comment as racist I'll let you explain, and if Canadians shared a border with Mexico, they would certainly be less holier-than-thou than some are.

Your wall comments have me puzzled. You can't see the moral difference between a wall designed to keep people out and one designed to keep people in? How about a lock on your front door (one that keeps people out) and a lock on a prison cell (one that keeps people in)?

Of course there's something about sharing a border with Mexico that makes Americans think and feel differently about Mexico than, say, Canadians. Why wouldn't there be?

The comments from Facts and Eric Yendall, and the WSJ piece Emily cited, are pretty good examples of all the pro-illegal side has got in the way of arguments: angry sophistry. It doesn't make any sense, but they say it with such conviction.

Build the wall, enforce the laws requiring employees to hire only legal workers. As Samuelson says in the Post today, we don't need "Guest Workers".

I don't think anyone here is trying to demonize the immigrants themselves. I know I'm not. I'm not being xenophobic or racist. I am 100% for legal immigration, done the way it should be, the way a friend of mine emigrated to the US from Germany in 1989. So far as I'm concerned, illegal immigration is a national security issue, and is also an economic issue.

There's an ongoing debate in California about driver licenses for illegals immigrants (the debate has died down a little now, but it'll come up again). When I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area, I would have voted for the proposition when it was on the ballot. Since moving to Los Angeles, though, I've become educated on the issue. I see first hand the problems in the schools, the jails, the overcrowding on the freeways, the overcrowding in the jails, and the hospitals that are closing because their emergency rooms are being suffocated with caring for the uninsured. (I won't even mention the lack of federal reimbursement for this.)

It would be unfair to blame all of that on illegal immigration. I don't place all of the blame there. The fact is, though, that illegals are heavy contributors to all of those problems.

We need a wall. We need stepped-up patrols on the border. We need troops on the border. We need better enforcement of current immigration laws.

Others have mentioned that Mexicans see the Southwest United States as theirs. Make no mistake; they are invading us. Jorge Arangue (or however he spells his name) was joking yesterday in his WashingtonPost.com baseball chat about Mexico wanting California back. Well, it's no joke. It's happening now. I'm not being overly dramatic when I say that it's killing us.

The bottom line is, what kind of a country do we Americans want?

Judging from most of the posts prior to mine, most Americans want a police state that keeps brown people out and sends the ones already here back where they came from. That's called XENOPHOBIA. What these folks don't realize is that everybody's freedom will be wiped out in the throes of the kind of crackdown on Mexicans that they seem to want.

We're all immigrants here. Some of our ethnic groups have been here longer than others, and how long is in dispute -- but nobody's ancestors have been here more than maybe 60,000 years, and maybe much less time than that.

So we build a wall to keep Mexicans out. What's next? A wall to keep Canadians out? Free-fire zones along both walls? Mined coastlines? A national ID card for Americans, to be shown on demand to the USA Secret Police (excuse me, the NSA, which doesn't want that role but is being dragged into it)? Authorizing the Border Patrol to summarily execute illegal immigrants, according to the same rationale whereby the California Department of Agriculture summarily euthanizes pet ferrets that naive people try to bring into California?

We've had a reasonably free country for more than 200 years, but since most people seem no longer to care about freedom that's obviously not going to last much longer. People naively think that mistreating Mexican immigrants won't spill over to they themselves getting mistreated.

Welcome to the New Amerika.

Facts People says: "Virginia Dare, my ancestors came to this country in 1689 fleeing religious persecution in France.

We were immigrants. We called ourselves settlers becaue we didn't think those Indians "counted". same goes for the slaves that we started bringing over a few years later."

Facts People, I've just realized that you are immune to logic. (For instance, you can't see that there is a difference between a settler (building a society from scratch) and an immigrant (arriving at an established society)).

Now that I recognize your inability to comprehend, I won't bother you, or bother with you, any more. Best wishes.

Facts writes:

"I am not sure how old you are, DC Dude, but you may want to consider that in a few years, immigrants may be paying the bulk of the taxes that go towards social security..." so you may not want to be so quick to kick them all out."

More angry sophistry. There is no possible scenario short of Open Borders where immigrants would be doing anything close to "paying the bulk of the taxes that go towards social security". This is just hot air.

"...so you may not want to be so quick to kick them all out."

Strawman. No one here wants to kick out all immigrants. Legal immigrants are an asset and unaffected by my proposals. For illegals, we want to build a wall preventing any new illegals from entering the country and enforce the laws on the books against hiring illegals, encouraging many of them to return home.

To build or not to build is a serious issue on how to stop illegal immigration. None on the soft border i.e. no wall side (the "let's attack the root of the problems" camp) have a meaningful way to limit illegal immigration. Their ideas though large-hearted are fool hardy/impractical. On the other hand the "build the wall" camp is an idea that will at least ease the pressure on the nation's immigration agencies, even if temporarily, giving them time to regroup and clean up the system. I say - build the wall. Even a 20% decline in illegal immigration is better than endless debating.

In addition to the security issue the strain caused by illegal immigration is having a huge negative impact on legal immigration. For the record, I am a legal immigrant to the US and I am definitely in the pro-build camp simply because there are thousands of people like me who are suffering the negative consequences because the immigration authorities are being swamped with the illegal immigration issue.

Interesting, but a lock is different than a wall.

A Wall is very ambigious. It doesn't have a direction. The berlin wall kept people both out and in. Much as a wall across the border would keep people out and in.

Correct me if I am wrong, DC Dude, but I think that you and some of the other posters have a slightly different picture of America than I do. Which colors this whole debate. I hear a lot from anti-immigrant advocates that they see America as black and white, or mainly of european and african ancestry. They tolerate a certain amount of educated immigration to fill positions as doctors, and computer engineers, but they don't feel that people from southeast asia, China or other areas are really American.

I obviously feel quite differently. So it would be hard to have a debate about what is and isn't offensive or what is and isn't appropriate if we can't even agree on what America is, right?

Thanks Virginia!!

Ancestor writes:

"So we build a wall to keep Mexicans out. What's next? A wall to keep Canadians out? Free-fire zones along both walls? Mined coastlines? A national ID card for Americans, to be shown on demand to the USA Secret Police (excuse me, the NSA, which doesn't want that role but is being dragged into it)? Authorizing the Border Patrol to summarily execute illegal immigrants, according to the same rationale whereby the California Department of Agriculture summarily euthanizes pet ferrets that naive people try to bring into California?"

More strawmen and scare scenarios. To answer your question: we build a wall and what's next? We enforce laws already on our books forbidding employers from hiring illegals. Simple as that.

Why is it that one side in this debate can state its goals clearly and simply (build a wall, enforce the laws about hiring illegals) while the other side has to use extremely unlikely scare scenarios, cries of racism, and misstatements of fact? I guess they're on the "if you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em" side.

Maybe we should advocate building two walls along the Mexican border. Then all of the Chicken Littles will be satisfied with our concession that we'll agree merely to build just one -- a 50% reduction in the amount of walls!

dhardwic states:
"Should the punishment for trying to get to the United States via an illegal land border crossing be death?"

The simple answer to this is:
In some cases? Yes.

Yes it's hard. But if the marine thought there was a hostile threat commiting an illegal act, I think his action was justified. We give our own police the right to shoot us if they feel the situation constitutes a threat to their lives and the lives of others. The fact that he was a teenage child means nothing, save showing your attempt to manipulate the issue with emotional rhetoric. He was breaking American law. He was doing something that constituted a threat and caused the soldier to believe he was defneding himself and, by proxy, his country. It is sad, yes. But is speaks of an issue different from the one you use it for. This should not be justification for allowing illegals to cross. Instead, it should be justification to creating more stringent measures to keep them out, so they don't try to do so the illegal, dangerous way.

Goals: Clearly and Simply Stated from the pro immigrant side

1) An instantaneous Social Security Number Check that will allow employers to verify employee documentation
2) stiffer and easier to enforce penalties for employers who do not verify SSN's
3) a guest worker program that will help to fill all the jobs currently being filled by illegal immigrants (with first priority given to U.S. citizens and permanent residents of course)
4)...resulting in lower illegal immigration
5) increased border presence to stop drug runners, gun runners, and those participating in human trafficking at the border.

It will be a lot easier to catch the bad guys when all the workers are coming through San Ysidro. But we might need another crossing point.

I think that is pretty clear.

This is also known as the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005" (S. 1033/H.R. 2330)

Angel Abundez writes:

"and even if the wall is up, coyotes will make a hole through the wall or even a tunnel to go under...immigrants will always find a way...thats for sure."

Not if we simply build a wall and enforce our laws. One of my themes in my comments this week is how weak the arguments are on the pro-illegal side. This argument -- we can't do anything about illegal immigration, so we might as well make the best of it -- is one of the weakest.

For about $4 billion, we could build a wall along the entire border with Mexico.

Then, we could let U.S. companies know that beginning some date a year or so from now, we're going to start actually enforcing the labor laws against hiring illegals that we've ignored for so long.

You'd see two things happen very, very quickly: 1) far fewer people would try to enter the U.S. illegally, because it'd be more difficult and they wouldn't have a job waiting here for them, and 2) many of the illegals here would go home on their own volition, on their own dime.

I'm waiting to hear a strong argument in favor of illegal continued mass illegal immigration, but "we can't stop it" certainly isn't one. We could stop it easily, for a small amount of money.

Build the wall, enforce our labor laws! Si se puede!

Facts,

It's disingenuous to call your side the "pro-immigrant" camp. I'm pro-immigrant, too. I'm anti-*illegal* immigrant.

Thanks for stating your plan. I agree with you on 1, 2, and 5. On 3 or 4 we'd need to work out the details, since so-called guest worker programs are often not quite that. But in principle, I'm for a fairly big number of immigrants coming to the US, *as long as they're here legally*.

So Facts, we appear to agree on most points, especially the SSN check, which would instantly eliminate the vast majority of illegal workers in the country, wall or no.

What are we fighting about then? Want to come over for pie?

Facts-

500,000 legal immigrants on work visas a year is not enough in the United States? So let's legislate a higher cap on legal immigrants and boot the illegal ones out, yes?

What's wrong with that?

In 2030, America is projected to go from 300 million to 363 million with the same rate of illegal immigration, but no family reunification (what the Jewish, Cuban, and Catholic leaders pushed into the 1965 Immigration Reform Act). And 420 million by 2050.

Amnesty triggers full chain migration of illegal's relatives here under the "family reunification. A supposed "moral obligation to our newest citizens to be surrounded by family and favorite villagers as they bring in THEIR relatives in.

"Family reunification" counts for 63-68% of total immigration, as winners of past amnesty or those going through legal immigration routes have brought whole families, even whole villages from Mexico and Palestine in (Arab families have extensive family ties - hundreds of relatives, even thousands per "family". America could have 510 billion people by 2050.

In 1750 China had 225 million people. 520 million by 1950. 1.307 billion according to the latest Chinese census (2005). Despite losing over 225 million in famine, floods and 100 million in war and revolution since 1750. Now they mandate birth control, abortion, and are on the march to subdue and overwhelm with their numbers Western territories like Tibet.

In 1900, the population of India, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, was 238 million. Now the net is 1.402 billion when the fast breeding Muslim splitoff nations are added.

By 2050, the world will have 9.7 billion. Some 6 billion of which would love to get into the US or the few other nations prosperous and with enough resources still to go around. An estimated 2 billion of which if they manage to show up on our Border or in an airport could make a plausible legal case to demand to be let in, subsidized, and get their family imported as well as "oppressed refugees seeking FREEDOM".

Not being Malthusian, just spelling out the facts.

The illegal immigrant debate must factor in:

1. Demography ----- The tremendous social, environmental, resource and economic degredations attendent with America having out of control population explosion and passing 500 billion people in less than 50 years.

2. Family Reunification ---- If the practice Jewish, Cuban interests put into law to give special preference to Soviet Jews and Cuban refugees continues to apply to all immigrants - we not only have legal immigrants seeking to move their villages to America, we will have 12 million illegals seeking to initially get 4-5 family members in if given amnesty. For an additional 60-75 million more people coming in.

3. Economic multiplier --- Every illegal that depresses local wages 50% does not only screw locals with extra taxes, unemployment, but also removes the 5-6X money multiplier from the impact of his/her wages largely going into remittances or paying for more illegals to come - instead of being spent or invested in the local economy.

4. For a Laugh ----- Listen to a Lefty environmentalist explain how America should comply with Kyoto, abandon hydro and nuclear power, devote more and more of America to "pristine reclaimed wilderness" but who at the same time supports unlimited immigration of the poor, oppressed masses of the 3rd world Franz Fanon talked about - into the US.

Sometimes its hard to get a point across. I AM NOT IN FAVOUR OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
The solution to the continuing illegal immigration is to legalise, document and regulate it. Then people will come and people will go. You wont need a wall.
The solution to all the illegals CURRENTLY in the country is to legalise them (Guest Worker, Green card, citizenship, whatever).

Now on to the real issue: how to keep those poor, brown-skinned spanish-speaking, sub-humans out of White America.

All guest worker plans assume that labor markets should be borderless. Otherwise, why would employers be permitted to draw from foreign populations (instead of the usual approach to labor shortages: raising wages)?

If you can't answer this, you can't defend a guest worker plan.

Only if it's Apple, I don't touch that pecan stuff.

I think you have hit on the biggest problem that exists in discussing immigration. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant groups, atleast the main stream ones, have a lot in common. No one likes illegal immigration. It is terrible for everyone.

Our only debate is how we get to the ultimate goal of a regulated immigration system that protects immigrants who come here to work, does not depress wages, and protects our borders against the dangerous people (not the guy going to cut meat for 8 dollars an hour in Kansas).

Mainly it is a problem of timing. One side wants to send everyone home, and then let them come back, in many cases uprooting their children, repossesing their property, and causing them a terrible amount of embarrasment.

The other side figures it makes more sense to let them stay if they have a job, keep their home, their children, and their new car, and let them continue being productive.

As an aside. I think a wall is waste of money. $4 billion seems low, and you still have to maintain this. No one "wants" to walk across the desert in 120 degree heat. And we have the technology to track people already. The wall is largely symbolic. The problem is that there are so many immigrants coming at once that it is difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. Once the good guys stop crossing illegally, you have a lot less people to worry about, and it is a lot easier to patrol the border.

Eric, you were doing so well clarifying your position until you got to the "brown-skinned sub-humans" part. Let's stay focused.

I agree with you that all immigration that we allow to this country should be legal, i.e. we should end all illegal immigration. I think everyone here agrees now that illegal immigration is bad.

What's your justification for giving amnesty, though, Eric? That's not going to be real popular, especially since "let's give amnesty and then regulate immigration" happened twice before in the 1980s, and only the amnesty took place, not the second part. Why should people believe the government will properly regulate immigration post-amnesty this time? Answer: they won't.

Eric Yendall:
Of course Eric. The real issue, is of course, racism.

Lets not discuss how you want to reward illegal immigrants for breaking our laws, because that is exaclty the course of action that we want to take.

think about it,

we don't have enough for the people we have to live well.

stop illegal immigration.

fix the economy and the people that live here now.

require that other countries _do better_.

stop outsourcing.

bring back the 37.5 hour week with commensurate benefits of the 70's.

intervene with our marginalized, cut down on jail and druggie populations.

deal with what is going on here.

enforce existing laws, put some bite in them and arrest and detain, jail violators that HIRE illegals.

state a 6 month moratorium before doing strong enforcement and then use federals to do that....heck you could require that they provide INS benefits similar to military benefits.

.

Hi Virginia! I thought you were ignoring me? on to your question:

All guest worker plans assume that labor markets should be borderless. Otherwise, why would employers be permitted to draw from foreign populations (instead of the usual approach to labor shortages: raising wages)?

If you can't answer this, you can't defend a guest worker plan.

A (quick) answer:

Demand for goods are not inelastic. So as wages increase, people don't want to buy as many of them, and the price will be higher.

Right now the U.S. has the largest trade gap in history. In order to make our goods more competitive we need to be able to produce more goods at a cheaper cost (see China). Otherwise the trade gap will continue to expand.

additionally, the demand for labor is not inelastic. Traditionally, when you raise wages, employment goes down, because employers can't afford to hire as many people.

So if we raise wages, we will increase unemployment, increase the trade deficit, produce less, and become less of a player on the world market.

Plus apples would cost a lot more. And DC Dude and I couldn't have our pie.

Plus, in a world where everything else is globalized, why not labor? We already outsource jobs anyway (which is pretty much the same thing).

Or did you want to go back to that whole settler/Indian set up? I hear those tea taxes were terrible ( I shouldn't talk, my family were Torries)

I can get whatever kind of pie you want, I live right near a Safeway.

Facts, it sounds like we agree that:

**regulated immigration is overall GOOD, it makes America greater

**illegal immigration is overall BAD, it's unfair, anti-law, allows exploitation of laborers, allows payroll taxes to go unpaid, is unfair to legal immigrants, etc.

**employers should be forced to follow the law that only allows legal workers to be hired. Installing a simple check system would be simple.

If we'd just do this last one, I could wait on the wall. Let's do the last one and give it three years. If our illegal immigration problem is solved -- and it would be -- we'll nix the wall idea. If it's the same or worse, we'll go for the wall. That sound fair to you?

The next thing we'd have to work out is how many total immigrants to allow to the US each year -- I'm happy with the current 800,000, but I can be convinced to raise it somewhat if we've got real control of who's here and who's not.

And the last thing we'd have to work outis what to do with illegals who are here now. I'm not in the "deport 'em all" camp, but you'd have to have been here for a long time to be allowed to stay, at least 4 or 5 years, and it'd have to be a long, hard road to actual citizenship -- that wouldn't sit well with me. And I'd have to see this SSN checking system in action and working before we talked about any kind of regularization, otherwise I'll feel like Charlie Brown having Lucy swipe the ball away from him AGAIN as he's about to kick.

We close to a consensus?

Mostly ignoring you, but you brought the silliness of a guest worker plan into this, so I couldn't help but respond. You say: "Traditionally, when you raise wages, employment goes down, because employers can't afford to hire as many people."

Of course, that's just loaded with assumptions. The problem is that employers don't want to pay American wages for American work. If they have to hire fewer people, but those people are Americans rather than immigrants, then we've solved our problem -- we don't need a guest worker plan. In addition, as R. Samuelson explained in the Post today, rising wages often spurs technological innovation, such that not as many employees are needed anyway.

You also say: "Right now the U.S. has the largest trade gap in history. In order to make our goods more competitive we need to be able to produce more goods at a cheaper cost (see China). Otherwise the trade gap will continue to expand."

So we need to not just lower wages, but import new people to do that lower wage work? This makes absolutely no sense. None at all.

DC Dude.
I think you are coming along nicely. Rounding up and deporting 3-10 million illegal immigrants (in cattle-cars?) is hardly what America is all about. To be allowed to stay, illegals (in my opinion) should not have a criminal record; should demonstrate an employment history; have some roots in the community (home ownership or rental references; church membership perhaps); and perhaps pass a medical.
Immigration quotas could be established based on objective economic requirements not political stunts which favour the flavour of the month.

An aside: the US does need cheap imported labour. Raising minimum wages only reduces the total number employed and reduces your competitiveness. Remember, you can't export if you wont import, because no-one will have dollars to pay you. Its a system you are part of and you have done very well by it.

To Virginia Dare.
The guest worker idea is a political fig-leaf to make the fact that you need these workers more palatable to voters who don't have the smarts to understand it. It is a half-way house between full residency leading to citizenship; and a closed door. The fiction is that these people will return to their own countries. Some do but most don't. The politicians tell you that these people will eventually leave; you believe them; what is necessary is achieved.

Facts-

If we are serious about producing goods at cheaper prices, as you identify as a solution to the trade deficit, why would we depend on those expensive Mexicans? We still have to pay them close to our minimum wage.

If we really want to be competetive with China we need boat Indonesians into the country and pay them with bags of rice and fisheads. Better yet, indentured servitude would go a long way in driving down the price of production.

Once we've figured out how to get past the "politics" of it and explain to the "racists" why unfettered immigration is really healthy for the economy, we can finally compete with China on the production of nikes. In fact we will be good to the Indonesians, we will promise them two bags of rice and two fishheads.

We'll call it The American Nightmare.

Can anyone name any wall built in history that *did* work? The Maginot Line? The Great Wall of China? That didn't, and this one won't. It will drop billions of taxpayer money down the same rathole the money for the Iraq war is going, however, with just as little to show for it.
Mexicans are four times as likely to die, or be injured, on the job as Americans of any other ethnicity. Why is that? Because as workers they are regarded as dispensable. Why are illegals necessary to fill jobs that no one else is willing to do? For that matter, why are there so many Americans frustrated and jobless, yet there are jobs that "no one is willing to do?"
The answer is that it's not worth it to anyone native to this country to expose themselves to things like carcinogenic pesticides for sub-minimum wages, just to name what farm workers face. The answer is that despite all this raging against this mythical "pro-illegal" movement, we are all willing to tolerate an underclass of workers who receive unacceptably low pay for unacceptable working conditions. Maybe the fact that they're icky yucky brown people makes it easier, maybe all the shuddering about nasty old Mexico helps us not to care, who knows. But I can't escape the view that the real fix would be, first of all, to revise NAFTA do stop screwing all those Mexican subsistance farmers who can't make a living in their own country, on their own land, anymore. Here in the States, we need to make all labor subject to a reasonable minimum wage and reasonable working conditions. Of course we'd have to be willing to enforce these labor laws and as many people have already pointed out we're not even doing that now. Also, for decent wages and working conditions to become a norm, we as a society would have to accept prices in certain sectors, especially food, to go up. We'd also need to restructure agricultural subsidies radically to support farm owners and food producers to pay and treat their workers, well, the way you and I would like to be treated. But then, I guess it would be more fruitful for me to wait around for the Great Pumpkin and the Tooth Fairy to show up at my doorstep with a million dollar check.

Eric-

"An aside: the US does need cheap imported labour. Raising minimum wages only reduces the total number employed and reduces your competitiveness."

So the US needs cheap imported labor because without it our unemployment rate would go up. I guess the Canadians *REALLY* need our Mexican day laborers, since their employment rate is already higher than ours.

Hey DC Dude, I think we are close. I honestly am not sure about the numbers? is 800,000 enough? I think we have enough when the system works. maybe it is 600K maybe it is an even million, that is something we need to let play out.

I agree also on citizenship. Citizenship should not be easy. Most bills require that to qualify for a guest worker program or any adjustment of status they would have to be in the country for five years, with no criminal record. Second, they need to participate in three seperate guest worker cycles (so like nine years) before they are eligible for citizenship. Once they have lived here a total of 14 years, they are eligible for legal permanent residency. and then from there citizenship.

That sounds rigorous enough, I think?

Virginia, with all due respect, the points that I brought up about wages and trade deficits are based on years of economic research on the subject, while it seems that your points are based mainly on your own opinion. I do admit that my ideas (especially in that limited format) are not fullproof, but they are based in fact.

Samuelson's points, and yours, while intriguing smack of protectionist economic policies that have been disastrous for almost every country that has implemented them.

For more on this, I suggest a quick trip to Paris to discuss what the higher minimum wage, 30 hour work week and unfirable employees has done for their economy.

DC Dude, great talking to you, thanks!

Again, this is easy to arm-chair if you are not living in an over-run border state where taxpayers subsidize education and health care for illegals so the rest of the country can buy cheap lettuce.

Consider this news item: Monday night in Yuma, Arizona, an illegal immigrant trying to escape U.S. Border Patrol agents fell 35 feet to the bottom of a nearly dry concrete-lined canal and had to be rescued by Yuma firefighters. He suffered a broken leg and other injuries as he fled Border Patrol agents. The injured man is hospitalized, and the 19 others who were with him were sent back to Mexico.

And guess who will pay this guy's hospital bills? NONE OF YOU here on this board; it's us, the Arizona taxpayers, paying because the federal government failed to "provide for a common defense" of our borders. Ditto for the rescue operations by the fire fighters; that will be covered by Yuma County residents.

For those of you who would see our borders over-run because enforcing immigration laws seems "racist," please feel free to send money to the southwest border states to help support these illegals, educate their endless stream of children who don't speak English, pay for subsidized health care (so many border hospitals have closed because illegals have put a strain on the system), pay to incarcerate the ones who commit crimes (surprise! not all are here to find jobs and drive down wages for citizens).

My I inject some data into this conversation -- data that I think is fairly widely accepted as reflecting reality?

1. there are about 7.5 million illegal workers in the U.S. That comes to roughly 1/3 of all foreign born workers.

2. Most of these illegal workers have poor educational attainment. We will disregard those relatively few illegal workers who are computer programmers and such.

3. the economy has tens of millions of jobs designed and priced for persons with low educational attainment. the number of these jobs is modestly increasing.

4. The percentage of native born American citizens of working age who fall into the poorly educated category has been declining.

5. Because of 2, 3 and 4, there is a huge workforce demographic shift in which illegal workers are filling jobs that otherwise would be filled by native born workers. Sometimes,native born workers and legal immigrants can point to evidence that they have been directly done out of a job, or had their wages depressed, by illegal workers. Usually the cause-and-effect is much more complicated and hard to trace.

6. Removing large numbers of illegal workers will probably have an effect of creating chronic labor shortages in some sectors (such as farm labor) and boosting prevailing wages in others (such as residential home construction - 29% of roofing workers have been estimated to be illegal workers).

7. Building a wall and pretty much allowing illegal workers to stay in the U.S. may create a permament second labor force in a dozen major occupational groups, with all kinds of labor law issues.

I encourage other commentors to address these facts and observations, not engage in 100% polemics.

Hey DC Dude,

I'd like to point out that Will just ended a response to me with "The american nightmare" so it is not just the pro-immigrant crowd that is all gloom and doom and talking about the world is going to heck in a hand basket.

And Will I don't understand your point? Would you mind re-phrasing without all the invective?

Hey Peter thanks, but I don't think your points 2,3 and 4 necessarily lead to 5. I think 6 is a given, and I think that a wall is mainly symbolic, with the kind of technology that we have, and it won't have the kind of effect that you believe it will.

Am I the only person who snuck over fences as a kid?

Facts-

Rephrased:

Accepting illegal immigration as a means to combat our trade deficit with China is a faustian bargain. If we were serious about competing with China on the production of Nikes we'd have to pay competetive wages. This would require us to pay illegals well below minimum wage which is illegal.

In other words, using Mexican illegal immigrants as a mean of combating our trade deficit with China isn't feasible or preferable. The reason we don't compete with China on the production of Nikes is because we are unwilling to pay human beings 50 cents an hour.

Facts People says: "Virginia, with all due respect, the points that I brought up about wages and trade deficits are based on years of economic research on the subject, while it seems that your points are based mainly on your own opinion. I do admit that my ideas (especially in that limited format) are not fullproof, but they are based in fact.

Samuelson's points, and yours, while intriguing smack of protectionist economic policies that have been disastrous for almost every country that has implemented them.

For more on this, I suggest a quick trip to Paris to discuss what the higher minimum wage, 30 hour work week and unfirable employees has done for their economy."

Spot the fallacies. Fallacy of authority. Changing of the subject. Fallacy of perfect congruence. Etc. etc. I'm in economics too, so it isn't 'personal opinion.' Don't insult me. Your views on this topic are naive, as they proceed from one bedrock (and erroneous) assumption: You think the United States is just an economy. It isn't. It's a culture.

.....and because we have savings rates of less than 1% and China saves at closer to 15%, most of which is held in U.S. dollars.

I don't think we can compete with China. I don't think anyone can compete with China. But you should agree that it is better to try and compete than to just give up? I'd rather have a somewhat competitive economy than nothing at all.

Neither the exploitation of Mexicans nor the abandonment of our minimum wage laws are viable means of staying competetive. If they are the only means, then I say to hell with competetiveness.

"Fallacy o