Butthead at it again (The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.)...

The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

The government's steady retreat from workplace enforcement in the 20 years since it became illegal to hire undocumented workers is the result of fierce political pressure from business lobbies, immigrant rights groups and members of Congress, according to law enforcement veterans. Punishing employers also was de-emphasized as the government recognized that it lacks the tools to do the job well, and as the Department of Homeland Security shifted resources to combat terrorism.

Full article text at above link.

Government has NO business using force to prevent people from working.

That whole notion is obscene.

How about using other people's SSI numbers illegally to get employment in the US?

Government has NO business using force to prevent people from working.

That whole notion is obscene.

Of course it isn't obscene. Governments should always be ensuring that properly qualified people are performing jobs, especially when industry cannot regulate itself. Hospitals should not be employing dangerous or unqualified doctors. Schools shouldn't be employing paedophiles. Banks shouldn't be employing fraudsters. Employers shouldn't be ignoring labour laws and employing illegal immigrants.

course it isn't obscene.
It is more obscene than a 200 guy bukkake session.
Governments should always be ensuring that properly qualified people are performing jobs, especially when industry cannot regulate itself.
We need the government to determine if someone is QUALIFIED to pick tomatoes and clean your toilets? Gimme a break.

Hospitals should not be employing dangerous or unqualified doctors.
Government does not do that now. Hospitals do that.
Schools shouldn't be employing paedophiles.
Schools regulate that.
Banks shouldn't be employing fraudsters.
Banks regulate that.

Employers shouldn't be ignoring labour laws and employing illegal immigrants.
Laws are only opinion backed by force. If I have a job that I want done, and want to pay someone to do that job, and they want to do that job- you should keep your nose(and your dick and your guns) out of our business.

The difference between you and them, is only geography. When the poorest of the poorest are prevented from working when they want to work, that is obscene.

How about using other people's SSI numbers illegally to get employment in the US?

If the SSN were not used as a universal identifier(which is illegal in its own right) and only as it was intended, as a way to collect taxes by or for the federal government...I would pass mine out to any Manual Trabajo who asked, in order for him to work.

But the SSN is used for many other things never intended.

Additionally, I think that the federal government should collect its own god damn taxes by itself, and not force me to collect it for them, as well. Bunch of cheap skate brutes.

You'd like that, until someone else tries to collect from your account. :p

Here we go! Heard about this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/17/national/main1726397.shtml

One Social Security Number, 81 People
DUBLIN, Calif., June 17, 2006(AP) One woman's Social Security identification number has been used by at least 81 people in 17 states. Though impossible to verify in every case, information gleaned from criminal investigations, tax documents and other sources suggest most of the users were probably illegal immigrants trying to get work.

Audra Schmierer, a 33-year-old housewife in this affluent San Francisco suburb, realized she had a problem in February 2005, when she got a statement from the IRS saying she owed $15,813 in back taxes — even though she had not worked since her son was born in 2000. Perhaps even more surprising, the taxes were due from jobs in Texas.

Schmierer has since found that her Social Security number has been used by people from Florida to Washington state, at construction sites, fast-food restaurants and even major high-tech companies. Some opened bank accounts using the number.

The federal government took years to discover the number was being used illegally, but authorities took little action even then.

"They knew what was happening but wouldn't do anything," said Schmierer. "One name, one number, why can't they just match it up?"

Her case is an example of an increasingly common problem: Many thieves are able to steal personal information because employers do not have to verify Social Security numbers or other documents submitted by job seekers.

The situation has long drawn fire from anti-illegal immigration groups, but Congress has only recently moved to fix it. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have passed immigration-reform bills that call for employers to verify Social Security numbers in a national database.

Homeland Security officials have taken it a step further, calling on Congress to allow the Social Security Administration to share information with immigration-enforcement agents at work sites.

Under current law, if the Social Security Administration or the Internal Revenue Service find multiple people using the same Social Security number, the agencies send letters informing employers of possible errors.

The IRS can fine employers $50 for each inaccurate number filed, a punishment that companies often dismiss as just another cost of doing business.

"Sending letters is the limit to what can be done," Social Security spokesman Lowell Kepke said. "We expect that will be able to fix any records that are incorrect."

The information on mismatched names is seldom shared with law enforcement agencies.

When Schmierer called the IRS, she learned that numerous people were using her Social Security number. Officials said the erroneous balances would be eliminated, but the agency would have to correct the problem again in future years.

"They told me they couldn't do anything else," Schmierer said.

IRS officials declined to talk about Schmierer's case, citing privacy laws.

Schmierer has done a little investigating of her own, combing through tax bills sent to her for names and locations of employers who hired people using her number.

She has also obtained more than 200 W-2 and 1099 tax forms that contained her Social Security number but different names. Schmierer provided copies of the records to The Associated Press.

Most of the people who used her identification number worked multiple jobs in the same year, though some remained at the same company for several years. The top wage earner made $39,465, but most reported income of less than $15,000.

Schmierer filed a police report after learning one man had used her information in 2003 at janitorial and landscaping companies near Haltom City, Texas.

Investigators found the man, who told officers he had bought a fake Social Security card at a flea market, according to a police report. He was not arrested.

Schmierer tracked down other people, finding that her number had been used to get work but not to access her credit card or bank accounts.

What started as a hassle turned into a major headache earlier this year when she sought work through a temporary agency that learned her Social Security number had been used by a woman in Texas two years earlier. The agency could not hire Schmierer for more than a month while the situation was clarified.

"How do you prove that you are you?" Schmierer said. "It's like you are guilty until proven innocent."

While returning from a trip to Mexico with her husband last year, Schmierer was detained for four hours in a Dallas airport by immigration officials. The reason: a woman using her Social Security number was wanted for a felony.

Schmierer never determined how her number became so widely used. Sellers of fake documents often make up numbers and use them repeatedly.

Schmierer's number became so compromised that Social Security officials finally took a rare step used only in extreme cases: They gave her a new one.

Schmierer hopes that will end her frustrations, but she suspects her old number will continue to be misused.

"It's clear to me that because my number has been used for so long, it's not going to stop," she said.

In the UK it's just been realised that government officials were directed to give national insurance numbers (SSN equivalent probably) to anyone who asked, without an identity check. It seems that the people who collected tax didn't care who they collected tax from as long as they collected it. Not surprisingly, as soon as the policy became public it was immediately scrapped.

Here we go! Heard about this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/17/national/main1726397.shtml

The fact that the government prevents these folks from working is unconscionable and heinous in the first place.

It is the government's own actions which are causing the crime to be committed.

You are not going to get any sympathy out of me, when you support your government's harrassment and persecution of people who are just trying to work.

Just trying to work where they have no legal right to work. Lets get several million Phillipino nurses here and we'll begin to hear you howling too as your wages plummet and jobs dry up.

Oh, I get it now.

You think it is the government's job to protect your wages by restricting access to employment.

That is rich.


Sounds like a motivation founded on greed. An ignoble trait.

Actually Fyyr would probably welcome it, theirs a huge nursing shortage, but thats not the point.

Every society has rules and laws regarding immigration, and it is the governments job to enforce those rules and laws.

Every society has rules and laws regarding [insert whatever here]and it is the governments job to enforce those rules and laws.

Blind obeisance to unjust and unethical laws?

Sounds like the basis of tyranny and oppression to me.

That is the same attitude which allowed the Fascists and Communists to rise to power. I don't trust that attitude.

Blind obeisance to unjust and unethical laws?

Sounds like the basis of tyranny and oppression to me

Boy do you hate government. What the heck do you think the purpose of government is except to make laws? Just because you don't agree with immigration laws it doesn't mean that the government is being tyrannical or oppresive by passing a democratic law that addresses the concerns of its citizens.

If I have a job that I want done, and want to pay someone to do that job, and they want to do that job- you should keep your nose(and your dick and your guns) out of our business.

Heck why don't we let people sell whatever they want at any price to anyone as well? If we let them take whatever they want and do whatever they wanted too we'd be getting close to a free society. Sound good?

Boy do you hate government.
Because governments rule by force and laws.
And laws are only somebody ELSE's opinion, backed by force.
Every law which is passed is taking somebody's liberty away.

What the heck do you think the purpose of government is except to make laws?
You must just sit around all day thinking of ways to mung up other people's liberties.

Just because you don't agree with immigration laws it doesn't mean that the government is being tyrannical or oppresive by passing a democratic law that addresses the concerns of its citizens.
I am saying that if the government wants to address immigration, in needs to do it itself. If it wants to keep people out, then keep people out.
Don't go oppressing people already here by forcing them into doing what you want them to do, just for the **** of it; or such as Pan's motivation sheer out and out greed and protectionism.

Democratic only means that the people vote for something. I don't trust you people. Democracy will fester and fold in on itself the way that it is going now. Just because a million idiots vote for something does not make it right, only legal.

Using force to prevent people from hiring people to pick tomatoes and grapes is obscene, it is irrational, and immoral. That is why I don't trust your Democracy, because in the minds of the masses, it is perfectly right by use of force to prevent that, they have descended to the lowest common denominator of thinking(if you want to even call it that), and using force against employers for paying someone to work for them NOW seems rational.

Read some Steinbeck, you people.

Heck why don't we let people sell whatever they want at any price to anyone as well?
ABSOPOSITIVELY! To anyone who wants to buy it. You don't know better than me, what I want to buy, why I want it. How dare you impose your opinions, and obsolete morals, on me, at the point of a gun. Fvckn Fascism.

If we let them take whatever they want and do whatever they wanted too we'd be getting close to a free society. Sound good?
You take something from me, you better be prepared to pay for it.

Mexicans coming here to work take nothing from you, or any American.

They provide the labor and service doing things that other Americans no long wish to do, but still require the doing of. They leave their country, their families, their lives behind in order to do it. Just like my ancestors before me did. There is nobility in that.

But half my ancestors came over already speaking English and all of them had white skin, and thus did not have to tolerate the blatant RACISM that these Mexicans have to face now.

I'll take a flawed representative democracy over anarchy any day.

If it wants to keep people out, then keep people out.
Don't go oppressing people already here by forcing them into doing what you want them to do, just for the **** of it; or such as Pan's motivation sheer out and out greed and protectionism.

If someone does something "wrong" or illegal, you dont just say "well thats ok, but everyone else better not do it"

Its not an effective model to let people go because they have already broken
the law heh.

If there were no punishments for breaking laws, only protections against things people didnt want, then there would be a lot more crime heh.

As for Democracy, its the worst system out there, except for all the others

If someone does something "wrong" or illegal, you dont just say "well thats ok, but everyone else better not do it"
Wrong and illegal are two different mutually exclusive things.

Its not an effective model to let people go because they have already broken
the law heh.
If working is breaking the law, we have descended to the absurd.

If there were no punishments for breaking laws, only protections against things people didnt want, then there would be a lot more crime heh.
If the law is wrong it should be changed. If you just go along with it,,, that is no different than "I was just following orders". It guarantees your complicity, not absolves you from it.

As for Democracy, its the worst system out there, except for all the others
The biggest problem is that people have been brainwashed that a single short phrase in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence has a different meaning than was intended.

If working is breaking the law, we have descended to the absurd.

Do you really think this about working? Do these undocumented workers pay taxes on the money they are making? Like I have to pay taxes? What about all of people that are unemployed and need the jobs that the undocumented workers are doing? (and not just the crop harvest jobs)

Employers who hire undocumented workers are exploiting these people, paying them less than minimum wage and generally not giving a crap about them - if they get deported.. oh well there is another batch waiting at the corner for work.

Employers need to be held responsible for their hiring practices, otherwise they are no better than the 3rd world sweat shops that feed Wal-Mart all of the goods they sell.

Just trying to work where they have no legal right to work. Lets get several million Phillipino nurses here and we'll begin to hear you howling too as your wages plummet and jobs dry up.

I love to hear people complain about illegal workers, because they must be taking all kinds of high lvl good paying jobs, for example:

-McDonalds, DAMN I wanted to flip those burgers rather then be an accountant!
-Hotels, Another lifelong dream, to clean other peoples messes up.
-Yard Work, This is where the big money is made, I mean everyone has a lawn, if it were not for those illegals I would be doing this rather then going to college.

Most of the jobs that are being taken dont even require a HS diploma to do. I would think rather then be pissed, ppl would be encouraged to GO TO SCHOOL and make something of themselves. Heck even tradeschools for less time pay better then the jobs being taken.

And lets not forget this, outsourcing, illegal workers is bad, but outsourcing... :texla: ??

Do you really think this about working? Do these undocumented workers pay taxes on the money they are making?
Well they are probably in the poverty bracket and don't pay taxes. We just had a discussion recently about the poor paying taxes, most people here disagreed with me(that they should) and said that poor people should not pay taxes.

And yes, I do think that way about working. If two people come to an agreement about work to be done, and the rate of pay, who the hell are you or I to say that we are right in using force to prevent them from doing that?

Like I have to pay taxes? What about all of people that are unemployed and need the jobs that the undocumented workers are doing? (and not just the crop harvest jobs)
The crop harvest people are the people I see everyday. I use to see them on job sites(but I am no longer a contractor) building your houses for you people. If fat lazy white Americans wanted to do these jobs, they would be doing them. Or they have too much pride. Same reason why half the males have dropped out(not failed out) of my class of nursing students. Buncha wimps if you ask me.

Employers who hire undocumented workers are exploiting these people, paying them less than minimum wage and generally not giving a crap about them - if they get deported.. oh well there is another batch waiting at the corner for work.
I regard these evil employers higher than those of you who want to put them out of a job and deport them out of the country. On the scale of compassion, I put the evil exploiting employer much higher than many of the posters on this board.

Employers need to be held responsible for their hiring practices, otherwise they are no better than the 3rd world sweat shops that feed Wal-Mart all of the goods they sell.
Most of the stuff that WalMart sells is from China. Rest assured that the items produced are most likely made by political prisoners and slaves(I am sure that would be relieved if the worst they had to endure was merely sweating). If these Mexicans COULD even find a 3rd world sweat shop job, in the 3rd world. Some items sold at WalMart are made in Mexico, granted. Like the bars of laundry soap, just back home, Mama would be doing laundry in an open irrigation ditch, not a basin.

How can people have a discussion about illegal workers in the US w/o talking about outsourcing? Outsourcing at least takes away better paying jobs then our neighbors down south.

If working is breaking the law, we have descended to the absurd.

Punish those hiring illegals at criminal wages.

Make the illegals legal.


The biggest problem is that people have been brainwashed that a single short phrase in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence has a different meaning than was intended.

Ah, but all men are created equal. Not necesarrily equal in ability, but certainly equal in their rights.

Punish those hiring illegals at criminal wages.
You are still punishing the workers.

Make the illegals legal.
No problem there.

Ah, but all men are created equal. Not necesarrily equal in ability, but certainly equal in their rights.
Rights are only what you say someone should have, ie your opinion.
And those are certainly not equal.
Men(or babies for that matter) are not created equal.

The meaning as intended(which was mostly true) has been vulgarized to mean something which is never true.

In every city are tons of things we need that only exist because all tax paying citizen pay for them.

OSHA tries to ensure safety at the workplace.
Our entire transit system: roads & tools for regulating/helping the flow of traffic
Public sanitation and waste removal
Emergency health care
etc etc etc

Every one of these fruits of our society an illegially employed immigrant takes full advantage of. We only have these because the citizens of this country each chip in a small amount of their earnings.

If your tryin to decide if a few cherrypickers matter or not, ask yourself: would it still be ok if everyone did this?

imo, no way.. making your life's living working 'under the table' is freeloading on society, increasing the cost for everyone else.

Any one who wants to come to this country for a better living should be entitled to, but there's a good reason we stopped ships at Ellis Island. Not the least of which is to stop the international spread of diseases/foreign and potentially disasterous new life.

I love to hear people complain about illegal workers, because they must be taking all kinds of high lvl good paying jobs, for example:


In truth what is happening is our own American poor are having their wages affected by this. The wages of the unskilled have dropped 7% and their unemployment goes up. Eventually it'll even impact the immigrants because the ones that have been here awhile and learned to speak English will be replaced by newer ones, willing to work even cheaper, and willing to accept a standard of living even lower. We're growing the size of the very poor in this country extremely fast. That can't end up being a good thing.

So what happens next? Our citizens get displaced from jobs, and yes that is happening, and they've got to be supported by those of us working. Not to mention the fact that they're getting free benefits that those of us here in the country legally can't get, like free health care.

Uncontrolled immigration does affect us all. It is corporate welfare. As long as companies go unpunished by hiring people here in the country illegally, they get the benefit of every cheaper labor.

Outsourcing is a problem too but it is an issue that should be discussed separately.

I just find it hysterical when liberals support illegal immigrants. Liberals, who love to pass themselves off as supporting minorities and the poor.

Guess who loses jobs to illegal immigrants? You weren't going to do construction, restaurant work, or agricultural work. Neither was I. Guess who was? The same poor minorities you calimed to want to help.

The fact that illegal immgration didnt take away your job doesnt mean they didnt steal jobs that mattered. Do you people think they can just go and become accountants?

Supporting illegal immigrants reeks of 'let them eat cake!'

I just find it hysterical when liberals support illegal immigrants. Liberals, who love to pass themselves off as supporting minorities and the poor.

Illegal immigrants are a minority and poor.

/agree Anka

I think the best solution is to enforce that employers hire people here in the country legally. If we need more laborers, we do like Canada does, go recruit them in Mexico, fly them in, fly them out. Take care of them while they're here. At the employer's expense. Then do what we can to help South America with their economic issues so their people won't be leaving in droves.

The ones that came here illegally shouldn't be rewarded for that. And I think they'll self-deport if it gets harder for them to get jobs here.

After we've addressed that, we can fix our guest worker programs or increase our quotas for new citizens so we get more people in.

Illegal immigrants are a minority and poor.
Talk about missing the point.

Yes, duh, they're poor. (Latino is not actually a race, there are zero genetic markers distinguishing Latinos from other Europeans, but if you want to call them a minority for 'cultural' reasons or something, go for it).

The point is, that they are disproportionately hurting poor Americans. Illegal immigration has negligible effects for middle- and upper-class Americans. We were not trying to support our families off the jobs that these people stole. Poor Americans -- thats who gets hurt.

Supporting illegal immigration is supporting the taking of jobs from one group of poor people (who happen to be here legally) by another group of poor people (who happen to be here illegally). What is it, you like Mexicans more than blacks, or something? You have a preference for what color your poor people come in?

Every employed illegal immigrant equals one unemployed American citizen, without exception. The fact that *your* job and *my* job didnt get taken is irrelevant.

Talk about missing the point.

The point is, that they are disproportionately hurting poor Americans.

Well the poor Americans in minorities can decide if that is true. They can either sympathise with illegal immigrants, who face many problems that other minorities have faced in the past, or see them as a threat to what they have worked for. I expect there will be a lot of grass roots politics surrounding this issue, which is good.

Even other S. American immigrants, ones who came here legally, are pissed off about the illegal immigration issue. Not all of them, but lots of them feel it is unfair to give legal status to people who came here illegally when they had to wait for it and jump through a lot of hoops.

Well the poor Americans in minorities can decide if that is true
Ah, so the color of a persons skin determines whether they get to have a say on this issue? Despite the fact that there are no genetic differences between an illegal Mexican immigrant and an American of English descent, you insist on calling Mexicans a minority? The poor whites whose jobs are taken away by illegal immigrants, none of these matter to you?

How about, instead of basing these things on race and status-group and entitlement mentalities, we (society as a whole) decide what is good and fair for members of our society?

Something needs to be done yes, about this and outsourcing. But dont forget that most people here are decendants of immigrants, be it legal or not.

My grandpa came here illegally and raised 4 kids whom he sent to college, who have sent thier kids through college. Rather then point the finger at these evil illegals who alot of them are just trying to live meagerly, how about try and push for a system that promotes trying to make your life better then it is.

If you say that the system is keeping you down and preventing you from making better of your life I call BS, because if my grandpa could do it speaking broken english and in his own lifetime see prosperity I have no pity for people who are born here and cant.

The system may not be perfect, but there are ways for anyone who wants to advance in life and is legally here to do so.

Ah, so the color of a persons skin determines whether they get to have a say on this issue?

I said that poorer people from minorities can make up their own minds on the immigration issue. They can then influence their political parties at grass roots level (just like everyone else). Have you really got a problem with that?

Rather then point the finger at these evil illegals who alot of them are just trying to live meagerly, how about try and push for a system that promotes trying to make your life better then it is.
They're not evil, but the system that exploits them is. And I think getting control of the problem would make things better for everyone, except perhaps the people who want to live in America illegally.

No, Anka, of course I dont have a problem with poor people getting involved in politics, nor with minorities getting involved in politics, whether at the grass roots activisim or simple voting levels. (Of course, almost no poor people vote, so its kind of a moot point anyway).

What I have a problem with is your implication that white middle class Americans shouldnt get involved. You're essentially saying "If these people (poor Americans) are being hurt by illegal immigration, let THEM do something about it", which is horrible precedent.

I see no problem with middle class white Americans recognizing that illegal immigration harms poor Americans and taking steps on their behalf, without their actual involvement. In fact, I have a problem with us NOT taking action. This is a matter of justice -- illegal Mexican immigrants, who have a lower standard of living and dont pay taxes, taking jobs away from poor Americans, who cannot (nor should they!) compete with their low wage expectations.

They're not evil, but the system that exploits them is. And I think getting control of the problem would make things better for everyone, except perhaps the people who want to live in America illegally.

While I agree it needs to be fixed in order to not allow it to escalate, I am of the mind that the only ppl who are affected by it are ppl who shouldnt be.

This goes back to outsourcing, how can we fix one problem but endorse the other?

How can we slap the hands of illegals who are mowing lawns and doing construction and thier employers but yet turn a deaf ear on the next tier of jobs? Slap the hands of the contractor who hires illegals, but ignore Dell for taking our jobs and sending them overseas?

No, Anka, of course I dont have a problem with poor people getting involved in politics, nor with minorities getting involved in politics, whether at the grass roots activisim or simple voting levels. (Of course, almost no poor people vote, so its kind of a moot point anyway).

If they dont vote then they are saying they are ok with where they are and whats going on. I came from a low income school system and I was taught to vote and do what I could to better myself. You cant blame people being lazy on illegals.

What I have a problem with is your implication that white middle class Americans shouldnt get involved. You're essentially saying "If these people (poor Americans) are being hurt by illegal immigration, let THEM do something about it", which is horrible precedent.

Sure get involved, but dont half ass it. If your against illegal workers be against outsourcing too. Why is it ok for big companies to save a buck but not the little man?

I see no problem with middle class white Americans recognizing that illegal immigration harms poor Americans and taking steps on their behalf, without their actual involvement. In fact, I have a problem with us NOT taking action. This is a matter of justice -- illegal Mexican immigrants, who have a lower standard of living and dont pay taxes, taking jobs away from poor Americans, who cannot (nor should they!) compete with their low wage expectations.

See my 2nd comment.

What I have a problem with is your implication that white middle class Americans shouldnt get involved. You're essentially saying "If these people (poor Americans) are being hurt by illegal immigration, let THEM do something about it", which is horrible precedent.

You've misread my post and taken the wrong interpretation. I perhaps could have been clearer, but hey, what do you expect on a messageboard? Perhaps you can read it again and get the right interpretation.

While I agree it needs to be fixed in order to not allow it to escalate, I am of the mind that the only ppl who are affected by it are ppl who shouldnt be.

This goes back to outsourcing, how can we fix one problem but endorse the other?

How can we slap the hands of illegals who are mowing lawns and doing construction and thier employers but yet turn a deaf ear on the next tier of jobs? Slap the hands of the contractor who hires illegals, but ignore Dell for taking our jobs and sending them overseas?
It'd be nice to fix all problems at once but we can't. There's nothing illegal about employers off-shoring work. We'd like them not to but it is perfectly legal. On the other hand we have at least 12 million people here illegally. They're a burden on the state governments and the Federal government isn't doing anything about the issue.

The last time the issue was addressed was in 1986 when a bunch of laws were passed that are almost identical to the ones that the current Senate is trying to pass: Amnesty and mild enforcement. That allowed 3 million people to get to stay in the country. And it sent a clear message that if you come across illegally we'll eventually let you stay. It opened the flood gates. We've got more than 1 million people a year coming over the border illegally. The Legislature and Executive never actually got around to funding or enforcing the enforcement part of the law.

On the matter of resources, again I agree, however I still disagree on saying one is different then the other. Nitpicking and halfassing the solution isnt going to work, because then suddenly youve handled one and ignored the other.

Resource drain on the state, yes bad on illegal immigrants. Drain on viable jobs for american citizens, I feel that the jobs we're losing to india and such are worth more then the ones we're losing to mexicans.

Being 3rd generation mexican myself I drove through some of the worst parts of mexico on the way to San Filepe where my grandpa was investing money on building the city and I can say its terrible. If mexicans want jobs we should consider below us im all for it, if you can say you really are pissed they took your job of mowing lawns, flipping burgers or small business construction then youve got problems, its just not with illegals. Find a way to tax them so the drain isnt as bad.

Do you think maybe because we're losing so many jobs to overseas this isnt forcing people to look for lesser stuff?

Then again looking at New Orleans, it appears all too easy for middle and upper class US to ignore things until they become politically convienent to dig up and wave around.

When I pay the guy to mow my lawn am I pissed that this is a job us citizens are losing out on? No.

When I call Dell to get support am I pissed that this is a job we're losing out on? Hell yes.

Poor Americans -- thats who gets hurt.
Do you even know any poor Americans?

I do.

Your assessment is completely off.

Then again looking at New Orleans, it appears all too easy for middle and upper class US to ignore things until they become politically convienent to dig up and wave around.
Interesting you should bring up NO's. There were some displaced New Orleanians who were offered jobs at something like 10-12 an hour, they came back to NO's and were told that the jobs were gone. Given to illegal aliens who were willing to work for 8 dollars an hour.

Do you know the sort of poverty that is/was in NO's? Here is a chance for some people to escape from that, and those jobs went to non-citizens.

What a funny question, Fyrr. Noooo, i sure dont! I sure didnt grow up on food stamps! I sure dont come from a family living on a single contruction worker income! Half my friends dont work construction! Nope, you got me there.

Out of curiousity, why do you assume a poster doesnt know what theyre talking about?

My assessment is dead on, and in fact it goes far beyond what Ive described.

--

When I was 13 I was doing agricultural work full time in summers and part time the rest of the year. That work is no longer available to white kids (wages have dropped too far). At 16 I moved on to fast food. That work *is* still avalable, thanks to minimum wage laws, but the pool of competition has greatly increased. In college, I worked in restaurants, And although I eventually made it to sous chef, I started out washing dishes. Guess what, those jobs are not available any more either.

The fact is, it is only white collar elites who can say "Oh illegal immigrants are taking jobs Americans wont do!" I now fall into this category, so my job isnt in danger. But since the majority of my work experiance, my family, and half my friends fall into exactly the kind of category of jobs Im describing.. yes, I know what Im tlkaing about.

And youre wrong -- illegal immigrants have in fact taken jobs that real live Americans wanted. Only white collar elites, insulated in their little urban bubbles of unreality, are unable to see this.

Here's some thoughtful discourse on the immigration, both pro and con.

As an example:
I've been following the immigration debate but have not yet chosen a side. A few questions I have not seen adequately addressed:

1. Why should poor Mexicans and Central and South Americans be given priority to enter the U.S. illegally over starving Africans and Asians just because they live nearby? This alone angers me — that there are so many who strongly support our illegal southern neighbors. It also begs the question: What is the purpose of United States's immigration policy? Obviously we cannot bring every poor, starving, non-U.S. citizen here. So who gets priority and why? There are a lot of suffering people out in the world, and they all equally deserve help from the wealthiest of us.

2. I was impressed by the Latinos who came together to produce such large rallies here in the U.S. to protest unfair immigration policies. But the true answer to solving poverty south of the border is for the governments of those countries to take care of their own people, not for all of their citizens to move to the U.S. So why aren't all these rallying Latinos getting together to force their own governments to change their economic policies and laws? It is amazing to me that they demand that a country, of which they are not citizens, change its policies and laws to accommodate them. They should be holding rallies here in the U.S. asking, at most, that the U.S. government apply more pressure on their home governments to make real economic reforms, with additional U.S. foreign aid to make those reforms a reality. So what, exactly, are they asking the U.S. government for and why? What, exactly, are they asking their own governments for and why? I don't consider myself a xenophobe. I am more angered that our southern neighbors seem to feel so entitled to the opportunities offered to those living in the U.S. Any insights you could provide on these questions would be appreciated.

It also includes the costs broken down by illegal immigrant. It costs local/state governments about $25,000 while the Federal government benefits to the tune of $105,000. So this might explain the disconnect between the two chambers of the legislature and the president on how to handle the problem. Interesting...

Why should poor Mexicans and Central and South Americans be given priority to enter the U.S. illegally over starving Africans and Asians just because they live nearby? This alone angers me — that there are so many who strongly support our illegal southern neighbors. It also begs the question: What is the purpose of United States's immigration policy? Obviously we cannot bring every poor, starving, non-U.S. citizen here. So who gets priority and why? There are a lot of suffering people out in the world, and they all equally deserve help from the wealthiest of us

Immigration policy isnt primarily about helping others, nor should it be. Its nice sentiment to say that the US iimmigration policy should help everyone equally, but its utterly niave and impractical,

#1, was mentioned, they live near us. they're our nieghbors for better or worse, we are more connected to them then africa.
#2 strictly speaking, its more beneficial to us. While sorta heartless, tens of thousands of people dying in africa, has a far less effect on the US, then if the same was to happen in Mexico/South America.
#3 sorta related to #1,they our in our "sphere of influence" while africa, is less so
#4 an average person from mexico, is more likely to be beneficial to the US work system, then someone in africa.

other reasons too.

Africa needs help not just for humanitarian reasons, but because unstable governments and countrieseare nota good thing on global stage, butthey should be addressed in a different manner thene immigration policy

And youre wrong -- illegal immigrants have in fact taken jobs that real live Americans wanted. Only white collar elites, insulated in their little urban bubbles of unreality, are unable to see this.
I am poor and I know that to be true.

I know plenty of poor white Americans who have told me that is how they feel, that picking grapes or scrubbing toilets is too hard or too dirty for 7 bucks an hour.

Out of curiousity, why do you assume a poster doesnt know what theyre talking about?
I am not assuming anything. You prove it yourself.

It is amazing to me that they demand that a country, of which they are not citizens, change its policies and laws to accommodate them.

This statement I totally agree with!! It is the basis of why so many American's are upset with the current immigration situation.

Here's how Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060706/cm_csm/ydillin;_ylt=ApIPS_LWtEFFAG8jifGoFFCs0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-)
LOL! They deported a few 10's of thousands and the rest left voluntarily.


Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint."

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."

Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.

During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower – if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him – and the Border Patrol – from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."

There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration
One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."

William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.

Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce."

While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.

1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.

2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come.

3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.

The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower's team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.

Here's how Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060706/cm_csm/ydillin;_ylt=ApIPS_LWtEFFAG8jifGoFFCs0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-)
LOL! They deported a few 10's of thousands and the rest left voluntarily.

They were not voters.

And there were very much less of their relatives here now legally, who can vote.

Just remember the bloodbath that prop 187 took on politicians who supported it.

There's nothing illegal about employers off-shoring work. We'd like them not to but it is perfectly legal. On the other hand we have at least 12 million people here illegally.

True, but are there compelling, rational and understandable reasons for one being legal and the other not? I think that's what was implied in the question, really.

They were not voters.

And there were very much less of their relatives here now legally, who can vote.

Just remember the bloodbath that prop 187 took on politicians who supported it.

I don't recall their being a bloodbath for politicians who supported 187. But the problem of illegal immigration has become a much bigger problem than it was when 187 was passed.

I think a few states recently passed legislation similar to 187 recently, Arizona pops into my mind.

I know there are a lot of Hispanics here now who are just as concerned about illegal immigration as non-hispanics. After all, if they've been in this country not as long, they're more likely to need those low wage jobs that are getting even lower in wage.

Wikipedia has a write up. It is funny, sounds just exactly like the political climate today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_(1994)

Here's Arizona's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_Arizona_Now