More pointless, ugly, rhetoric against illegals. By overusing the "war" metaphor, you cheapen it. This is why reasonable people are suspicious of people who insist we're "at war". Guerrilla warfare? How can you expect to be taken seriously? If you didn't vote, I could safely laugh.

Although Aaron gets some of his facts wrong (the burden on our services is minimal; for instance, they pay into social security without benefiting), you don't have to be a raging xenophobe to agree that illegal immigration is a bad thing. Of course, it helps. Are people so lacking in nuance that they have to hate illegal immigrants to be opposed to illegal immigration? This kind of rhetoric drives away rational people with whom you might otherwise find common cause.

These days, I hear a lot of conservatives accusing democrats of being "blinded by hate". Let's just say there's no monopoly here.

I believe Aaron's piece despite being cloaked in hysteria, fear and ignorance speaks to the true issue of this debate.

Before I get to that, allow me to say that secure borders are a major concern. The process for immigration needs to be cleaned up. People who cross the border illegally need to pay fines, learn English. They do not deserve capitol punishment -they deserve a way to become citizens.

Reasonable people can disagree on the method to secure the borders and to accept new citizens but to place the AIDS epidemic and all of America's social ills on illegals is beyond reason.

Moreover if some people were so concerned about flooding the market with cheap labor and stealing American jobs and workers sending money overseas--those folks would urge Congress to mandate a living wage, curtail outsourcing and demand that the U.S government cut spending in Iraq and other countries and launch a campaign aimed at US citizens to stop sending family members and friends in say Israel money (despite the fact that a person can do what the hell they want to do with their money) Which brings me back to what I think is the issue some Americans have with undocumented workers.

That brings me back to my original point about the piece written by the Editor-in-Chief of PME.

In his diatribe he motioned American-flag at least 5 times. Other conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin mention the flag thing too.

As we all know the piece of cloth put together by Betsy Ross all those years ago and modified every time another state was added-is the symbol of America. The flag for some is also the symbol of love for America and the assimilation and allegiance thereof. (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.....)

In order to be an American you have to show loyalty to her, be patriotic and most of all LOVE America.

I don't love America and I'm as much an American citizen as you. My point is that it's immaterial that immigrants love America or not.

America is like a job...you do what your supposed to do to get paid. The employer does what they are supposed to do and they get a certain level of performance and achievement. How many of you love your jobs? Thought so,...love is not in the equation.

The problem is that some Americans expect all Americans (and those who aspire to be) to attend the Church of American Assimilation. Treat the flag like the cross and treat the Constitution as the Bible.

Despite the concerns of security and rule of law..deep down inside is that some folks believe those people can't possibly love America and therefore are plotting for its downfall.

Bullshit. It wouldn't behoove me or some of the people I actually love (or any other resident) to have America fail. Just like you wouldn't want your job to lose that big contract or lose money this quarter.

I was honest enough to admit my true feelings, I hope the rest of your are.

After reading this article, I can only wonder if Aaron knows the meaning of the words "war" or "terrorism".

People coming to this country fleeing economic hardship aren't coming here to destroy america, they're coming to improve themselves.

Get your head out of your ass.

Actually, the operational definition of "terrorism" in the literature doesn't work on illegals, because they don't have the requisite INTENT to terrorize. To be terrorism, it has to be a deliberate attempt to frighten a group or government into doing something or not doing something. Protesting--even if some people are afraid of it--doesn't qualify.

That said, lately I've been wondering just why it was that 12 million immigrants voluntarily came through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954. I'm sure there must also have been those who came in illegally, but huge numbers voluntarily submitted to an intense screening process, including physical exams and interviews, even when they didn't speak the language.

So I did a little digging on the history of immigration (it's been a while since I studied it), and I can't say I like what I see. You all tell me what you think.

The first national anti-immigration law in the US didn't come about until 1882, but it lasted until 1943, and it only applied to the Chinese (the Chinese Exclusion Act). Mexicans were actually brought in on purpose in 1917 and 1942, under the Bracero programs, to work as non-citizens and literally take jobs there were no Americans to fill. But a lot came in outside the program (then they were called "unenrolled," instead of "illegal"), and "Operation Wetback" attempted to push them back militarily. But the upshot of the Bracero programs was that Mexicans got a taste of the possibility of America, and Chicanos (Mexicans who had become Americans when the US annexed Mexico) lost the agricultural jobs and moved further inland to the cities.

My point here is that immigration patterns in the US have been largely designed to keep the ethnic distribution artifically static. The National Origins Act of 1924 allowed immigration in proportionate percentage to the already existing population in the US of the given immigrant group (still excluding the Chinese, though.) The have also been disturbingly racist, as in the 1917 Barred Zone Act, which excluded Asian immigration and immigration from British India; however, there was an exception for white people coming from those regions. You can't get more racist than that.

Oh, wait. Yes, you can. You can pass the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, which was designed to prevent the Northern European "race" from being overrun by Eastern and Southern Europeans.

In 1921, we restricted immigration from some parts of Europe, but let in professionals regardless of their origins. In 1934, we excluded Filipinos (well, reduced their quota to 50 a year) during the Philippines' Commonwealth era. We also made those living here at the time suddenly illegal.

There were NO Chinese citizens in the US until 1943. None. Any Chinese living here were aliens that could NOT be naturalized by law. Natives of India could not become citizens until 1946.

In 1952, we abolished the racial component of quotas, but let in everyone with relatives in the US and limited the immigration of those who didn't. At that point, though, we wrote in a clause keeping out subversives, suspected subversives, and Communists.

In 1986, Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act (which is the reason you have to have your social security card and driver's license when you are hired), which made it illegal to hire--well, illegals. It also mandated review of I-9 forms and offered an amnesty program for those who had been in the country for at least 4 years.

By the way, for those who want to blame Reagan for the situation we have today, you should know that the Immigration Act of 1990 (Democrat House and Senate, Bush I president) raised the limit on immigration from 500,000 to 700,000 per year, loosened the English testing program, made it easier to get visas, and removed AIDS from the list of diseases that would keep you out of the US.

So our immigration legislation historically does not seem to have been pursued in good faith, or very effective.

What if we set up an Ellis Island style checkpoint and let in whosoever will that are not diseased, subversive, dangerous, indigent, or insane? Deport people who didn't come here fairly; let in those who are willing to follow the system, and drop the quota system completely?

Isn't that the free market answer?

Hi Aaron,

No offence but you appear to be pretty deranged in this post. As others have pointed out, your use of the words war and terrorism are completely out of place. Your assertion that being an illegal in the US should carry the death penalty, which logically entails that you think millions of people should be put to death makes you sound like a ranting lunatic to be honest. I appreciate the need for initial posts to sometimes contain a degree of controversy and that sometimes people can get carried away by rhetoric, so I ask, are you seriously saying your country should execute people by the million? Or as I suspect is this purely for shock value?

Hi SF, leanstotheleft and daftright,

for what it's worth (not really sure how much foreigners should comment on US immigration policy) I agree with you.

Hi Kerry,

Well done, good research. I found it rather shocking - perhaps I was a little naive. I think if I lived in a nice white area, with green lawns and picket fences living a wealthy life in the US I'd be rather ashamed after I read your post. Sometimes you read something and think hey everyone should know this, this is one of those occasions - all Americans could do with reading this information.

"I don't love America and I'm as much an American citizen as you."

At least he's honest.

Hi Kerry,

That's really interesting information, definitely puts things into perspective. It's an intriguing suggestion you're making; if I understand you, you're saying have standards that immigrants have to meet, and otherwise do away with quotas. I can't see a thing wrong with it. If we were flooded with too many immigrants to assimilate at once, we could always up the standards. Of course, this only addresses legal immigration, but it's a good policy.

Let me gush a little bit and say I've found your comments to be very informative and interesting of late. Also, I like the fact that you seem to take issues seriously rather than viewing them as a platform for your ideology. People like you, brit and MJ make this place worth visiting.

Hi SF,

Cheers.

Thanks, SF,

I do feel that, historically, immigration legislation has been driven by fear and eugenicist racism. That bothers me. I'll take a back seat to no one for my almost fanatical devotion to the law (not the Pope, Monty Python fans). But these are laws I wouldn't be uncomfortable about changing.

The "taking our jobs" argument strikes me as a bit unrealistic, too. I'm not sure there are such things as jobs "meant for Americans" as the language seems to imply. My reading of the free market says that capital is free to hire whosoever will work at the wages it wants to pay. That's why I think it would be better to bring all workers to the same wage level than to just find all the illegals and get rid of them. Regardless of which approach we take (or some other), the employer is going to end up paying more for wages. And that's going to hurt, because the minimum wage laws create an artificial floor.

I don't have a problem keeping people out based on poverty; if they are certain to be a burden to the system and won't work, they shouldn't come in. But that's largely not the case (we know this because of the large chunk of the Mexican economy provided by Mexicans working in this country sending money home. They're definitely working.)

I don't have a problem keeping out crazy people. There are quite a few Hollywood celebrities I think might qualify for exile if only we could get rid of them on that basis.

And I don't--by ALL means--have any problem keeping people out based on the suspicion that they are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, criminals, drug addicts, subversives, Communists, or any other category that might be considered dangerous to the good order of the US.

However, I just can't find a logical reason to keep people out based solely on where they are coming from. Maybe if we open the doors to screened legal immigration without quotas, those coming in would replace those we then throw out because they are illegal. It would have to be timed rather carefully, though, to prevent seismic economic shifts.

I know people--a lot of people--who are Hispanic, Chicano, Mexican, and Latino, whose origins have never been revealed to me (unless you are the government, it seems a rather rude question to ask), except as in "I came from Guatemala," or "my family is still in Oaxaca." I've never see people work so hard--certainly not native-born Americans. I don't see how we could lose by legally bringing in new immigrants.

I deeply regret that the demographic shifts we've seen of late have created such division and turmoil. By all means, send back those who are here illegally--but then make it possible for them to come back legally, without artificial, race-driven quotas.

I think we have problems in the US that carry more weight than the Mexican immigration issue to date.

The political (hmmm, what to call it?), ok partisanship, that's occuring is an example of neither party taking a stand on the issue. Provisions of this bill that neither want, and the act of inserting certain provisions are sure to cause failure. It then becomes the others fault.

Kerry, lots of accurate digging. What were people thinking? How did they come up with the exclusions, inclusions and overall bigoted thoughts? In regard to the Mexican immigrant issue, both governments abuse this group (illegal) of people, and both abuse the legal group.

The jobs issue as presented is empty in many areas and valid in others. The illegal issue is the part politicians are unwilling to address and to do so would require self reflection. Why do the people come, legal or illegal?

On an illegal note, and it was a jobs issue (maybe); Mexican families were deported during the depression, with most being legal and many were Ameican citizens.

Focusing on the issue and aspects required to correct the problem begins with truth.

Immigrants put more into America than they take out. Who gains monetarily? OK, now those recieving the gains must address the illegal side of the issue. Kerry points out; NO Chinese citizens until 1943, with no emphasis on legal or illegal, just that they were "aliens".

The core issue is "$" and those gaining have no interest in making a change. Would our president be willing to grant guest worker visas to the millions of "communist" Chinese, building products for Americans, in American factories in communist China? Does this issue seem to bother the average American? Who gains?

Legal "vs" Illegal is a diversion.

I wonder what this country would look like today if we had not artificially engineered the racial composition of the immigrant population.

Whadya think?

Aaron,

You are not alone in proposing to use the death penalty against an entire population. Wanting to destroy the aliens among us ... one would have hoped that that kind of thinking had ended after the horrors of WWII. Apparently not. If you're spending any time thinking about this, consider getting some help. Need that even be said?

Considering your comments as purely rhetorical, it's of the worst kind - you ought to feel ashamed. I have to agree with WB, you must be going for shock, but to what end?

Kerry,

Insightful and informed comments, you always make me stop and think. =)

"I wonder what this country would look like today if we had not artificially engineered the racial composition of the immigrant population."

I think "engineered " is a bit of a stretch. Attempted maybe, in a manner that is similar to the current situation. Actions fueled by racism and thoughts of inequality. Laws proposed with intentions and expectations never fulfilled. Expectations without communication, is to laws passed without enforcement; both are laced with premeditated resentments.

I have a difficult time viewing our society in America today as artifical, engineered yes, because the laws had intent. The intent of the past was to place some people in subservient positions. Thousands of Chinese were here before 1943, they came they helped build America. Immigrants came with or without a law and the law didn't change the human landscape.

Kerry, There are many paths to and from the question. Are we still sculpting?

Yes, Russ, the Chinese were here--but they weren't ALLOWED to be citizens. They couldn't vote. They had no say in the government of the country in which they lived--like black people before 1865 in the North and 1954 in the South. Was that right? Was that fair? Was that allowing the ethnic composition of the US to develop naturally?

I don't see how you can't see it as "artificial." It's certainly not "natural."

And, no, Russ. Believe it or not, SOME people in foreign countries actually respect the laws--so SOME people who might have come probably didn't because they weren't allowed to LEGALLY.

What if the Chinese COULD have become citizens, or, during the times of stress in Chinese history, could have freely emigrated to America and become part of the political life of the nation? What would the country have looked like by 1960? And would that have been a good thing or a bad thing? We can never know for sure, but we can know that the immigration laws were--yes, in the real meaning of the term--engineered to prevent us from finding out.

What if Indians (from India) had been allowed to flee India when their nation was brought under the direct control of Britain in 1857 and become free citizens of the US? What effect might a different racial composition have had on the building tensions leading to the Civil War? What would have been the racial interactions of "people of color" immediately after it? Could reconstruction have been salvagable had it been done by a Congress not so predominately white?

From 1924 to 1952, the ENTIRE CONTINENT of Africa (excluding Egypt, which could send 100 people itself) could send only ELEVEN HUNDRED people a year--while Great Britain and Ireland could send THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND, and Germany was allotted. 100 each of Syrians, Turks, and Egyptians. And NO Asians.

My point here is that enormous people groups (like Africans, Arabs, Asians, and Eastern Europeans) were limited to tiny numbers of immigrants by law, while much smaller populations (Britian, Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland, and so forth) were allowed much larger immigrant pools. Thus, the US never truly was open to the people called to our shores by the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

No, not really. Of course, the French gave us the statue--but, then, the French were already "in." (quota, 3,954 per year.) Apparently, Emma Lazarus forgot her last line: "But no Asians, please."

Wouldn't it have been nice if the South Africans living through the inhumanity of Apartheid could have come to this country and started new lives?

Wouldn't it have been nice if more than 785 Austrians annually could have escaped the growing hostilities leading up to WWII? Or more than 512 Belgians? Or more than 471 Finns?

But you get my point. What good have our immigration laws actually done? I believe in laws, I won't deny it. And I believe they ought to be obeyed. But I also believe that they should be changed when they are flat-out stupid.

And, in my opinion, the history of immigration law in America is both stupid and racist. And we need to re-think the whole concept of excluding people for any reason not clearly related to the national interest.

Sorry about that Germany figure. Of course Germany wasn't allowed "100 each of Syrians, Turks, and Egyptians." Something went wrong there in the editing. Mea culpa.

The correct figures are 51,227 Germans annually, while Syria, Turkey, and Egypt (and also Iceland, Luxembourg, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Palestine, and New Zealand) were limited to 100 each.

Again, sorry. Typed too fast.

By the way, the complete list can be found at:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078/

You are not alone in proposing to use the death penalty against an entire population. Wanting to destroy the aliens among us ... one would have hoped that that kind of thinking had ended after the horrors of WWII.

You can always count of p(U)d, with his soft and small of mind, to screech hysterical, emasculated Godwining. Last refuge of the truly soft, sad and idiotic.

RR,

What does the word "Godwining" mean? I have never heard it and can't figure it out from context.

Thanks.

The way this "article" reads to me, is that the author has proposed cleansing the American population of "illegals." Apparently that means undocumented Latino immigrants, reading this site so far. This would be done by passing legislation that would make their presence in this country a crime that he hopes they would be put to death for, and quickly, aka without proper due process. In other words, he wants them all dead! Ten, eleven, twelve million people.

Regarding Godwin's Law, Nazi Germany had similar policies to what the author desires, which resulted in millions dead -a fair reference. No doubt the FBI would take an interest in this author's writings.

Furthermore, reading this thread, I'm surprised that you are letting this fly as "rhetoric." People, conservatives are getting away with murder in this world only because we do not stop them. This one has chosen to not cloak his intentions any longer, that we kill people in America just for being here. Wake up!

baron, thanks for the clarification. And you can calm down. Conservatives are not "getting away with murder." That's just ridiculous. Aaron is making a policy recommendation. If anything, if you think the policy would be murderous, the existence of the article would more likely imply that conservatives AREN'T "getting away with murder," and they're irritated about it.

Besides, if you look at what he said, no one would have to be murdered. All they have to do is leave. That's where your analogy fails--because the Jews weren't asked to leave--they were marginalized and exterminated.

I'm sure the idea here is to send illegal immigrants back to their country of origin--not to the middle of nowhere on railway cars to be gassed to death. Let's try to have some perspective.

Yes Kerry, what a great policy idea. It fits like a puzzle piece with the conservative policy of detention by the military - without charges or trial. Extrajudicial killings have a long, sordid history in the U.S., and that's what this "proposal" sounds like. It is to be a Lynch law, with a veneer of legislation-speak, to make it seem less the throwback to vigilante lynch mob days that it is:

Lynch law is sometimes justified by its supporters as the administration of justice without the delays and inefficencies inherent in the legal system; in this way it echoes the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was justified by the statement, "Terror is nothing more than Justice, swift and certain."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Absurd that you're even debating it. Haven't we had enough of angry white men whining that they haven't got enough yet, that they want still more, and then taking it by force? That is where this writer's over-the-top screed comes from. This, from the richest nation on earth. Latinos are taking from them, so lets kill them all, but we'll allow them to leave before the purge begins. How thoughtful that you should add that clause.

What happened to civilized discourse toward equitable solutions? At least the U.S. Congress has stepped recently in that direction. This is what conservative "thought" in the U.S. has done to debate - shoved everybody else in the corner so the debate happens on their terms: "We propose killing anybody who is on this side of the line," and you seriously expect to debate that?

It is no longer a reasoned discussion of possibilities and alternatives among peers. It is the crazy man who pulls a knife on you and tells you to see things his way. Thanks to the Rush Limbaughs of the world for that.

The authors on this site have ensured for themselves much the same political future as David Duke, a person they share much in common with.

"And, in my opinion, the history of immigration law in America is both stupid and racist. And we need to re-think the whole concept of excluding people for any reason not clearly related to the national interest."

I think you're being redundant, although I would replace stupid with ignorant. If it's racism/racist of course it's ignorant.

So allowing the Chinese to come and build the railraods of America was a natural process, the racist act of not allowing them citizenship was artificial?

Through ignorance, the title of this article was delivered.

No, Russ, I think it's more like the act of allowing the Chinese to come and build the railroads was an act of commerce. However, I think the logical result of that would have been to let those who wanted to stay become citizens. But it's not the act of disallowing their citizenship--it's the result. An act is not artificial. An outcome is.

The act of allowing Chinese to come here in the first place COULD HAVE led to a natural shift of some kind in the ethnic composition of the population. Instead, laws impeded that from happening--that makes the result "artificial."

And, yes, "stupid" and "racist" are slightly redundant, in that all racism is stupid. But since I began with "stupid," I wanted to specify what KIND of stupid--that being "racist." So I guess I should have properly said, "is not only stupid, but stupid in a racist fashion," but that sounds awkward, and, therefore, (you'll excuse the expression) "stupid."

Russ, the title of the article is accurate, if we are taking the meaning of "Americans" to be "citizens of the United States." You may be partially correct, in that, technically, most of the illegal immigrants being complained of here are from Mexico, Central, and South America--and are, therefore (technically speaking) "Americans," just as are Canadians, if they feel like asserting it.

I remember in graduate school, during the 80s when it was popular on campus to identify with leftist Central American liberation movements and such that there was a great controversy once about using the term "Americans" to refer only to people in the US. It was contended that to claim an "American" position was to actually take a positon that oppressed "Americans" in the name of other "Americans." It was interesting, for something to worry about on a Spring day when school was almost out. (And, no, I wouldn't take it all that seriously, were I you.)

"No, Russ, I think it's more like the act of allowing the Chinese to come and build the railroads was an act of commerce. However, I think the logical result of that would have been to let those who wanted to stay become citizens."

Oh, man. Now I'm doing it to myself. Sorry, I'm the one getting the act/outcome distinction wrong here. Of course, the logical result, IF we had allowed them to be citizens, would have been a change in the ethnic composition of the country. That's what I meant.

I hope you're not too confused.

I'm glad tax season's almost over.

Although I do not agree we should "kill" anyone I do agree that I have had enough of illegal immigrants demanding to be recognized as citizens.

Let me say that again....they are DEMANDING to be recognized as citizens as they are marching down my hard-earned taxpayer streets that my ancestors fought, died, and bled for after they stole the country from someone else of course.

What infamy? What arrogance? What ingratitude? And where or where is The INS - when you need them? Would a job at INS be considered just another one of those jobs Americans just don't want to do and therefore that is the reason no one is doing it? All the while people that are not suppose to be in my country are protesting against the laws that are in place to protect the citizens that rightfully should be here.

And speaking of taxpaying why do I keep hearing that illegal immigrants are tax payers? The last time I checked you have to have a SSN number to be a taxpayer. If illegals are "paying taxes" it is being done AGAIN illegally.....I am sensing a trend here? They aren’t filing that’s for certain.

Case in point - I was recently told of a story about a manager of a well known hotel chain. This manager had to contact Social Security regarding one his employees and of course when he did he was advised this SSN belonged to another person and was being used ......(that's right you guessed it) ILLEGALLY. Now I know some people may be selling there SSN's to illegals for money but the man they contacted regarding this fraud advised he did not. Who's to say if he is telling the truth but the point here is this is an example of another problem as a result of people and I will go as far to say criminals - (because it is a federal offense to steal a SSN) coming into my country and complaining about the laws that are in place while breaking them in broad daylight.

Speaking of criminals, if these jobs are sooooo wretched (even though a majority of the jobs that are being done now - fast food workers, custodial positions, construction workers, grounds keepers, nannies, hotel staff etc... where done in the past by teens, older adults, and Americans that had just a basic high school diploma or less - but alas these "horrible" jobs are no longer readily available to Americans because immigrants have flooded our job market and taken them) Why can't inmates or the recently paroled be required to work these positions?

Just go with me on this one a moment.

In turn major corporations would receive a considerable tax break for hiring American citizens. That way the "sting" of paying people at least minimum wage would be lessened and criminals are forced to contribute positively to society rather than sitting in cellblock on lock down 23 hours a day waiting for the 1 hour glory walk through the yard. ALL inmates bodily able should be forced to work – like it or not. Currently this is not the policy some jails require inmates to work some do not. I make no apologies for preferring to employ inmates as opposed to illegals both have broken the law but at least with an inmate they are already here and they need to be put to work. And I don't mean working at Mc Donald’s. I mean the most back breaking and the worst positions should be distributed first and filled. Picking fruit, digging ditches, whatever there happy little hands find to do. And why not? No one should be discriminated against right? And the money they make should be taxed heavily. These taxes help pay for the building, the salaries, the food, and any other resources needed to pay for the running and upkeep of a jail system - this alone might possible allow the inmates to pay for themselves. Reducing the burden on law abiding American Citizens. Any left over monies should go to the disenfranchised children and spouses left in the wake of their bad life choices if they are victims of the violence or in association to the inmate by blood. Now how can anyone argue with this proposition?

Back to the immigrants and the DEMANDING - what about the law abiding LEGAL IMMIGRANTS - that are suppose to be here God Bless'em. I mean that is a slap in the face to the people that have done things the right way. Jumped through every hoop, gone to every class and work-shop. Patiently waited for their paperwork to be approved and marked their calendars with a big red X as THE day they have been hoping and praying would come. I don't know but I would personally be pissed if I had done it all by the book and a law is "magically" passed that lets 11 million people become citizens just because they walked out of their jobs and congested the streets....you got it...ILLEGALLY!

Only in America can you protest laws you should be arrested for when you don't belong here and not go to jail immediately. If they feel so passionately about equality and rights why don't they continue their walk.....ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MEXICO? That is where they need to protest the injustice and the corruption and talk about wages that suck. But don't come to my country and talk about how we run it and demand we make it better for you and you do not belong here. We have enough problems right now without a bunch of folks that don't belong telling me how we need to make it better for them. Be happy you made it in and haven't been deported as you should have been long ago. It must not be too awful in the horrible U.S.A because they are all still here.

As my Daddy would say "It's tight - but it's right"

"And speaking of taxpaying why do I keep hearing that illegal immigrants are tax payers? The last time I checked you have to have a SSN number to be a taxpayer. If illegals are "paying taxes" it is being done AGAIN illegally.....I am sensing a trend here? They aren’t filing that’s for certain."

No, you're wrong there.

An illegal alien, like anyone who is ineligible for a social security number (say, a resident of Mexico being claimed as a dependent on their child's tax return because parents don't have to live with you to be dependents) can obtain an ITIN number for tax purposes. Even if you are paid in cash, you are supposed to report the income. In order to do so, you get an ITIN number and either file with a 1099 or as self-employed. The reason to do so is to file for the earned income credit.

By the way, the people getting paid below minimum wage (which most illegals aren't, by the way) or in cash are being employed by people breaking the law. And let me assure you: they are being treated the same as their American citizen co-workers. The (most often) contractors and subcontractors working people "off the books" aren't reporting ANYONE'S income properly--including the profits they are making for themselves.

Another way that illegals pay into the system is that those who buy fake social security cards in order to work at a "regular" job are having money withheld from their checks for federal, state, social security, and Medicare taxes. If they don't file on that income, the system gets to keep it.

When I consider the various economic effects--on taxes, incomes, on wages, class movement--and the social effects--on the ethnic composition of the country, race relations, the strain on the family, the overburdening of the educational system, and so on, I just end up with a bottom line that the current system doesn't work and should be scrapped.

Keep out your desperately poor, your diseased, your terroristic, your subversives, your Communists, your druggies, and other "dangerous" people.

Everybody else, come. Whosoever will. Taste and see that America is good. Compete fairly and openly for jobs and for goods. Free-markets for free people. Prove the great democratic experiment right.

Kerry,

Just asking-Is being a Conmmunist illegal and if why should someone be denied citizenship because of their political views provided they are non-violent of course

Leanto,

A very interesting question. Under the Smith Act, it is illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence, which is how the leaders of the Communist party in America were indicted in the 40s and 50s. In 1957, the Court drew a distinction between advocacy and teaching in the abstract--but the Smith Act is still law, albeit rarely if ever used.

And Woodrow Wilson declared the Communist Party illegal in 1920 (20 years before the Smith Act.) I can't seem to find out what happened to that particular law after that, though. I'd like to know myself.

As to why to keep out communists, well, I don't know what the explicit aim of the Communist party is today (I don't get the memos anymore), but in the heyday of the Smith Act, it was socialist revolution (i.e., to overthrow the government by force or violence.) Since CPUSA was controlled by Soviet handlers, of which there allegedly are no more today (now that we are all friends), I'm not sure what the current CPUSA has to do with Communism.

In case that's not a clear answer, if we're going to let people in to become US citizens, we'd prefer they weren't just coming in to wreck the place.

Kerry,

I don't agree with everything on the Communist platform and I assume you don't either. However I don't think it's right to keep folks out of the country because of political party.

Every election is an attempt to overrthrow the government. The key is to have a revolution in the voting booth instead of with the shotgun.

I personally don't think America is diverse enough in regards to political parties. You mean to tell me that 2 parties perfectly describe Americans? (DEMS, GOP)

It's also sad that you have to be a GOP or a DEM to have a chance at office notwithstanding a handful of independents who make it that far. It's also a shame that you have to be rich. Some of the mos qualified and hard-working people that would be a great elected official are middle-class.

Getting back to immigration, if the USA puts a test on peaceful political views-what does that do for people already in the country?

Does that mean the POTUS can let people in based on their support for his initatives? I'm interested to know your views

Leanto,

No, every election is NOT a revolution, because the government ALLOWS it to happen. A revolution, by definition, is a RADICAL change in form. The aim of the old CPUSA was not to change the political culture of America through election--it was to abolish the system itself and replace it with communism. To bring people into the country whose stated aim is to overthrow the government BY FORCE would not have been, I submit, wise public policy.

It's a bit difficult for people today to understand the notion of keeping Communism at bay. Now (in the US, at any rate) Communism is really little more than an interesting, albeit unworkable idea, which academics and certain MSM members have a fondness for. Seemingly harmless.

Then, however, it was a seriously dangerous ideology whose adherents had no qualms about breaking American law, killing American citizens, and subverting the American system of government from within and without. That's what the Cold War was about for 70 years. We didn't want to be like them, and they didn't want us to be like us. And, yes, if there are still such people, I don't want them in this country.

As to running for election, you don't have to be rich, but you do have to know how to get people to give you a LOT of money. Most middle-class people don't know how to do that. And the people that do don't want to work for people who don't already have a good handle on it. I would also note that you are showing your elitism--surely there are also poor people who would make good presidents?

The key to the subversion question is that they are not PEACEFUL views. I thought I made that clear. The Court distinguishes between ADVOCACY and TEACHING. You can have all the views you want--but if your theory includes an acceptance of blatantly criminal behavior as a form of public policy--well, we'd rather you stay on your own side of the ocean.

I don't really know what you mean by "based on their support for his initiatives." There are so many things the president does, it would be impossible to track who believes in what as a matter of policy. And the president now has only the power of the bully pulpit. It's Congress that writes the law (which is why it's such a mess.) He can, however, if he is clever, find ways to use regulatory powers to tweak the way the INS interprets the laws and to direct enforcemnt of them, unless Congress is very explicit in the mandate they provide.