Mayor (ATHENS, GA) says Mexico trip opened eyes on immigration..

[ImmortalE]

Mayor says Mexico trip opened eyes on immigration

The Associated Press - ATHENS, Ga.

Athens Mayor Heidi Davison says a University of Georgia-sponsored trip to Mexico has given her new empathy for Hispanic immigrants and a desire to lobby state and federal official to relax some immigration policies.

Davison, along with about 15 other Georgia local officials from areas with large or growing Hispanic populations, spent two weeks in and around Monterrey and Veracruz.

After seeing impoverished villages where nearly all the men are gone working in the United States, Davison said she came to the conclusion that "they are seeking a better life for their families, and specifically for their children. That's a natural human desire."

Elected officials and UGA professors met with Mexican government officials and toured small towns and rural villages last month to better understand why thousands of Mexicans come to Georgia each year.

"We came away with some pretty good ideas," said Gordon Maner, a public service assistant at UGA's Carl Vinson Institute of Government, who helped organized the trip.

Davison said she will work to ease restrictions on employing immigrants, and fight proposed state laws taking benefits away from undocumented aliens.

The Athens economy appears too dependent on the 6,000 to 12,000 Hispanic immigrants in Clarke County to bear such restrictions, she said.

Employment rules are complicated, but federal law generally requires that employers pay alien workers a wage on par with U.S. citizens, and the employer must often pay fees to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, which Davison said can encourage employment of undocumented aliens who can be paid less under the table while avoiding the fees.

She said she will lobby Congress to expand the guest worker program, and wants to study in greater detail the impact of immigrants on the local economy.

Many Hispanic immigrants in Athens work in the poultry and landscaping industries, but reliable statistics are few and far between on state and national levels, let alone for local economies.

While the federal government controls who gets into the country, the state decides who gets what benefits, like driver's licenses, education, welfare and subsidized health insurance.

Several bills in the state legislature would take many of those benefits away from undocumented aliens, an idea Davison said she opposes.

"I don't think we should shut those services off," she said. "We need to continue to provide those services."

___

HASH(0x1cdc358)

[ImmortalE]

Mayor says Mexico trip opened eyes on immigration

The Associated Press - ATHENS, Ga.

Athens Mayor Heidi Davison says a University of Georgia-sponsored trip to Mexico has given her new empathy for Hispanic immigrants and a desire to lobby state and federal official to relax some immigration policies.

Davison, along with about 15 other Georgia local officials from areas with large or growing Hispanic populations, spent two weeks in and around Monterrey and Veracruz.

After seeing impoverished villages where nearly all the men are gone working in the United States, Davison said she came to the conclusion that "they are seeking a better life for their families, and specifically for their children. That's a natural human desire."

Elected officials and UGA professors met with Mexican government officials and toured small towns and rural villages last month to better understand why thousands of Mexicans come to Georgia each year.

"We came away with some pretty good ideas," said Gordon Maner, a public service assistant at UGA's Carl Vinson Institute of Government, who helped organized the trip.

Davison said she will work to ease restrictions on employing immigrants, and fight proposed state laws taking benefits away from undocumented aliens.

The Athens economy appears too dependent on the 6,000 to 12,000 Hispanic immigrants in Clarke County to bear such restrictions, she said.

Employment rules are complicated, but federal law generally requires that employers pay alien workers a wage on par with U.S. citizens, and the employer must often pay fees to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, which Davison said can encourage employment of undocumented aliens who can be paid less under the table while avoiding the fees.

She said she will lobby Congress to expand the guest worker program, and wants to study in greater detail the impact of immigrants on the local economy.

Many Hispanic immigrants in Athens work in the poultry and landscaping industries, but reliable statistics are few and far between on state and national levels, let alone for local economies.

While the federal government controls who gets into the country, the state decides who gets what benefits, like driver's licenses, education, welfare and subsidized health insurance.

Several bills in the state legislature would take many of those benefits away from undocumented aliens, an idea Davison said she opposes.

"I don't think we should shut those services off," she said. "We need to continue to provide those services."

___

HASH(0x1cdc358)

[AliBA]

Maybe the mayor should take such trips to a few more countries, many of them more impoverished than Mexico, and see just how many BILLIONS would love to come here, if only for economic opportunity. Just how would she plan to accommodate all of THEM?! How would she plan to accommodate the 20 percent of Mexico's population that's willing to come here illegally (in addition to the 10 percent of its workforce that's already here)? The majority of Mexicans would also love to immigrate here, according to a recent poll by the Pew Hispanic Center. Where does she think the money will come from to support the social services all of them would need? The jobs, at decent wages, for ANYONE? And just why should Hispanics be given priority--which, in fact, they already have. Mexico is the single country sending the most LEGAL immigrants to the U.S., and has been for almost 20 years. Latin Americans account for almost half of all legal immigration. Why should these countries have a lock on immigration? And why should illegal immigration from these countries be ignored and even rewarded, while legal immigrants from other countries wait patiently to come here?

[ImmortalE]

With all the demagoguery and sophistry about "BILLIONS MORE TO COME" put aside, what do you think can be done about 12 mln. Illegal Immigrants already present in US, some with immediate relationship to US Citizens and LPR's?

Bear in mind that 12 mln will not be deported.
Only lunatics beleive that it can/will be done.

I Am curious to hear a constructive proposals how to deal with facts/problems, realistic ones, not ones born in fantasy world.


God bless you ALL!

[AliBA]

If we're going to talk about demagoguery and sophistry, then how about "baby waving"? Why is having a US citizen relative--spouse,an anchor baby, etc.-- supposed to guarantee one a free pass on observing our laws? I guess that means if someone doesn't have a US citizen relative, you think they should be deported.

If we're going to talk about demagoguery and sophistry, then we have a prime example in this article: Poor, poor Mexicans, so poor that they deserve special treatment in our immigration enforcement. This article makes it sound like Mexico is the only poor country in the world, when it's not even one of the poorest. Actually, it's in the top third with respect to GDP. Its problem is mainly a government which won't collect the taxes owed it, and provide services to care for and educate its population. Also, roughly half of all illegals are visa overstays, and hardly the downtrodden of the earth. In order to even get nonimmigrant visas to the US, they have to prove they have the financial and family ties to their homelands so that they'll return--which makes them among the better off in their homelands.

You want reasonable solutions? 12 million don't have to be deported. Apply sanctions to employers to dry up jobs, and let them leave of their own volition. Doing so would also remove the attraction for more to come.

What definitely won't work--what has been proven not to work--is amnesty or "guest worker" programs. Or providing social services that enable illegal aliens to live here comfortably. We've tried that and it only encourages illegal immigration. Those illegals who have US born kids will just have to wait until those kids can sponsor them--if they don't leave first.

Of course, Congress apparently is starting to take a good hard look at changing birthright citizenship, which would take care of that problem for future illegals.

[ImmortalE]

Aliba,

First,
I didn't ask "Why is having a US citizen relative--an anchor baby-- supposed to guarantee one a free pass on observing our laws?"

Second,
I envision that there will be very strict border control and funds allocated to enforce it in years to come, so I dismiss a rhetoric of "BILLIONS MORE TO COME" as a mere sophistry.

The question I ask is: what is to be done about 12 mln.?

The fact is they will not be deported.

It is foolish to imagine that 12 mln. will pack their bags and self-deport themselves in responce to employer sanctions.
It's not going to happen.
At least those who risked their lives to come here from Mexico won't voluntarily go back in absence of possibility that they can soon return to States, no matter what sanctions placed on whom.
It must have been worse than death for them in Mexico to cross the desert at the cost of risking their lives in the first place.
Only fools don't understand this.

Finally, what REALISTICALLY (not in fantasy world, where those LPR's and USC's "happily & voluntarily" leave to starve to death in Mexico or else), so what REALISTICALLY can be expected of those who have their USC children and LPR wives here?
Who thinks THEY will self-deport??


Thus, the question still remains: what to be done about these 12 mln. people already here, since they will not be deported or leave anyway?

[AliBA]

You're talking as if ALL illegal aliens are Mexican, another form of sophistry.

Roughly half of all illegal aliens came here very comfortably on airplanes or legally through Canada. They're visa overstays.

If employer sanctions don't work to remove those who entered illegally, THEN we can start deportations. Actually, you don't have to deport everyone, just enough that everyone wonders if it's going to be me next. Look what happened when the Border Patrol's picked people up in raids--scares illegal aliens to death, and these are just infrequent actions targeting criminal illegals. When they did special registration for men from terrorist countries, literally thousands of Pakistanis headed to Canada or elsewhere.

When the illegals came here, they didn't have much to lose. But what is someone who's got a bank account, bought a house, or built a business going to do if he faces deportation? Is he going to wait to be deported? Risk confiscation or heavy fines ($500 a day fines are on the books, and haven't been used, but possibly could be).

[AliBA]

Now, I'll ask you a question. Just what would YOU do with illegal aliens that wouldn't encourage more to come here? You think stricter border controls are enough to stop people from lying to get visas and overstaying? Border controls, even walls, may discourage, but aren't anywhere near 100 percent effective. And why should we trust government to give an amnesty, then enforce the law with these controls, when they didn't last time? Makes far better sense to enforce laws without an amnesty, especially since the mere talk of a guest worker program or amnesty encourages more to come here illegally in hope of getting in on it.

Amnesties and guest worker programs have been proven not to work. You come up with something.

[ImmortalE]

[quote:Aliba]You're talking as if ALL illegal aliens are Mexican, another form of sophistry.
[/quote]

Nope!
I never said such thing. Why are you distorting what I have just wrote?

Everyone can clearly see what I actually wrote:
[quote:ImmortalE]"At least those who risked their lives to come here from Mexico.."[/quote]

Where did you see me writing "ALL illegal aliens are Mexican"?
Please answer.


Next:
I don't think Illegals are more AFRAID of being deported than any driver of getting into bad accident in rainy night on a highway, with poor visibility of road.
As a matter of human nature, you can frighten someone only once, but gradually they get used to idea that "FATE WILL DECIDE ALL", and they simply resign to it, but they have no intentions to advance your agenda, wich is to permanently remove them all.
Just as most drivers under adverse driving conditions won't stop driving nor would they voluntarily steer the car towards the concrete wall.

Again, certain individual illegal immigrants may very well meet your expectations, especially those coming from "softer, comfortable, formerly middle class" backgrounds in Eastern Europe or else, but in no way a man who saw starvation, ruthless government and desperation of the kind that exists in Mexico will be frightened by those sanctionsd that you are talking about: he will simply laugh it off as foolish child games compared to what he had to face back home.


I do not think you have a clear picture of how complex the problem of Illegal Immigration is.
Thus your suggestions are too far from having a prospect of sustaining the ultimate test of reality.

May God bless you!

[ImmortalE]

Aliba:

I've read your questions.

I will try to answer them, though at some later time.

[ImmortalE]

Aliba,

you ask me how to implement the Reform (kind that would include the Amnesty for Illegal aliens already present in US), and how, at the same time, avoid having this problem to mushroom as it did in post-86 era.


First, let me share my conviction that the latest huge influx of immigrants was not primarily caused by 86-Amnesty, but was due to changes that happened in the world after 1989 collapse of Soviet Union.

But why so many Latin American Illegals who flood our streets, what USSR had to do with it?, one may ask, but
if you know basic economics, you must know that the collapse of a big and powerful State(such as USSR once was) had a great effect on the economies and politics of all countries that once had close relationships with it.

But Mexico isn't Cuba, didn't not have very close ties with USSR,how about that? one may ask now.
Yes, but if you look closer you see: after the collapse of the Communist USSR the great threat of "Red Revolutions" in Latin America decreased significantly, thus governments such as Mexican, for example, felt much more secure.

But, unfortunately, they used such security for wrong purposes : namely, they totally stopped caring about their destitute poor , reasoning that now , in absence of Soviet Union, their people alone no longer could pose a serious threat of "Red Guerilla Coup", like ones that previously happened in Chile, Nikaragua, El Salvador or Cuba ..


USSR was a VERY BAD State, no doubt. It was an "Evil Empire", as President R. Reagan once put it.
It was totally corrupted and ineffective in many ways . People(such as M. Gorbachev) who caused its' dissolution had in mind to reform it and make it a better place to live .

Yet, unfortunately, when it collapsed, its' collapce had enormously negative effects for the economies of all third world countries ( as I mentioned above, basic economics explains how this happens. Plus political consequences, as I noted, which is always interconnected).

Apparently , Mikhail Gorbachev
did only first part of the job that had to be done ,sooner or later(dismantlig of USSR and ending Cold War), YET he had absolutely no plans or strategy for the second part: how to build a better State on the ruins of old, without causing a great economic collapse in large scale.


Thus, although today most of the illegal immigrants come to the United States from Latin America, yet the underlying cause for global mass migration in post 1989 era had its' roots in the collapse of USSR.

Therefore one shouldn't blame high waves of illegal immigration only on "encouragement caused by 86-Amnesty reform".



Next,
as I undrestand your question in the context you put it mean that regardless of what happens in the future, what would I suggest to do, to protect the borders of this country (especially how to protect the US of poteintial visa cheats who will again abuse the system), and you are conserned that AMNESTY of any kind simply encourages more to come, no matter what.


I think you have a good question.
But one that has to be addressed by Federal Government, law enforcement agencies and policy makers, and very seriously.

My humble take on this is such (and I don't pretend to have better answer that people in charge of it should):

1. In any case protecting the border and tracking FUTURE tourists seem to be much easier task than deporting bulk of 12 mln. who already made it here.

2. Border should be protected by military, if everything else fails. This is not an arbitrary choice, but nesessity. I belive the cost of maintaining military there would be lower, than Nations inability to protect its' own border.
I also beleive that US have very capable military and CIS has very long way to go to catch up with military efficiency and ability.

3. Technology today is much better advanced than it was, say, 20 years ago.

Have Aliens who visit for more than a month to register when they come(not just in international airport, but in place where they stay after arrival), and every months or two get an update of their whereabouts.
Should a tourist "disappear", put his name in some kind of a "RED LIST".
Though you can't have a 100% visa-cheat-proof system, yet there are many ways to increase the efficiency of monitoring those who will be coming to US in the future.
This will not harm those who complie with terms of visa, but will make it easier to locate "dissapeared" ones, than it is today.
(Like a Special Registration that was in place for temp. entrants of Middle Eastern origin. Only now make it universal, for ALL, and without long waiting lines, just a casual visit to local USCIS with a big friendly smile, quick thumb print, signature and "Have a nice day, sir!"
And don't wonder why I suggest such measure: you just asked me HOW TO MAXIMALLY PREVENT FUTURE OVERSTAYS?).

3. Once Amnesty for current Illegal Aliens enacted, make an amendment that would prohibit such law from being passed in at least the next 50-60 years, no matter what.
I don't think that so called AMNESTY seekers would come here for the purpose of waiting 50-60 years for GC.

This being said, I don't believe that most illegals come here encouraged by AMNESTY.
They come here mostly because their living conditions at home are unbearable, and they come to US for sake of survival, Amnesty or no Amnesty.
But, just to plug another hole, I would suggest
making such an amendment to law prohibiting Amnesty for at least the next 50-60 years, while focusing all attention to protection of borders.

4. Have a budget that could take care of the detention and speedy deportation of anyone who makes past border (suppose, with effective border control, numbers of EWI's will be low enough for taxpayers to handle);
Also, have enough jail-beds and funds to catch and deport visa violators, so you could have a fast responce team, can use a local Police, that could quickly apprehend and transfer to CIS those so called "visa-cheats" for expeditious deportation.

Now, where to get money for that, you ask?
I will suggest you one solution: suppose it costs $5000-$6000 to apprehend a tourist, keep in jail few days and buy him a ticked and put him in airplane.
So, you do the following: since everyone who comes to US must prove that they have enough assets to support themselves and return, have every tourist, any temporary entrant coming from "high rate no return countries" deposit $5000-$6000 in the Embassy, in a type of esquire account, before getting a VISA - on the condition that they would get the money back when they return back home.
Or else their money will be used against them, to catch and deport them, and they will see no dime of it.
Plus, charge $300 for VISA, no refunds.
Call it a "Fee For Compliance With Law", or whatever you like.

Bear in mind:
Since the rate of those who comply with US VISA regulations far exceeds the number of "cheats", even if you charge a nonrefundable fee of $300 per tourist, you will have a sizeable reserve of
money, on top of $5000 deposit, to make sure that your apprehension and deportation costs are covered.

I absolutely beleive that $300 fee, although not a pleasant one, will be paid by those willing to visit US, though they will complain a lot. But gradually everyone will get used to it.

As far as taking a good faith deposit of $5-6000, those who don't have assets/funds to put it in esquire account shouldn't be allowed to come per "inability to show sufficient assets on top of travel costs".
In another words, a "bad risk" tourist shouldn't be allowed to come anyway.
And if some fool, having cash assets and all, is still stupid enough to loose $5-6000 to come here illegally, well, then have him also suffer from knowing that all he did was to finance his own deportation/governments enforcement of law against him.
While, at the same time, not burdening your own budget for those purposes.

5. Finally, not least importantly: STREAMLINE AND MAKE LEGAL IMMIGRATION WORK!!!
Without 20 year processing delays!!!
Same with immediate family reunifications!!!



I could suggest some other preventive measures,
but to make it very simple:

1. For BORDER protection, if ALL FAILS, HAVE MILITARY TO PROTECT IT.

2. For VISA cheats, have them to prepay their own deportation.

Thus you would first have money to locate and deport them, before having to spend it; plus, there would be a greater incentive for potential visa cheats not to overstay, because they would in fact loose their deposit, plus they would already be paying for their own apprehension/deportation and so on.

And, it is not even against the spirit of law: after all, we want people to show they have enough assets to convince us they won't stay here.
Why not have them to put part of their assets, as a deposit in good faith, for a proof of intentions?

3. Streamline LEGAL immigration (No more 20 year waiting periods!!!)


These are my humble suggestions for prevention of FUTURE overstays and EWI's.

God Bless You!

[wooddell6]

i understand your intentions in your plan, however, it also has many flaws. the main one that i see is- A tourist needs 5-6 thousand dollars to put in a secure esquire account. on top of that, 300 dollars for a visa, on top of that, money that they will need while they are here. unless you are rich, many people simply dont have that kind of money. As someone 12 says, yes many people are "visa cheats", but there are many people that just want to come and visit. just as we like to visit other countries. in my opinion, and its only my opinion, i think that we would lose alot of tourists. The US has alot of attractions and landmarks that rely on tourists to keep them going.i honestly dont have a solution for the immigration problem, but i must agree that the amnesty does not seem to be the solution. there are illegals here who have no intentions of obeying our laws. how would you weed out the wrong-doers from the good-doers when handing out green cards. If everyone had the same intentions as my husband and others that i know, then fine. but i have heard of many that come here and find ways to cheat our welfare system, sell drugs and commit other crimes. i do have an idea though. instead of arguing on this side, why dont the opposing sides and pro-immigration sides get together and come up with a plan. Something that would be fair to both sides. then present it to congress lol. no matter what, i still dont think that we could ever elliminate all illegals.

[ImmortalE]

wooddell6,
my intention was to answer ALIBA's question on what would I do to minimize future illegal immigration, while dealing with those curently present here.

I made clear that it is a function and duty of Federal Government, Law Enforcement Agencies and Policy Makers in Washington to come up with best solution for future prevention of illegal immigrant influx; and that I don't pretend to know better than FEDs what resourses, manpower and technology is available to prevent the flow of illegal immigration in future.

But one thing I know for sure:

US Government will NOT deport 12 mln. people already present here.
It won't happen. May be 2 mln, may be 3 mln or may be 4 mln but NEVER 12 MLN.

So, what to be done with those whom Federal Government has no plans, intentions,resourses, will and etc. to deport?

It's either AMNESTY (no matter how you call any kind of legalization program), OR, since the the Fed. Govenmt doesn't/won't deport them all, it means we will eternally have a huge, miserable illegal immigrant population in US on one side and angry, wrathful immigrant bashers boiling with hatred towards them on the other side.
And this is not healthy..


Unfortunately, all we see so far is the REACTION to the problem and NOT CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION.
Result being "Status Quo", with constantly swelling numbers of illegal population, despite all the rhetoric about the need to achieve the opposite..

May God Bless You and Your Husband!

Good Luck, wooddell6!


_____________________________________


SOURCE: http://www.shaunkenney.com/2005/11/
two-cents-on-illegal-immigration.htm


Two Cents on Illegal Immigration,
by Shaun Kenney

I've been reading with interest the conversation over at Bacon's Rebellion regarding Jim's post on illegal immigration. Agreed, most of the response thus far to Jim's thoughtful invitation to debate and discussion has been both political and irrational.

This having been said, I am going to offer a conservative response to why Speaker Howell's proposed initiative to combat illegal immigration is counterproductive, not to mention that it shows some very disconcerting flaws.

For starters, we have to ask the question whether or not we are truly acting, or whether we are simply reacting towards a problem. Illegal immigration is nothing that the Commonwealth of Virginia can tackle on it's own. The problem of illegal immigration is correctly framed as a federal problem. Unless Virginia intends to put up fences and post guards along our own borders, we have no choice but to deal with the problem constructively.

This begs yet another question. Will these policies of shooing out illegal immigrants of workhouses, denying them in-state tuition, sanctioning businesses who hire illegal immigrants, etc. cure the problem? Or are we yet again treating the symptoms? By imposing these regulations, we fail to ask the immortal question: Quo vadis?

What then will Virginia's illegal immigrants do? Will they work? Will they stay at home? How will they earn a living? Even if Virginia were to actively enforce the plank of Speaker Howell's initiative where state police could detain and remove illegal immigrants charged with a crime (loitering?), where will they go? When will they come back?

We can all see where this leads. Virginia, much like Arizona or Texas, will embark on a plan that is tantamount to a revolving door policy.

But let's stop for just a moment and reflect on what we're really saying here. Check off the arguments Howell makes against illegal immigrants. Why should we shoo them off? Why, the reason they must go is because (apart from the fact they are illegally here, a federal problem) they impose upon our social safety net! As Jim Bacon comments :

[I]llegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they're real.

Do we hear that? Republicans. Arguing that people should be shooed off because they are adversely impacting our socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.

Does anyone else see the problem here?

Let's be brutally honest. The reason why these programs are failing isn't because of the impact of illegal immigration. They're failing because they are traditionally societal roles that are being hijacked by a government bent on stressing socialism rather than individualism.

To fork over the failure of these institutions upon a convenient class of people isn't exactly what I would call just, though it certainly is a predictable repetition of history with respects to human nature.

Setting aside the contradiction conservatives offer defending liberally-imposed social agendas, what we have here is an appeal to that old American fear of "the other". That when something doesn't go well, we find some group of people to blame. At first it was the British, then the French, then Indians, next the Irish, extending to Catholics, then to Slavs, then to African-Americans, and currently with anyone of Arab descent. History does indeed repeat.

Now in an age where our open borders and socialized government system have been under threat, we are presented with illegal immigration. And it's not a stretch to say that when people speak of "illegal immigration," it's shorthand for Latin Americans crossing the Mexican border, and not grandma from the Ukraine stuffed into a duffle bag on the next Delta flight.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. Conservativism in my mind (and a slight deviation from the definition Ken Cuccinelli gave this morning) operates on the principles of free markets, free people, and a free society. That comes with a price tag, starting with the rules necessary to make socieities free.

If the concerns from the Howell bench stem from the impact illegal aliens have on our social programs, then what precisely is the problem then? As a conservative, I might suggest that the problem isn't so much the presence of illegal immigrants per se, but rather the presence of government, a presence conservatives are supposed to be fighting against.

Seeing this, let's argue in hypotheticals. If the social programs these illegal aliens are supposedly straining to the breaking point ceased to exist tomorrow, would the opposition be so strong?

Now one might argue yes, and I'll offer two generalized scenarios:

(1) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are here in the United States illegally.

Then remove them, as is the federal governments responsibility to do so.

(2) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are filthy Mexicans.

Then I say you're a racist, and deserve to be beaten to a **** pulp.

So the argument boils down accordingly. The argument against illegal immigration is either (1) a decision policy makers in Washington - not Richmond - need to develop and enforce, or (2) one motivated purely on the fear of "the other" and based on race. Propping up decaying social programs and using illegal immigrants as the scapegoat is only making a bad situation terribly worse.

Yes, those who want to come and be American citizens should go through the process as law-abiding citizens, and no, I am not arguing for amnesty for illegal immigrants or condoning the practice. But the market has provided a makeshift solution that should not be ignored.

Local and state governments are doing what they can to help, but private solutions (businesses hiring undocumented workers, workhouses offering employment to otherwise idle and listless workers, opportunities for bettering one's station through education) are already being implemented.

Society adapted to fix problems imposed upon us by the federal government's ineptitude. Fixing federal problems at the state level is like swirling a stick in the a muddy stream and expecting the water to clear up. It doesn't work that way.

What's the alternative if the federal government will not exercise it's responsibility? I don't have that answer. But I do know that "cracking down" on illegal immigrants, as a state issue, is either poorly though out or diabolically motivated by racist hate.

Which one it might be, I'll allow the gentle reader to decide. But let us not confuse reaction to a problem with true and constructive action.

[ImmortalE]

d.post/del.

[wooddell6]

i agree immortal. all the government can do, is try and minimize the amount of illegals that are here, and secure the borders. An amnesty would be great for my husband and others that respect the US. but i am afraid of the ones that do not have good intentions. there has to be a solution that is appealing to both sides of the arguement. i wish that i had a good idea, but i dont. illegal bashing doesnt do any good.