All of those considerations mean a lot of money.  How much do you like taxes?  Because those programs and facilities would need to be paid for. 

And how would you handle the massive displacement this would create in the U.S. workforce.  All of those jobs that illegal immigrants do would be vacant, are their enough legal U.S. residents to fill that vacuum in a very short period of time so as not severely impact the economy?

And last of all, to keep them from entering again illegally, what programs do you propose? 

I don't think Democrats are hell bent on supporting illegal immigration.  There are simply different ideas on how best to handle that problem.  The point of my questions are really to get you to appreciate the scope of the problem you bring up as well as elicit your ideas on how to solve it.  I think you would need to provide more clarity on what your solution is to really make a case that Democrats are hell bent against it.

How about a bill that imposes stiff fines on employers, and the money goes to animal shelters ;-)

Or better, the money goes towards disabled war veterans.  Call it the Disabled Veterans Protection Act.  Just who could vote against that?

I'm finally starting to figure out how Washington works ;-)

why can't we take that money ang give people who pay taxes a tax break

You want to stem the flow, stop the demand for illegal laborers.  You say we are a nation of laws and these are lawbreakers.  Well, employers who hire illegal immigrants are lawbreakers as well.  Why do you want reward their criminal behavior?

And i think that LAW BREAKERS Weather it be illegals or those who employee illegal aliens they should both  be punished...

you my friend seem to want to slam business people... you don't seem to understand it's hard work running a business... most folks don't have time to do the do dilgences... because they don't have the resources...

while if Hormel or Tyson's chichken is doing it they should be shut down and slapped hard.  Not Joe's construction...

They should get a stern warning... small business is the back bone of the American Economy.... NFIB...

PS  You want to let smaller businesses and presumably regular citizens off the hook?  But the fact is, most illegal aliens are hired by smaller businesses and regular citizens.  So much for cracking down on illegal immigration!

"But does no good when illegal aliens are aided and abeded by groups like Laraza, Casa De Maryland, Mexicans without Borders ... in obtaining illegal social security numbers."

DO you have any evidence whatsoever to back up a claim like that? Good lord that is the most irresponsible thing I've ever seen.

What a bizarre question.  Of course Democrats aren't "hell bent on support lawbreakers."  What, is that the latest line from Rush and Bill O'LIElly?

"this isn't an Immigration issue it's a right and wrong issue."
Immigration isn't an immigration issue?  Huh?  Of course it's about what is right and wrong, but there are a lot of rights and wrongs involved here.  For instance, is it right for corporations to hire and exploit undocumented immigrants?  Is it right for us to enter into "free trade" agreements that force people off their farms in Latin America and northwards to find jobs?  Is it right for American consumers to benefit every day from the low prices on produce and other items that cheap "illegal" labor brings?  Is it right to compare illegal immigrants to child molesters, as one local anti-immigrant leader did this week?  Is it right to "welcome the stranger," as Jesus said to do?  Is it right to deport millions of people, many of whom have put down roots here, and to severely harm the U.S. economy in the process? 

The point is that this issue is extremely complex, not one that can be boiled down to a simplistic "right and wrong" question.  We need to deal here with economics, politics, social issues, fairness, morality, and much more.  Of course, the anti-immigrant side wants to boil it down to "what part of illegal don't you understand," I get that.  But repeating that ad nauseum doesn't make the issue any less complex, and certainly doesn't make it about something other than national immigration policy (or lack thereof).

In separate interviews, however, county residents tended to express more nuanced and ambivalent opinions. Some suggested that both the resolution and the boycott were excessively harsh cudgels to wield in the county's battles over immigration.

Good for Prince William county residents!

Yes, I think corporation should be punished for hiring illegal but would be nice if the government would seal the border.

"Fences make for good neighbors" build the Great Fence of America...

But this is my solution we can call it Path to Americanization.

1)  They would never be aloud to become American Citizens and they wouldn't be able to for three Generations. 

2) They can never take part in political demonstrations of any type.

3) They can never vote until generation 3.

4) They have to pay the highest possible tax rate; they would not be eligible for any type of tax breaks or deductions.

5)  They would have to repay all costs associated with them while they have been illegal that means they must pay $3000 the money per each kid to schools.  All hospital bills.

6)  They must dismantle all lobbying arms like Laraza, Casa de Maryland, and Mexicans without border, Asland and others.

7) They never get social security or Medicare

8)  They can never join a labor union or organization that resembles a lobbying group.

Some may think this is harsh and some may elect to go back on their own.  This may make some illegal aliens uncomfortable, well that the price they have to pay for Amnesty.

Also this would eliminate the exploitation of these people by businesses that hire illegal under the table and treat them as slavery.  I thought we ended slavery with President Lincoln.  We are a magnanimous and great society lets not go back to slavery under a new name.  We need to slam the door shut on illegal aliens, Not IMAGRANTS?.

Weather they come from Canada, Germany, Russia or Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, or Japan, China India doesn't matter its ILLEGAL to break and enter the United States. 

This is my solution.

I am not the only Dem who is against illegal immagration.  Sen. Webb voted against the Amnesty bill as did many other good Ds... I hardly think you can put Sen. Jim Webb on the far far right...

I think Jim would agree with my plan.

But, of course, that's WAY too simple.

Do you also support the North American Union and the Amero?

As far as a fence, how will that keep people out?  They can just tunnel under the border.  Or they could just take a sea route.  To "seal" the border would require an extraordinary amount of money and hinder the massive flow of trade between the U.S. and the rest of the world, most notably our largest trading partners (Canada and Mexico).  Where are you going to find all the labor to patrol every  mile of border and every mile of coastline?  Granted you can have technology to aid in detection, but you need people to enforce.

Your path to citizenship, as I am sure you realize, is not a path at all.  You say: "I thought we ended slavery with President Lincoln."  And we also ended segregation in the 60s.  Your proposal would create an underclass of people lasting several generations.  As to your bans on organization, the first amendment protects that right. 

I also don't see how this would stop exploitation.  The only difference would be the government would be involved in the exploitation too: denying rights and creating large financial burdens (akin to how landlords treated tenet farmers).  How would that prevent employers from doing the same?  Your ban on organization and a political voice guarantees that employers have maximum power in employee-employer relations.  Do you think they will restrain themselves?  This would put an average worker at a huge disadvantage.  Why would I hire a citizen, when I can hire this now legal underclass?  This legal underclass cannot in any meaningful way challenge my authority as employer and the government debts they own ensure that they cannot just up and leave.  You would then have employers lining up to help import this type of labor.

American labor built this nation.  You want to take a dump on unions - on Labor Day Weekend no less?

WTF!!!

Why in the FUC$@#$@ hell would you prevent people from joining a union as a condition to become American?

After reading the last bullet points - can't become Americans until after Generation 3!!! WTF!!!  So all the 2nd gen kids BORN IN THE USA would be denied the right to vote!!!

Dude, I want an end to illegal immigration and illegal employment practices as much as anyone - I'm probably a bit more of a hardliner than most people on this blog when it comes to this.  But you are out to lunch here.  Your ideas are just not American values.

I hope you were kidding.

And yes G3... it's the price they have to pay to become Americans and if this makes them uncomfortable well... so be it...

Felons can't get good jobs once they are out of jail... breaking and entering the US is a crime.

WHY DOES EVERYONE want to turn the debate on illegal Aliens into an Immigration issue?  Immigration isn't the problem... it's the illegal Immigration that is... in this post 9-11 world we cannot have suck a lax attitude towards illegal Aliens.

Remember 3 of the Ft. Dix 6 came across the US Mexico border. 

Again we are a nation of laws... we aren't a lawless society.

ALSO forgot UNIONS are currupt and need to be busted up  only good union is a defunked one  we are a right to work state after all...
.
.
.
just kidding...

I agree that illegal immigration is a problem.  But the solution isn't to deny citizens their votes.  The solution isn't to deny people their right to organize at their workplace.  And the solution should consider the human side of the equation. 

I think it would be morally wrong to deport people when our government turned a blind eye to this for generations.  Their lack of enforcement was defacto support.  The real villains here are the government and corporations who knowingly break the laws.

Yet, our government must solve this problem.  Entering into our nation without permission is not acceptable.  The government should start sending a clear message to employers and foreigners keen on immigrating here that the only path is a legal path.

The best way to do that is to crack down on the source of demand: employers.  There is absolutely no cause for depriving people born in this country or naturalized citizens of their rights.

Hasn't it been the flood of below-market labor, much of it illegal aliens, which has devastated labor unions over the last 25 years?  Yet, here is the AFL-CIO trying to stop the government from doing anything about it. It's like the AFL-CIO is filing lawsuits to protect scabs.  What's the motivation here?  Are they figuring that all the illegal aliens will eventually become citizens anyway, and union members?

Of course, when someone gets a job with forged papers, including a phoney or stolen SSN, the employer still has to send the social security tax withholdings into the government.  The Social Security Administration then of course knows which numbers are false and which numbers are being used by multiple workers.  Thus the government knows which employers are hiring lots of illegals, and where they are.  Yet, they wring their hands and say that there is nothing that can be done. 

Take a look at this Social Security "No-Match" Tool-kit that had been posted on an immigration advocacy website:
http://tinyurl.com/y...

I guess they took it down, but it is available through Google cache. All this help for people committing offenses which the U.S. Supreme Court characterized as criminal fraud.

I can't figure it out.

Key passage:

"In 1986, two years after Sure-Tan, Congress enacted IRCA, a comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States. §101(a)(1), 100 Stat. 3360, 8 U. S. C. §1324a. As we have previously noted, IRCA "forcefully" made combating the employment of illegal aliens central to "[t]he policy of immigration law." INS v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U. S. 183, 194, and n. 8 (1991). It did so by establishing an extensive "employment verification system," §1324a(a)(1), designed to deny employment to aliens who (a) are not lawfully present in the United States, or (b) are not lawfully authorized to work in the United States, §1324a(h)(3).3 This verification system is critical to the IRCA regime. To enforce it, IRCA mandates that employers verify the iden-tity and eligibility of all new hires by examining specified documents before they begin work. §1324a(b). If an alien applicant is unable to present the required documentation, the unauthorized alien cannot be hired. §1324a(a)(1).

"Similarly, if an employer unknowingly hires an un-authorized alien, or if the alien becomes unauthorized while employed, the employer is compelled to discharge the worker upon discovery of the worker's undocumented status. §1324a(a)(2). Employers who violate IRCA are punished by civil fines, §1324a(e)(4)(A), and may be sub-ject to criminal prosecution, §1324a(f)(1). IRCA also makes it a crime for an unauthorized alien to subvert the employer verification system by tendering fraudulent documents. §1324c(a). It thus prohibits aliens from using or attempting to use "any forged, counterfeit, altered, or falsely made document" or "any document lawfully issued to or with respect to a person other than the possessor" for purposes of obtaining employment in the United States. §§1324c(a)(1)-(3). Aliens who use or attempt to use such documents are subject to fines and criminal prosecution. 18 U. S. C. §1546(b). There is no dispute that Castro's use of false documents to obtain employment with Hoffman violated these provisions.

"Under the IRCA regime, it is impossible for an undocu-mented alien to obtain employment in the United States without some party directly contravening explicit congres-sional policies. Either the undocumented alien tenders fraudulent identification, which subverts the cornerstone of IRCA's enforcement mechanism, or the employer know-ingly hires the undocumented alien in direct contradiction of its IRCA obligations. The Board asks that we overlook this fact and allow it to award backpay to an illegal alien for years of work not performed, for wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and for a job obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud."

"This rule is a new tool to repress workers' rights in the name of phony immigration enforcement," said John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO.  "Employers have used SSA "no-match" letters to fire workers when workers try to organize, when they report a wage claim or workplace hazard, or when they get injured.  The new rule gives employers a stronger pretext for engaging in such unlawful conduct."

Has it come to the point now where workplace enforcement of the immigration laws is tantamount to union busting, because the unions are full of workers with questionable documentation?  Or is Sweeny just saying that an employer could easily engineer a no-match letter situation to fire anybody who is deemed a trouble maker (ie union organizer)?  Or is the database of social security numbers so unreliable now, after 20 years of rampant forgery, that anyone's documentation could legitimately be challenged?

I wasn't speaking to your assertion that no one is talking about stopping legal immigration.  Nor did I mean to imply that Tom Tancredo is.  Though he certainly is not in favor of more legal immigration.

Thanks for agreeing...

That's right, if you support Tancredo...you're supporting a racist. Get a clue.

For example, technically every time a person drives 1 mph over the speed limit he or she is engaging in illegal activity.  As a matter of common sense there's a reason why we don't generally beat down on law enforcement for not strictly enforcing speed limit violation that are 1 mph over the limit.  The costs of enforcement would not provide a corresponding benefit.  Nations don't fall apart when people drive 1 or 2 miles over the speed limit.

For the same reasons immigration violations have traditionally been viewed as a civil, not criminal violation.  There's a reason that strict immigration laws weren't written into the Constitution -- in large part because what made a person "legal" was whether he or she could actually get to the U.S.  In fact I know of at least one first generation immigrant who actually participated in the writing of the Constitution.  The only restrictions concerning civil rights were in reference to the presidency.  There never has been a Constitutionally amended immigration quota system.

When you say the Democrats support "illegal" behavior.  Let's be clear about exactly what those violations are -- they are civil violations.  Not criminal.  Not Constitutional.

On the other hand, why is it that Republicans tolerate and apologize for Constitutional violations by this administration? 

Once Republicans stop aiding and abetting Constitutional and criminal violations made by their leadership, we can start talking more serious about the GOPs stance on enforcement of civil law. 

And yes -- race is definitely an issue.  It always has been a part of the immigration quota system -- going back to the 1850s when New Yorkers fought against the wave of Irish immigration into the country; or in the 1880s when Californians went after the Chinese; or at the turn of the century when midwesterners and northeasterners went after waves of Italian and Eastern European immigrants. 

Now maybe you are being honest about the wave of Canadian immigrants.  Maybe not, I can't say.  What I do know is that there's a reason that white supremacist groups have latched onto this issue since the 1980s and 1990s.  There's big money to be made in flaming racial prejudices with stupid formulations like -- "if someone breaks our immigration law they will necessarily be more likely to break ALL our laws."  That's just a load of b.s.  There is illegal behavior, and then there is ILLEGAL behavior.

Leaving behind ones family and undergoing great risk to find a better life is quite different than killing for profit.  And yes, there are a lot of voters who are still too stupid to recognize that difference. 

What is your authority for this statement?  Above I quoted a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision summarizing the relevant federal law, saying that it is criminal fraud.  So how do you reach your conclusion?

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

  (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
  Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
  (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
  (c) Marriage fraud
  Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
  (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

The case law that you cite above relates to employment violations.  I would agree that these violations can have a criminal dimension.  There are other aspects of the code violation that can result in criminal sanctions.

I wouldn't say that this is an area of settled law.

A timely article on the subject:
http://sfgate.com/cg...

I would point out that when this criminal dimension comes into play it is not the equivalent of murder, rape, etc as O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and others suggests.  There is illegal behavior and the there is ILLEGAL behavior.

Many of these workers commit a criminal fraud when they obtain social security card numbers. 

However, even if they never get caught for criminal violations they still pay about $7 billion a year into our social security system -- for which they are unlikely to have be able to pull out funds
(source: http://www.nytimes.c...)

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

That's a very different kind of fraud.  Most people don't commit a fraud for the opportunity to pay taxes for which they will never see a benefit. 

Otherwise, I'm mostly in agreement with you.  It isn't a crime against the person, like murder, robbery, rape, etc. 

And I agree that the illegal immigrants are paying a huge amount of money in under false social security numbers.  And that's one reason why the government has been dragging its feet in taking any enforcement action based on incidences of no-match letters.  The government wants that money.  It needs that money.  It has to be worried that enforcement will create a larger "underground economy" which isn't even taxed at all. 

In my view there are some intergenerational transfers that are ongoing which I don't think are either right or moral.  The government is transferring a huge debt load to our children and grandchildren for starters (but that's a different subject).  Second, by negligently on purpose losing control over immigration, in order to get lots of cheap nonunion labor, the government is transferring a some of the value of being an American citizen away from our children and grandchildren. 

In terms of the legal penalties, I think I should revise my statement along the lines that you've outlined.  My point is that the equivalence that people suggest when they say that illegal immigration is "illegal" behavior conflates degrees of illegality.  I think it's an overstatement when people say that "they have no respect for our laws".  Well, I think many illegal immigrants might have let economic interests trump concerns for our naturalization process; but I don't think that most illegal immigrants pose a threat to the safety and welfare of most citizens.  Most are here to make money working honest jobs.  The overwhelming majority are not here to kill people, or to mooch off the pretty low-grade social welfare system that we have (relative to other developed countries).

I am sympathetic to native born workers whose wages are hurt by a large undocumented worker force; for those employers who try to play by the rules and have to compete with businesses who have fewer scruples.  I have less sympathy for large employers who exploit the available labor supply to the detriment of U.S. born workers, and many of the undocumented workers themselves.

I share your concerns over the intergenerational transfers.  I think the next couple generations are unlikely to have the kind of opportunities that previous generations have had since WWII.  I think there are some fundamentally screwed up priorities at the top right now.  However, I don't think though that building a border fence, or focusing on punitive criminal measures for illegal workers will solve the larger scale problems.  Clearly we need to get rid of illegal immigrants who commit felonies, but I think we lose a great deal if we also get rid of the workers who have demonstrated a commitment to this country just based on the risks they they've undertaken to get here, and who are willing to play by the rules.  There's a lot that we can do in terms of civil penalties -- and even a language requirement (which may not be Constitutional) -- which can regulate these economic forces in a more constructive way.