The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.

Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.

Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.

Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

I don’t share your enthusiasm for mass deportation. I think it would be an absolute disaster for the interests of the United States economically, politically, ethically and morally. I don’t want my great great grandchildren to be looking in their history books at pictures of weeping men, women and children being dragooned onto transports. We don’t need a new Trail of Tears in our national ethos.

England, France and The Netherlands are also fed-up with illegal alien problems in their countries and are looking at deportation as a means of ending it. If this country removed the incentive (work) the illegals (most of them) will self-deport.

But many of you opposed immigration reform last year and I’m not particularly sympathetic with people who prolonged the federal paralysis on this subject.

What was proposed by the Senate as “immigration reform” was opposed because it was a pure amnesty bill. Put any name on it you wish, it was for total amnesty (it even allowed gang members to remain in this country.)

I’ll take a crack at your comments, just so you can find something else to obsess over for the next few weeks. Almost everything below, I’ve said before, but you have a short memory. The short answer to your question is: “No, those aren’t enough facts for me. They don’t fully describe the problem and don’t provide a workable solution that serves the economic, security and constitutional interests of the United States and its citizens.”

A lot of “facts” that pass as “facts” in this discussion are not facts at all. But for purposes of this comment, I’ll just take your statements at face value. You describe negative local impacts of a completely useless federal immigration system. Deportation is not mandatory and wouldn’t be practical to make mandatory, at least not with border control as out of control as it is. Uninspected entrants are “subject to” deportation, but for a lot of compelling reasons, it is not a mandatory response under federal law.

I have no doubt that there may be locations where the numerical crime data are increased by the presence of illegals. As many here point out, if you have one illegal committing one crime, you have one more crime than you would have had if that guy hadn’t been here in the first place. But I don’t think that offers a useful policy component for getting the issue fixed once we get into the millions. Generally speaking, on a national level, the “crime rate” is lower among illegals than among the legal population, if for no other reason (and there probably are some other reasons) underground populations tend to lie low on overt flaunting of authority.

ESL is probably expensive, but we need it for legal immigrants and for promoting assimilation, something most of us probably agree is important. So it ain’t going away and it shouldn’t. Once children are here, I favor assimilation and education. The moral evil and economic costs of isolating people in poverty and ethnic segregation are greater than the cost of promoting assimilation. Again, where numbers can be derived, the feds should offset the costs of their failing to control the border.

We have a failed federal immigration policy that has to be fixed at the federal level - should have happened years ago. I thought something was going to be done last summer, however imperfect, but instead of legislation that would have addressed a lot of these issues, we are continuing a passive amnesty policy that isn’t working. Until we get federal reform legislation, the feds owe impacted localities offset aid to deal with quantifiable impacts (the hospital example is a good one). Failed fed policy impacts different communities to different degrees, but where it can be measured, I’d work hard to put the feds on the hook.

I favor deportation of violent criminals who are enter without inspection after (not before) they serve their sentences for crimes committed here (if you catch them before they commit a crime, I have no problem with immediate deportation based on crimes committed outside the US). Again, the feds should make states and localities whole for the costs of imprisonment.

As I’ve told you before, I don’t think illegal immigrants are “conservatives” in the sense you use the term, and I’m not sure why you think their political tendencies shed much light on how to solve the problem. This seems totally irrelevnat to me. Although many come from cultures where values are very “conservative” in ways that we recognize (family values, work ethic etc), the decision to risk entering another country illegally usually bespeaks a desperation that probably is not very political in its origins. Those of you who fancy yourselves to be “conservatives” would not stop at an imaginary line in the dirt if you felt you had to cross it to eat or to feed your kids. If you did, I’d think less of you.

I don’t share your enthusiasm for mass deportation. I think it would be an absolute disaster for the interests of the United States economically, politically, ethically and morally. I don’t want my great great grandchildren to be looking in their history books at pictures of weeping men, women and children being dragooned onto transports. We don’t need a new Trail of Tears in our national ethos. We’re better than that. On a practical level, we’re not that stupid, and there are a million other measures that should be invoked first.

One of the biggest problems I see with current conditions is that we have an enormous underground population that is increasingly being forced into hiding by local hostility. This exacerbates a lot of the problems that folks here claim to have with illegals in their communities: overcrowding, non-assimilation, identity theft, loitering, petty crime, violent crime, driving without insurance, skills, permits, public drunkeness, health issues, etc. Causes and effects are getting more and more confused. Most of what I see advocated here makes these things worse, not better. Existing Local law can address many, if not all of these issues, without reference to immigration status and without special efforts to act unconstitutionally in a field that is entirely federalized. But there seems to be a certain delight in making these things more likely to happen than less when one resists regularizing this underground population, screening it (filter out violent criminals), papering it (getting sufficient info to support work permits, banking access, insurance, driver qualifications etc.). That’s the only way we’re going to get a real solution to 10 to 20 million illegals entrants (and their US citizen children) that promotes the best interests and values of the United States.

If all you guys who waste your time storming the McCoart Bldg and the capitol in Richmond want to join me to get meaningful federal action, you’ll find me a good ally in that effort. But many of you opposed immigration reform last year and I’m not particularly sympathetic with people who prolonged the federal paralysis on this subject.

It seems you are just making excuses now. But, that is not surprising coming from someone who support illegals. You have plenty of time to post, but no time to read.. Hmmm.

At what point do you think illegal aliens cross the line and should be deported for their law breaking?

How is cheating the system and benefiting from it a conservative value?

The correct term is illegal alien, since they are not permitted to be in the Country.

How about these facts? Crime is up in the City of Manassas thanks to illegals(source Manassas City police). Illegals cost the Prince William Hospital 15 million dollars last year(source, the hospital). Five of the nine murders last year in PW County were committed by illegals(PW Police and local media outlets). ESL language classes make up 27% of the total student body of the Manassas City schools(source, Manassas City school board). It costs twice as much to educate an ESL student then it does to educate a fully English speaking student(Source, Manassas City school board).

Are those enough facts for you?

You know the questions. Also, how about the facts I provided to you last week in response to your allegation this blog does not deal with facts?

Dolph,

That is a pipe dream you have there. Why do companies hire illegals now? Because they can hire them at lower pay, hire them without giving full benefits. Why would they agree to pay people even more money and provide them more benefits?

HB1 visa’s are adjusted as needed, but the problem is that as I said in another post, there will always be a demand for workers, due to the want of expansion, which begets the need for more workers, which begets the want of more expansion… It is sort of the like the favorite saying of the NEA…. “fully funded eduction” exactly how do you define it? You can’t, which is why the NEA keeps using it no matter how much money is spent on education because they want to create the perception there is not enough money being spent on education.

Thanks for letting me live. snicker. It is probably them southern roots.

Serious note here…I would venture to say it might be easier to get illegal immigration handled if we loosened up legal immigration and guest worker programs.

I was watching a business section on tv this morning dealing with the super Tuesday primaries. Silicon Valley is being watched like a hawk and the key issue is: immigration immigration immigration. Why? Because Silicon Valley (1% of the population creating 5% of the GNP) needs to ability to attract and retain skilled engineers to do the jobs that need doing. Apparently they continually meet with restrictions. We are talking legal here.

If Wall Street is the heart of our money engine, which I am convinced rules everything, then Silicon Valley is the brain and who controls more money than God. They need to be able to function legally.

Jane D’oh: “Uninspected Entrant” is the correct legal term. I didn’t make it up. That’s the law. I use it interchangeable with “illegal immigrant” or undocumented immigrant. They’re all interchangeable, but only uninspected entrant describes in correct technical language immigrants who sneak across the borders.

Oh I know. For the most part Dolph is OK, but she back slides at times, and needs to be called out on it.

Krusty,

So, Americans do not pick fruit? Do any Americans work? Or, are the illegals the only people that work in America? If illegals are such fine workers, why do they not work in their own Nations? It seems to me that if illegals have such great work ethic, it would not just be limited to those who come here illegally, which means their Nations should be full of such workers, which, would then lead one to believe the Nation’s economy would be well off enough to supply jobs for such hard workers. Yet, that does not seem to be the case, as it seems to be in America, which despite having lazy and or workers who do not want to do hard work, has one of the best economies in the World.

You are wasting your time with Dolph and Krusty. Save yourself the stress and give your fingers a rest with those two.

I do agree with you, as do many who read this blog.

As for the rest of your comments, I’d like you to to talk to commercial farmers out in California. Stoop labor isn’t for most Americans. - At one time, Washington DC tried to send some of its able bodied welfare receivers to pick apples in the orchards in the Blue Ridge mts. Seemed they didn’t last ONE day.

The same businesses also do not want e-verify, and will always want additional workers, because they will always want new business, they are not concerned with the safety of our Nation, and do not care about border control. We can import the entire World, and of course that will justify building more fast food restaurants.

These same businesses also say they want to follow the law, but also hire illegals to by-pass the laws that come with hiring workers. If they are unwilling to follow the law now, what makes you think they would do so in the future?

The current guest worker programs can be adjusted as needed.

All kidding aside…..I have read a great deal about our guest worker programs really not meeting the needs of business. I am not witnessing this personally, quite obviously. I want workers, if needed, to be able to enter the United States legally. Business is saying this, not Dolph. That is all.

I think everyone who enters this country should do so legally. It is imperative to our safety that our federal government have control over who is in our country. I hope that clears it up.

Because you do, you on one hand say you are against illegal immigration, yet in the next sentence say we need immigrants for jobs, as if without illegals, we would suffer. What other conclusion should one come to?

And I do not see why you think I want to intertwine guest workers and illegal aliens.

When we have elected officials pushing for amnesty, and or, attempting to block measures that would help stem the tide of illegal immigration, I say that pretty much fits the definition of support.

Do you think there is a Grey line between support for drunk driving and non drunk driving?

I support the current guest worker programs we have, and have said so more then a few times on this blog. However, there is a difference between the current guest worker programs and illegal immigration. I would hope you would also see that difference. But, you seem to intertwine the two, and I simply do not understand that, since there really is no connection between the two.

I don’t think you can make that quantum leap. All of us have different feelings on how to handle the problem or what should not be accepted. For instance…..one person might feel that illegal children belong in school rather than running the streets. Someone else might feel that if one of them is hurt then they have to lie there and die because they shouldn’t be here in the first place. We aren’t all going to agree. It doesn’t mean that any of us want illegal aliens here.

I would prefer that we fill our country’s work demands with people based on need and brought in the country legally. You, if I recall correctly, would prefer that no foreign workers be used. I think I am right and you think you are right. Where do we go from here?

There are plenty of folks who think that is OK. Anyone who supports illegals supports that type of black market. One either supports illegals or one does not. One cannot pick and choose what they support when it comes to illegals, as we all know they should not be in the Country in the first place.