>>No, this is the solution:
>>
>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL
>>
>>Note the date on the article. Somehow, repeating the same game (promise - no, not promise, make it a law - to deploy 10,000 guys along the border, then give money for about 210 of them) seems to be a good solution.
>
>You seem to be criticizing his solution, rather than offering an alternative. Am I mistaken?

Why should I have anything new to say? He's already repeating the last year's thing.

I've already written about a possible solution: legalize those who are already in (a seven year minimum was proposed somewhere, OK by me), have them pay some fees to INS for that, have INS be as efficient as it once was, and give the rest a choice to leave. And, ah, yes, start applying the laws to employers.