>>>At least in this case it is an issue which needs to be addressed. If you consider the difference between the number of illegal immigrants during Reagan's tenure and today, and then add in the threat of terrorism - it really needs to be addressed.
>>>
>>>I'm going to go against the grain and state clearly that I agree with securing our borders and punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. Having stated that, I also strongly agree with a guest worker program. I have no problem with any number of immigrants as long as they are accounted for and somehow screened. Afterall, no other major industrialized country in the world would allow 11 million illegal immigrants to become citizens or work without paying taxes and pose a security threat. Ah, if only we could go back in time when everyone just wanted to come here for the great American ideal and not to destroy this country or its government.
>>
>>I keep hearing that line about not paying taxes. We get it here too about illegals. But how do they buy anything without paying sales tax. And if most of them earn so little that they are not income taxable, then how are they any different than far too many legal citizens.
>
>They may not qualify for an income tax but there is still the matter of Social Security and Medicare. Both theirs and thier employers' shares.

Have a read of this page along with the article from the New York Times. And please, don't fall back on, "Oh, sure... the New York Times!!!"

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's a very old ploy, isn't it. When things are going badly, choose somebody, or some group to demonise and deflect the people's anger from one's self to the other target. Folks will keep falling for it though, so I guess it's good strategy.
>>>>
>>>>>I watched the news late last night and then this morning and then I listened to it at noon. It was all about immigration - very little on Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Isn't your solution basically rewarding people who knowingly broke the law? What do you do with the ones who have been here less than 7 years? What about the ones who can't afford the fees... give them a choice to leave? And what if they don't? And what about the ones who will keep streaming across the border? If you go after the employers, they are going to be here without jobs. What do you think they'll do in order to survive?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem to be criticizing his solution, rather than offering an alternative. Am I mistaken?