I have to agree with you on all points. Immigration helps, many of them do jobs that few native born americans would do. There is no way to stop them comming over as illegals.

But I believe the biggest problem with illegal immigration is the language problem, if they come over with a visa I believe that they will be more likely to want to learn the language. One reason why is that they will have the drive to become natralized.

That is why I am for imagration reform. I believe more will go out of there way to learn english and start participating in our culter.

I utterly agree that immigrants must learn english, and that public policy should be more oriented in that direction.

I say this because the best way for immigrants to be successful, and to integrate, is to speak the language.

Amen on your initial post and comment above. And most immigrants do want to learn English. In fact, our local GOP club meets at a quasi-public facility that conducts and English class for Latinos at the same time. Don't think we haven't congratulated them for their effort and have welcomed them to the US.

Irrational ranting about immigration (legal and illegal) is the one thing that drives me absolutely mad about conservatives. Every time the issue comes up on talk radio I have to turn it off since usually both the hosts and callers sound totally moronic.

Geez, this was my first serious comment in a long time. I will have to post a smart ass, smarmy comment soon.

I have an immigrant friend who joined the army because he believed that fighting for the country would improve his chances of becoming a citizen. Now all he has to do is mow lawns for three years, and he's got it in the bag. Does this mean he can come home from Iraq now?

Actually, the Pres made some reference to immigrants serving in the military--although I do not know precisely how the proposed law would effect such persons.

This is one thing Bush has proposed that I actually like. Imagine if Clinton had proposed it. My god, the outcry.

This seems to be a clear political bone to a portion of the electorate and I doubt it will go anywhere in the long run.

President Bush should be commended for addressing this issue. But does't this proposal really amount to an amnesty for those "undocumented men and women now employed in the United States" to whom the President now proposes to give "legal status?"

President Bush also said "our borders should be shut and barred tight to criminals." Those "undocumented Workers" are here illegally and are criminals.

We tried amnesty once before. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made nearly 4 million illegals eligible for legal residency. That policy was an obvious failure because now there are between 8 and 12 "undocumented workers." If amnesty is now given to these millions, then we should only expect that fifteen years from now we will have to consider amnesty for 20 or 30 million more.

I'm all for educating people. All people. So that whole language issue is just a wonderful point.

As far as the criminalism of the illegal immigrants goes I do not really see it as a big problem. First off this is not a humanitarian venture intended to cure the problems that the illegal immigrants have. If it was we would be trying to help their country not bring them into ours. We are not helping Mexico by taking their labor, even if they have too much. Especially not in any long term sense. This plan is a venture to benefit some part of our society if there was not benefit no one would have considered doing it.

As far as this stimulating our economy, who knows. And with Bush in office I have grown used to plans that aim to achieve one thing by doing the opposite. But how exactly is importing a labor force supposed to ensure my kids will be able to get a job?

I'm no dunce. I understand that if firms are able to get labor for less they will prosper. And I understand that if people are not willing to work the jobs at what they are willing to offer the jobs will not get done and the firm will be hindered.

I also understand that there is a sufficient number of people in this country to work those jobs. As I have been informed by Bush and all the other media, there are a significant number of low paying jobs that need to be filled. Why is the American public not working these jobs?

Well there are not many aspects to the basic concept of the job. A employee performs a service and a compensation is given. An employer is willing to compensate an employee for performing a service. Compensation defined as all things the worker receives from the employer. Including the working environment, benefits, wages... etc. The price of compensation is often defined in the same way a market price for a good is defined. This is the equilibrium point between the supply and demand curves. Or put more simplistically what employees want balanced with what employers want.

Wants are based of perceptions which are influenced by many factors. But the basic assumption of more is better surely holds. So we can assume that the cause of the unfilled jobs is one of two things. Either the employees are not getting enough value or the employers are not. In other words, either the level of compensation at which employees are willing to perform a service is not low enough, or the level of compensation at which employers are willing to spend for a service is not high enough. All this assumes that society has enabled those employees to perform the service, such as an adequate education, a working infrastructure, a habitat which can offer survival, the list goes on...

My biggest question here is; Why is it that there is such a divide between the perceived value of labor for the employers and the employees?

It could be many things, such as too high of costs for either the employer and the employee. In other words is the cost of living too high or is the cost of doing business too high? The answer to that is it is probably a bit of both.

The entire country is not made up of pampered babies simply not willing to work. Well some of it is but that is not important because the fact is that there are many people in this country that if given a good opportunity will work. Even the low paying jobs.

So under Bush's plan labor will be added to society that is willing to perform a service for a lower cost. This means less of a compromise for the employer and will enable business to function. It also means that society needs to provide the previously listed items to those workers. Which should be fine assuming they pay taxes as much or more taxes than a naturalized citizen.

The simple problem with the plan is that bringing in people from other countries will not help in the long term because these people will naturalize and they will be faced with the same situation as the rest of us. Sure now they are willing to work but there perceptions of an acceptable level of compensation will change. This is because much of this preference is influenced by its environment. It is also influenced by the past experiences which will change over time.

I do not support Bush's plan for immigration because it is a short term solution for a long term problem and the only people who will benefit at any point will be the employers. And only those that are able to use cheap labor. Without getting into the controversy that surrounds many of the issues I have written about it should be obvious that we need a long term solution to the economic problems that face our society. Not a short term solution that only benefits one sector of society.

The difficulty with this sort of amnesty proposal is that it does not alleviate, but greatly intensifies the problem of illegal immigration, by rewarding and encouraging a vast increase in it. the problem of language differences would go away, as in past periods of restrictionism, if an all-merit or pro-merit policy were established, requiring competitively tested english-language knowledge. If this is nativism or xenophobia, we need more of these.As to immigrant crime and diversity-valuing; I've just read a new study from Professor J. Shepherd at Clemson which finds that for a 1% increase in diversity, there follows a 3% increase in interracial murder. The diversity percentage increase is measured on a matching scale, such that the ratio is determined thus: 3:1. To legalize and encourage foreign criminals can be as dangerous as this ratio would indicate, and thus it could be also the motivation of those wanting more foreign criminals in the country, to intensify the conflicts and violence between groups.The study mentioned above is searchable under the title "racial Diversity, Residential segregation, and crime...Joanna Shepherd

Shall I teach you how to know something? Realize you know it when you know it, and realize you don't know it when you don't.