Do people really debate illegal immigration? Isn't that roughly akin in logic to debating whether the sky is blue?

I could go on with some massive tome about why illegal immigration is bad, what steps should be taken to effectively curtail it, but honestly, I don't feel like it right now. That said, I just heard another TV "talking head (aren't most of those people completely insufferable?)" defend illegal immigration on the basis of one particularly obnoxious point, and the moment wormed its way under my skin just enough to prompt this piece.

How many times have you heard proponents of benevolence toward illegal immigrants defend their position, in whole or in part, on the basis that Americans should be grateful they're here, because they do the jobs no one wants?

When they say "no one," that is code for white Americans, although you never hear anyone come out and say that. In other words, whites, more than browns or blacks, supposedly believe that unskilled manual labor is so far beneath them that they (I guess "we," as I'm one) should be thrilled that illegals have chosen to invade our country because, of course, "we" don't want these jobs. What a pile of garbage.

I don't believe that any job, no matter how unskilled, is beneath me. Personally, I have always tried to find work at things I truly enjoy doing and which present an outlet for intellectual expression, but that does not mean those things I don't necessarily enjoy and which don't provide such an outlet are beneath me - it just means I would prefer doing something else.

Beyond professional satisfaction, the real issue is compensation. If the defenders of the illegal invasion were honest, they would fully complete the thought when expressing it; the complete thought is, "Illegal immigrants do jobs no one wants to do for the same wage rates at which illegals are content to do them." There is no such thing as a job no one wants; there are only those jobs that people cannot accept because they don't pay enough. There are countless examples of people who are currently in the midst of spending their working lives in jobs they don't enjoy very much...but do so because the compensation, either through wages, benefits, or some combination of the two, is so great that they aren't willing to leave. I'll bet that a lot of people who wouldn't currently consider working in the fields harvesting vegetables, for example, might do the job if it paid $10 an hour to start, provided production-based incentives, and included solid benefits. Would that drive up the cost of the vegetables to consumers? Sure it would, but that is how (truly) free markets work. Plus, you're already paying a lot more for your vegetables anyway, just in a different form: A portion of your taxes have long been used to pay farm subsidies, and are also used to pay for the costs of social services used by illegals.

Let me ask you something; if illegal immigrants were nowhere to be found in America, do you think all of the unskilled labor positions would remain unfilled? That's the silly argument that too many people here seem to stupidly accept - that without illegal immigrants, jobs they readily do now would never get done. Do you really believe that?

Shut the border; end tax-funded corporate subsidies and social services to illegals, and return the resulting savings to the American taxpayer; let the free market decide the pay scale. Only then can we see if there is really such a thing as a job no one wants.

By: Robert Yetman
Robert G. Yetman, Jr. is an op-ed columnist and financial editor at http://www.christianmoney.com

There are 300 million citizens living in the United States. There are estimates that 20 million illegal immigrants are also residing in our nation. When one out of every sixteen people is here illegally, there is good reason to be concerned. But, is this situation as big of a threat as some say, or is it, if anything, an advantage to our economy?

Even living in New York, you can see that there are illegal immigrants taking part in our everyday lives. From construction workers to gardeners, there's a good chance you've seen an illegal immigrant working, even if you did not realize it at the time. Many people say that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs, and causing American unemployment. But, with a 5% unemployment rate amongst citizens, pretty much anyone who wants a job can get it. In fact, one may argue that illegal immigrants are simply taking up the jobs Americans don't want. But, what happens when our country's unemployment rate increases, and many more people are out of work? Then, Americans would be losing jobs to illegal immigrants and the immigrants would lose jobs and go hungry, creating problems for our nation. So, though at the moment, there does not appear to be an economic problem with illegal immigration, we don't know what the future has in store for us.

Every illegal immigrant has broken the law; they came here. Though this may seem like it is not a horrible crime, the fact that they broke the law once has some concerned that they will break it again. But, does this mean that they are destined to have a criminal future? Yes...and no. The majority of illegal immigrants are well-intentioned people who want to earn a living. Some are criminals, but some Americans are also criminals. But, generally speaking, illegal immigrants work in unskilled occupations; the first jobs to go if the economy slows. So, if many illegal immigrants are out of work, and living on the streets, there is a much larger chance that they will resort to crime. Although most mean well, both their economic situation may encourage a few to break the law.

When an American worker earns a dollar, they generally spend it within our borders, in effect helping out some other person. However, many illegal immigrants came here to help their family, which is often still in Mexico. As they earn money, they send a large portion of their income back to Mexico to support family members. This is taking away money from American businesses, and hurting many. Though this impact can hurt people, the size of the illegal immigrant population's income is proportionally smaller than the United States as a whole, so this issue is not as large as some claim it to be, but still harmful.

The economic implications give a mixed, though probably negative, picture of immigration. However there are still the national security issues. To me, this is the main reason why we should crack down on illegal immigration. If a lone illegal immigrant, with no money, can simply walk across the border, into our country, and stay here for the rest of their life, why can't a terrorist, or group of terrorists. It would be much easier for a terrorist to go through Mexico into the U.S. than simply going to our country directly. This is a huge threat. We've seen the destruction which a few terrorists can cause, and must realize how large this threat is. If we do not secure our borders, we are not safe.

Though the economic implications of illegal immigration are not necessarily a significant problem, the threat to our nation's security should make everyone want to secure the border. No matter which party you are in, it is your obligation to do everything possible to protect your nation. If we do not secure the borders, we are slacking on our duty.

By: John B. Phillips
http://www.petitionearth.com/blog/?p=6.

Senator Kennedy's speech to The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce on Monday cautioned against a failure to pass an immigration reform bill by using an inappropriate example. "Just look what has happened with Great Britain, with the isolated communities," he warned. "Look what has happened in France... Look where the cells are in terms of al-Qaeda. They're all with different communities, which have failed to assimilate individuals."

The Senior Senator from Massachusetts demonstrated both his hypocrisy and his ignorance all in the same breath. By shockingly comparing un-assimilated Latin American Catholics to second generation Muslim immigrants, he was negating the importance of culture in the development of terrorism.

Second generation Muslims lived in their own communities and spoke their own language at the behest of liberal European politicians who believed that multiculturalism was the panacea. Instead it was their poison.

They became radicalized in their mosques and enclaves instead of becoming French like their fathers and mothers. Islam fomented their rage against the state and its people instead of providing Muslims with solutions.

Following Kennedy’s logic, India should stay on the look out for unassimilated Buddhist immigrants. I can see it now, barefoot and balding monks walking toward a crowded Indian bazaar with people shouting, “Here come the Buddhist bombers!”

Aside from his deficient religious acumen, Kennedy had discounted liberal academia’s role in devaluing nationalism. Assimilation was the standard practice until the apologist educators began their assault on Americanism. Those proud to wave and wear the American flag weren’t responsible for “press one for English and two for Spanish.” Ted Kennedy and the rest of the haters were the culprits.

Hypocrisy and ignorance aside, the Senator failed to explain how granting amnesty to those living “in the shadows” and doing “work Americans won’t do” will solve a dysfunctional bureaucracy, a porous border, spiraling healthcare and education costs- while insisting with a straight face that we are a country of laws.

By: Hope Marin
Hope Marin is a graduate of the University of Florida who moved to Europe in ‘2002 where she wrote her soon to be released book " Theabsentee Ballot". She’s now back in the U.S writing and editing for her website http://www.theabsenteeballot.com.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys - California Accident Lawyers, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our attorney Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

As I watched the evening news, I wondered why no one else seemed to understand that our porous southern borders were open doors for Middle Eastern terrorists. Perhaps it was fresh on my own mind because I'd had a recent conversation with a Virginia Police Chief, who told me his department had been notified by Homeland Security of the potential risk. Our government had received information that Middle Eastern terrorists loyal to al-Qaeda had arrived at the conclusion that the average white American would not know the difference between a Middle Eastern operative and a Latino migrant worker. They could easily get into Mexico, assume Hispanic identities, and simply walk across our borders along with millions of Latinos.

Once in the United States, the terrorists could live amongst the illegal immigrant community. Of course the immigrants would know these people did not belong in their midst, but they would never report them to local law enforcement. To do so would bring the law into their community, perhaps searching house-to-house, and the illegal immigrants themselves could be arrested and deported. Instead, they would mind their own business--even if terrorist sleeper cells existed alongside them.

This information became the basis for my latest suspense, Ricochet. Sheila Carpenter, who made her debut appearance in an earlier book, Kickback, is now attending the FBI Academy at Quantico. She finds information leading her to believe that her parents might not have died accidental deaths but were murdered. This hunch leads her on a journey where she follows her mother's footsteps in the days before she died--a journey that takes her into the heart of illegal immigration and terrorism within our own borders.

To date, there is an estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in the United States. That means there are 21 million people living amongst us that we know absolutely nothing about. We don't know their true identities, their history, their criminal records, or their intent. If only one tenth of one percent intend to harm us, that is an astounding 21,000 terrorists or criminals that could be living amongst us. In an age where an American sex offender is listed on the Internet, Americans' criminal records are made public, and Americans are tracked through a pyramid of electronic records, the illegal immigrant--or terrorist crossing our borders--has no record at all. On paper and electronically, they do not exist.

When I began writing Ricochet, I made the conscious decision not to inject my own opinions into the story. I would not judge the Hispanic illegal immigrant population, but I would instead lay out the very real threat that occurs when a country's borders are wide open. Since Ricochet was released, I have heard from many people on both sides of the issue.

I spoke to a school teacher who knew her third grade student was living under an assumed name; his mother actually had two fictitious names. The teacher was adamant and emotional about protecting "this poor family."

I spoke to an emergency room doctor who was to perform surgery on a man injured on the job; a man who could speak no English and who, it turned out, was working more than 200 hours a week. Realizing more than one person would have to be using the same identity, he refused to operate until he knew the patient's real name and true medical history--facts that saved him from medication to which he was allergic. It turned out that four people were using the same identity at the same meat processing plant.

I spoke to a landlord who rented his 1,000 square foot home to a nice, young Latino couple with an infant, only to learn that more than 70 illegal immigrants had moved in, completely destroying his home. Unable to pay for the repairs, the landlord has been forced to leave the house empty for months. He admitted the bank will probably foreclose.

I've spoken to more than one person who had their identities stolen. Though our judicial system is supposed to be founded on the principle "innocent until proven guilty" the victims of identity theft were presumed guilty of criminal activities and poor credit, and they were forced to prove they were NOT the culprits.

While the nation is debating whether the explosion of illegal immigrants are law-abiding citizens who simply want the American dream or are criminals who are taking over whole communities, there is a different picture the average American isn't getting: the nation's security. If a poor Latino who, as some allege, simply wants to work in our country can obtain a set of illegal documents, what could a terrorist do? The World Trade Center was attacked by only a handful of people, not an entire army. As long as our borders remain porous enough to allow men, women and children to simply walk across it, what would possibly prevent a terrorist from doing the same?

By: P.M. Terrell
p.m.terrell is the author of three suspense/thrillers (Ricochet, The China Conspiracy, and Kickback), a how-to book for authors entitled Take the Mystery out of Promoting Your Book, and four computer books. You can obtain more information from her web site at http://www.pmterrell.com.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys - California Accident Lawyers, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our attorney Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

One thing I have learned over the years is that there are plenty of Chomsky-esque, center-right leaning wordsmiths out there too. It isn’t just those on the left that are abusing the poor English skills of Americans to promote socialist agendas. Believe it. Particularly when it comes to the latest attempt at giving amnesty (and the current “comprehensive immigration” bill in the Senate IS Amnesty). And I can prove it by simply using the words as they are defined, not as some would like them to be defined. Let’s begin shall we?

Amnesty is defined as “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals” (source: Webster’s Dictionary). What we find at issue here is usually the word “pardon” and it’s meaning. Ok, what does “pardon” mean?

Once again we turn to Webster’s Dictionary to find that pardon means “1 : INDULGENCE, 2 : the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty, 3 a : a release from the legal penalties of an offense b : an official warrant of remission of penalty, 4 : excuse or forgiveness for a fault, offense, or discourtesy (source: Websters)

Ok, so we’ve got several definitions for that word, three of which basically say the same thing and summed up in the single word of the first meaning, “indulgence”. That makes the definition of amnesty “the act of an authority (as a government) by which “indulgence is granted to a large group of individuals.” Ok, what is an “indulgence”?

Indulgence, as defined by Webster’s is“1 : remission of part or all of the temporal and especially purgatorial punishment that according to Roman Catholicism is due for sins whose eternal punishment has been remitted and whose guilt has been pardoned (as through the sacrament of reconciliation), 2 : the act of indulging : the state of being indulgent, 3 a : an indulgent act b : an extension of time for payment or performance granted as a favor, 4 a : the act of indulging in something; especially : SELF-INDULGENCE b : something indulged in”.

Also, to “indulge” means “to treat with excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration”.

So an “indulgence” is an “excuse” or “way out” (synonym: lenient). It is a forgiveness (as definition 1 states) of part or all of a punishment through generosity or consideration and leniency. So “indulgence” is basically when “part or all of the punishment has been remitted” giving us amnesty defined as: “the act of an authority (as a government) by which part or all of the punishment has been remitted to a large group of individuals.”

Notice that an indulgence is when “part” OR “all” of the punishment is remitted. The important word here is “part”. Because the right leaning Chomsky wanna-bes would have us believe that “amnesty” only occurs when all of the sins and transgressions of illegals are forgiven and only when they are not required to pay anything or have any punishments dealt to them for their actions. They claim that because there are new penalties and procedures, which still require some punishment to be meted out, that this cannot possibly be “amnesty”.

But we can clearly see they are wrong. Existing law requires certain punishments and measures to be taken against those in this country illegally. Giving them a “way out” of those punishments through what amounts to the purchasing of indulgences certainly DOES remit “part of the punishment” that is required of them under current laws.

We can play word games all we want, but we cannot rewrite the facts.

That the definition of one word can be inserted into the definition of another word defined by using it is a pretty basic skill; one that we all learned in grade school. And it clearly defines the act of rewriting the current laws for which certain punishments are due to change that punishment as indeed being amnesty. So sorry to all you out there that cannot understand that, including you Mr. Bush. The fact is the current law has penalties and this Senate bill serves the purpose of granting illegal aliens a means of obtaining amnesty from those penalties. Period.

By: J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative and the owner and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Infidel T-shirts. His weekly articles can be read at Liberty Reborn.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.