I am surprised that Slate ran this article. The immigration debate in this country is badly flawed, and this article does nothing but contribute to the flaw.

The illegal immigration debate is flawed in that most people fail to see the heart of the issue. We waste a lot of time arguing about illegal immigrants' civil rights, contribution to crime, use of public services, and impact on our culture. We waste a lot of money sending federal agents on house-to-house searches, building ridiculous border fences, and slogging through endless deportation hearings. But the heart of the illegal immigration issue is that the private sector continues to hire these people.

If we were serious about controlling illegal immigration, we would place the burden on employers: be able to prove that every one of your employees is here legally, or pay a stiff fine. Instead of smashing down the doors of private homes, ICE should be visiting offices, interviewing managers and reviewing personnel records.

Illegal immigrants aren't coming here for fun; they're coming here for work. American companies, from family farms to meat-packing plants to Wal-Mart, are giving them jobs. They can afford to do it because (1) there's no significant penalty for them if they get caught employing illegals, and (2) there's always another illegal to do the work if the first one gets caught and deported.

Those who employ illegal immigrants, knowingly or not, should be punished severely for it. If they were, they would stop employing illegals. If there were no more job for illegals here, the illegals would stop coming.

misterben:

I am surprised that Slate ran this article. The immigration debate in this country is badly flawed, and this article does nothing but contribute to the flaw.

The illegal immigration debate is flawed in that most people fail to see the heart of the issue. We waste a lot of time arguing about illegal immigrants' civil rights, contribution to crime, use of public services, and impact on our culture. We waste a lot of money sending federal agents on house-to-house searches, building ridiculous border fences, and slogging through endless deportation hearings. But the heart of the illegal immigration issue is that the private sector continues to hire these people.

If we were serious about controlling illegal immigration, we would place the burden on employers: be able to prove that every one of your employees is here legally, or pay a stiff fine. Instead of smashing down the doors of private homes, ICE should be visiting offices, interviewing managers and reviewing personnel records.

Illegal immigrants aren't coming here for fun; they're coming here for work. American companies, from family farms to meat-packing plants to Wal-Mart, are giving them jobs. They can afford to do it because (1) there's no significant penalty for them if they get caught employing illegals, and (2) there's always another illegal to do the work if the first one gets caught and deported.

Those who employ illegal immigrants, knowingly or not, should be punished severely for it. If they were, they would stop employing illegals. If there were no more job for illegals here, the illegals would stop coming.

ICE makes the news more on its raids against employers who hire illegals. There were numerous ICE raids last year and this year on employers.

The people who were raided in the article were Alien Fugitives who had already been told to leave the country. These people had their hearing were exposed as illegal aliens and still stayed after being told to go home, get their things and leave the country.

We need both kinds of enforcement.

The sad fact is that neither party will ever do anything about illegal immigration.

" Why's that?",you may ask.

The reason is because the political will just isn't there.

The Republicans won't do anything because the corporations and business owners who contribute to the Republican Party,are the people who need the cheap labor,at the expense of the American people.

The Democrats won't do anything because the Latino vote is a huge demographic for the Democratic Party.

It's a sad state of affairs,if you ask me.

"If we were serious about controlling illegal immigration, we would place the burden on employers: be able to prove that every one of your employees is here legally, or pay a stiff fine."

You have a point. But, if we were really serious we would start with the core issue: WHY the Mexican gov't is exporting, yes exporting, its excess population to this country. THAT is where the problem really lies. They actually tell there people what where and how to migrate illegally, it is actively encouraged by the Mexican gov't.

They have one of the most corrupt gov't on the planet. Right now they are allowing drug cartels to control almost every Mexican province on our southern border.

Well, corruption in Mexico is unfortunate -- both for them and us. But, we wouldn't have drug cartels at all if not for the insane drug laws in our country. The economics of contraband makes everything incredibly worse.

And, sure we can penalize employers for knowingly hiring aliens. But, you must remember that employers are specifcally barred from examining documents presented by workers for fraud. That would be discriminatory. About all you can do is get after employers who don't fire the social security "no matches".

In the land of unintended consequences, the little bit of enforcement that has happened lately on employers has caused a dramatic increase in identity theft.

The real issue here is biometric id. When we all carry biometric id, we can enforce who should be here and who shouldn't.

How are you harmed by the "illegal immigration"? Seriously, what harm has come to you that is directly attributable to the presence of undocumented workers in the USA?

And on what Constitutional basis are you going to compel me, a born citizen, to carry biometric id? Under the US Constitution and the incorporated Common Law, as a born citizen I have the right to

• Freely associate with whomever I wish to - IOW I have a right to contract with whomever I desire with NO ID requirement enforcible by the government
• Freely travel wherever I wish internally with no ID requirement - as long as I don't drive or pilot (both licensed forms of transportation)
• Freely petition my government with no explicit proof that I am a citizen

Now I've given you a link to the US Constitution, so finding the clause that empowers the government to compell me to carry biometric ID should be trivial for you....

While I sympathize with cracking down on deliberately exploitative employers - those who employ undocumented workers so that they can increase their profits by

• paying less than a fair market wage
• preclude union organization
• cheat workers of fairly earned wages
• abuse workers by violating OSHA protections

I am extremely resistant to the idea of empowering The Govermment with the right to determine with whom _I_ a born US Citizen, can and cannot contract with. I am even more leary of giving the same government that so blithely has tapped my phone and sent people to prison in Guantanamo on what amounts to Constitutionally prohibited Writs of Attainder, with the power to require that I carry proof of my citizenship and personhood on a regular basis.

And if you are going to enforce the kind of employer focussed punishments you speak of, you will need at the very least, both of those powers ceded to The Government. Note that today there is no provision in the US Constitution that cedes those powers to the US Government.

Is the supposed harm caused by undocumented workers so great that we are willing to surrender that much of our liberty to avoid that cost?

Are there really no other solutions? I would argue that there are, but that they require a fair amount of political courage because the underlying motivations driving this round of xenophobia (its a 40-50yr cycle that has historically occurred in the USA) are based in fear and racism, both powerful memes that run through this nation.

I want to make it clear that I'm not replying to degsme, someone who apparently goes by a lot of different names and who repeatedly engages in things like deliberately misrepresenting others' arguments.

However, for those who want non-financial harm that shouldn't be difficult to find. But, more pernicious and less visible harms include giving political power to foreign countries and the fact that IllegalImmigration is an indicator of PoliticalCorruption. For instance, the FedReserve wants to profit from money that was earned illegally.

degsme: I am a bit concerned with your remarks and request some clarification. Are you an employer of "undocumented immigrants" or just someone who is against government control of such? While I agree it is horrendous that there are some employers who do in fact take advantage of these "undocumented immigrants" for their financial gain, the only way I can see to stop this is to make and enforce laws against it. I am not a lawyer, so don't take what I am suggesting the wrong way, but I believe that when an employer knowingly employees undocumented immigrants (regardless of how well or poor he treats them) they are themselves breaking the law by aiding and abetting the criminal undocumented immigrants in the first place. Lets face it, it there were no jobs for them here, then most if not all of them would stop coming to this country. I break no major laws (yes like most I do break the speed limit from time to time and sometimes ride my ATV across a public roadway) but I do not commit felonies or any serious crimes. As such I have no problem with the government listening into my phone conversations and am not stupid enough to believe that of the billions of phone conversations made daily, they listen to them all. They have their list that are monitored by actual people the rest are monitored by computer and the computer listens for key words. If those key words are heard then a real person listens to determine if it is just B.S. or a real problem in the making. So yes if it increases the chance of me and my family flying more safely or sleeping more secure in my home, the government can listen to my phone, read my e-mails or most anything else they want as I have nothing to hide. The only person I know who has a reason to object is the person who has something to hide, real or perceived. So tap away if it will make my country safer and please feel free to check where I work for undocumented immigrants anytime.

For a law to be legitimate in the USA, it has to derive from the powers ceded to The Government via the US Constitution. Any law that limits my rights as a US Citizen under the US Constitution is invalid no matter how good the intent.

Your willingness to surrender your fundamental rights - such as the warrrantless telephony puts you in the very category of indviduals that folks like Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry warned us about:

Those who would sacrifice any of our precious liberties for a temporary measure of security, deserve neither liberty nor security - Benjamin Franklin

Give me liberty or give me death - Patrick Henry.

And your assertion

The only person I know who has a reason to object is the person who has something to hide, real or perceived.

Is patently false. We have already seen many individuals, US Citizens included that have been sent to Gitmo or worse despite being innocent. So when you surrender your liberties to the government so that "your family can fly more safely", you are empowering just that.

And you have no guarantee that your family can fly more safely. In point of fact there is very little in place today to prevent another 9/11. I travelled some 50,000 air miles in the 3 mos after 9/11 and an additiona 150k since that time and the "security" you see at airports is a PR job designed to make you FEEL more secure.

So trading your liberties for a false or temporary security puts you on the same side as the people who arrested my grandfather, "harshly interrogated" him, sentenced him before a tribunal as a "danger to national securty" to indefinate detention and then allowed him to die from the injuries sustained from that torture.

Note that by speeding, you are contributing to a new 9/11 every month or so (speed is the primary cause of fatal car accidents). Someone illegally entering the USA and committing no other crime actually IMPROVES the USA.

So frankly it seems to me that you are the problem, not them

Now I'm impressed. You haven't been able to make an economic case, and the legal harm case is pretty much offset by the fact that speeding - which most americans do - causes a new 9/11 every month yet illegal immigration causes 0 new deaths.

Now you raise the discreditted spectre of voting corruption.

You really are a wack-case.

I understand some of what you are saying, but decorum must be maintained for voting, economics, official US Offices, customs inspection, privacy, safety, etc. or the rights and privileges would no longer belong to Citizens.

Article1 Section 9

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article1 Section 8

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Note that the US Constitution extends its rights and privileges to The People or Persons, not to Citizens except in some very narrow circumstances (specifically womens and 18yo suffrage and the Presidency).

Now its true that the US Constitution allows for the creation of laws of Naturalizatoin - but until the late 1800s there effectively was no naturalization process beyond arriving and stating an intent to become a citizen. IOW residency was sufficient for receiving citizenship.

Amendment 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The US Constitution is mostly about the words "legal" and "due process" which mean exclusively nothing as far as dishonest politicians are concerned.