Unfortunately, this feels like a "if the sky were green" argument -- we could get these benefits if illegal residents had drivers licenses ... except I think the premise is false: I just can't see illegal residents going to DMV offices and taking drivers tests.

They never do anyway, William. Besides, they can't help it - it's part of their culture, and if we go against that culture, we are rasist (according to them).

We can't win either way.

I do think it prudent to license omnivorous descendants of Venusian dinosaurs, parasitic hives of Martian amoeba, million year old insectizoid symbionts and The Borg.

While we're at it, let's build a Wall: from Eureka California to Eureka Montana.

It is prob. wise that Gov. Ted did what he did.

However, this is also an issue where the Republicans backing this proposed ballot measure may not be as secure in their support as they think they are. Did I hear there were Republicans who had questioned some of the details (along the lines of intrusive government, not immigration because they don't want national identity cards or whatever)?

Apparently, the federal database for checking Soc. Security # is fallible, among other things.

When I called the office of Rep. Flores the day of the press conference on the ballot measure, I was told her remarks were taken out of context.

Rep. Flores complained that the Senate Transportation Comm. hadn't put her issue on their agenda. When Rep. Flores was a committee chair, how receptive would she have been towards a member of the other chamber and other party putting something on her committee agenda?

But the most memorable part of the conversation was when I asked specifically about what Bill Richardson had said in an interview recently. I expressed my concern that anyone who questioned the ballot measure would be called pro-illegal immigration just for asking questions. Then I said what Gov. Richardson had said about the NM State Police asking him to do what he did on drivers licenses. "Are the NM State Police pro-illegal immigration, or could they possible know what they are talking about?". No good answer.

Like many issues, this is a complex situation. But even if every Oregon resident who doesn't already have a passport to show to get a drivers license were to have to fulfill the requirements of an embossed seal state issued birth certificate (some of us just have hospital issued birth certificates) ---which can mean time and money cost to the individual citizen, I don't think that would wipe out illegal immigration or unlicensed, uninsured drivers.

Ours is a nation of laws. No matter how others may want to define it.
There's a sound reason for that. If we don't put the rules highest. We run the risk of pandering to whim. If you don't see illegal aliens getting licenses...you're just flat not looking. Go stand in front of the Mexican Embassy here for a couple hours, just watch, ask a couple questions. Illegal aliens have no business here. They need to go.

Pandering to them by coughing up little perks for them in this state hurts us, and hurts all of our fellow states, and thumbing your nose at the law helps not a bit. If you don't like the rules...at least have the moral courage to get them changed if you can. I'm not surprised it is fully embraced here.

I am not hysterical, Jeff. I am only stating the real truth.

Illegals get licenses all the time. Sometimes with their correct names. But not issuing licenses won't have any effect on illegal immigration.

Do you really think people won't come into our country because they can't get a drivers license? Do you think if they're here they'll now leave because they can't get an ODL? (If so maybe we should deny licenses to drug users, shoplifters, and other various criminals. Maybe they'd just stop if they knew they couldn't get a license)

So here's whats really going to happen.

Undocumented person drives anyway, because he/she needs to in order to get to work or whatever. Police stop for an infraction, or even a more serious charge (like DUII or hit and run). Police can't ID them so they arrest. The person is held in our jail. Eventually, the Sheriffs office gets sufficient ID. They contact Immigration, who won't place a hold on the person unless there are felony charges. The person is released. They probably don't show up for court, because they are afraid of being held again.

So we've now paid hundreds of dollars, maybe thousands to process someone who isn't going to be deported anyway. Maybe they should be, but they aren't.

And in addition, because that person never had a license, they also don't have insurance.

Maybe a lot of people feel better as a matter of principle. And thats fine. But just recognize that what we're talking about here is largely a matter principle at the cost of public safety and additional taxpayer costs.

Maybe we could pass a law REQUIRING all undocumented aliens to register with the state and obtain an ID card or drivers license, and if they didn't they could be prosecuted. That sounds harsh so maybe that could pass in Oregon.

Insurance proof is only needed on the day you get your 8 year valid license, the state does not have a way of being informed when one of the 2.9 million licensed drivers has stopped paying their insurance, and that would require a huge new budget/agency to do so. Police actually call your local insurance agent when they pull you over to verify.

Next up...Socal security # verification at work or for any state benefits(cept emergency medical care). Then, like AZ. & OK. illegals will leave on their own.

and yes Terrorists do need/want official U.S. issued photo ID(as the 9-11-01 "pilots" did), why would you support that?

Jeff Alworth | Nov 16, 2007 11:16:40 AM

I do so appreciate commenters making the point by ignoring the policy and going straight for the hysterics:

Besides, they can't help it - it's part of their culture, and if we go against that culture, we are rasist (according to them).

Illegal aliens have no business here. They need to go.

Thanks for the help guys.

Whats wrong Jeff? Do you control every aspect of the argument? Other aspects are not welcome? Fine.

Jeff: Just what does illegal mean to you? Nothing? The solution to illegal aliens is to get rid of the incentive to come to the United States. Fine and punish employers who hire these illegals. Once the incentive is gone, so goes the illegals. What you want to do is a slap in the face to all of the immigrants that follow the rules, and to the citizens of the US and Oregon that believe in the rule of law. This is my number one issue in the coming elections. Whats yours? Kitty C.

1) Many of the folks who are involved in the anti-immigrant movement are overt racists who have learned to avoid making those arguments. Sort of like Ronald Reagan's southern strategy.

2) There are real benefits to having immigrants get a drivers license. It forces them to learn the rules of the road in this country which not only makes them safer, but makes the rest of us safer.

3) There are really no drawbacks to immigrants getting a drivers license. If they choose not to, nothing is lost by giving them the opportunity.

4) Most immigrants are generally law-abiding, like everyone else. They will get a license if they can. That is also true of immigrants are working here without a proper visa. The fact that they are violating one regulation, does not mean they will disobey others. Just as someone who replaces an electrical outlet without getting it inspected doesn't suddenly become a mass-murderer.

Or we could employ the licensing policy of Mexico. As reported at www.azcentral.com: "The question of whether to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants ignited a national debate in the United States. But in Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigrants, there's no question: Here, you must be a legal resident to get a driver's license.

All of Mexico's 31 states, along with Mexico City, require foreigners to present a valid visa if they want a driver's license, according to a survey of states by The Arizona Republic.

"When it comes to foreigners, we're a little more strict here," said Alejandro Ruíz, director of education at the Mexican Automobile Association."

Jeff:

I am a conservative and I love to read your posts. Usually they are very well thought out. However, this statement strikes me as odd:

While it's true terrorists may not register for licenses, the thousands who do can be eliminated from national security scrutiny--making it easier to isolate those who are here to do harm.

The 9-11 terrorists had licenses. We cannot necessarily eliminate folks as a national security risk because they went through the DMV process.

Jeff Alworth

"Two-bit version: it's a public policy issue that cuts across both parties, but which is mainly a result of the GOP's interest in keeping wages low by an exploitable population of workers."

And here I thought it was mainly an attempt by Democrats to pander to another minority group in an attempt to gain electoral control by securing their votes with promises they have no intention of ever keeping. You know, exactly what the have done with African-Americans.

Thanks for enlightening me to my error.

BlueOregon? Wow, it is hard to take such bigotted remarks on this site seriously. Sad really that this is the hear of "Progressive" Oregon.

Just because Kulongoski took the chicken route and caved to the anti-immigrant activists doesn't make it a correct decision. What can we really expect from Teddy K anyways? He is facing problems with Goldschmidt and Baby Gabriel. He doesn't know enough about what he can do, to know what he should do.

The fact that anti-immigrant activists think that if undocs can't get licenses, they will self deport. That is not the case at all. There are extensive reports on that everywhere and from non-partisan sources. For one, the non-partisan policy group, StateAction, found that driver's license restrictions have not deterred illegal immigration. Nor has it encouraged existing immigrants to return to their homelands.

As for "national security" and "fraud", don't they think that the terrorists and criminals have away around getting licenses? All the governor is doing is punishing hard working immigrant familes and a danger for residents . Denying access to driving classes, licenses, ability to obtain insurance is not good public policy and there are many Chiefs of Police around the nation that agree.

The production and sale of falsified documents is likely to increase if large numbers of immigrants are denied drivers licenses. Excluding individuals from legal Drivers Licenses creates conditions in which false documents and false identities will proliferate, resulting in less accurate information about who is currently in Oregon.

I think it is high time that the black and white thinkers like the Governor and the anti-immigrant clowns commenting on this site wake up. Their little plan of dealing with undocumented immigrants is not working and it is doing more of a threat to public safety.

Looks like a great policy to me, Jeff. Just another way to make it difficult for illegal aliens to live in our state. Oregon has a national reputation as a sanctuary state, which means illegals are drawn here like flies to shit. This policy will help change that, and hopefully help drive away the illegals who are already here.

Robert Harris, if you were at risk of being thrown in jail every time you got into your car, how often would you drive? Or would you just move somewhere else where you wouldn't have to worry about it. Think for a freaking nanosecond, please.

Next step is to deny them ALL state and local services, especially schools. Contrary to the blissfully ignorant post above mine, hardnose anti-illegal alien policies in states like Oklahoma and Arizona have been very effective at getting illegals to "self-deport," at least out of the state. Since the feds continue to encourage the flood of illegals, we'll just have to take our country back one state at a time.

I don't see why illegal immigrants should get any services from the state other than a ride back to the border.

Legal immigrants are welcome to stand in line at the DMV and other public offices to get their services just like the rest of us.

Jack - where do you make up your facts.

Oregon has a national reputation as a sanctuary state

Reputation with who, FAIR? the Republican Party?

Think for a freaking nanosecond, please.

You might try that. Given that automobiles are almost a necessity, do you really think that not having a license is going to keep people from driving? I would rather they knew the rules of the road. I would rather they stopped when they were in an accident.

Oklahoma and Arizona have been very effective at getting illegals to "self-deport," at least out of the state.<?i>

Arizona is second in the country in illegal immigrants per capita after California. Very effective? But aside from that, why would we want them to leave the state?

The anti-immigrant crowd are bigots looking to punish people they don't like. The country would be better off if we could drive them out of the country and make room for more hard-working immigrants.

Oklahoma and Arizona have been very effective at getting illegals to "self-deport," at least out of the state.

Arizona is second in the country in illegal immigrants per capita after California. Very effective? But aside from that, why would we want them to leave the state?

The anti-immigrant crowd are bigots looking to punish people they don't like. The country would be better off if we could drive the bigots out of the country and make room for more hard-working immigrants.

Up above. Jamais Vu asked a number of intelligent questions. Let me take a stab at No. 1, which essentially is, "Why would an illegal immigrant go to the trouble of obtaining a real Oregon driver's license when they already drive without one?

Well, take a look at your average Latino standing on the corner of Southeast 6th and Ankeny, or anywhere else that day laborers congregate. They are mostly in their twenties. They put in a hard day's work, they might want to have a beer. So they have to show a driver's license to buy one.

How they prove their age is another question, of course, but there are a lot of reasons they might want some ID other than for driving. And of course, if they do get pulled over, they get a ticket, rather than being arrested.

Yeah, we do have a major problem with illegal immigration. They are not just taking the jobs that other Americans won't do, but are also taking the jobs that one paid Americans a decent wage. Nevertheless, allowing them to have driver' license is a common sense means of keeping track of some of them and much better for public safety.

Jeff-- I think you are suffering a bit from troll fatigue. While many of the posts have been inane, the ond you quote isn't as silly as you make it out to be. The Latino community is a sizeable and growing voting bloc and one the Democrats don't want to lose. I have to ascribe at least some of the goofiness surrounding the City Council's Chavez street naming fiasco as due to five liberal politicians trying to mollify this community. So there is pandering, because those undocumented workers have brothers, sisters and cousins who legally live and vote in Oregon.

It reduces our security. Illegal immigrants lie to get false FICA numbers and will do the same for driver's licenses, so just getting a license is no guarantee we can track people better, just the legal residents.

It doesn't stop illegal immigration - The purpose is to provide an impediment to those who are here illegally from driving. At least if pulled ove, we have some way o stop them from endangering others since they are a lot less likely to have insurance or respect traffic laws.

It endangers the public. This law won't stop undocumented workers from driving - It will discourage them greatly. By your logic, we shouldn't take away drunk driver's licenses since they can drive anyways.

Steve--They do--drunks drive all the time without licenses, and hit bicyclists and kill them.

I noticed how quickly the term undocumented workers was translated here to mean Latinos.

I think at some point in time we will look back on the history of this decades long migration of Latinos and liken how they were treated to other ethnic groups from America's past. The list is long.

Right or wrong, like it or not, and legal or not, they are here, they are part of our society and our economic base, most work very hard for lesser wages than documented workers, and are extrememly family oriented. They are human beings. They are not going away, and if they did it would impact all our lives and hurt our economy. I have heard some really ignorant villification of the Latino population from people who seem to hold them responsible for all the woes in their world. What could they possibly have done to draw down that much hatred; a policy of hatred it seems, for some folks.

If they are driving in Oregon, they need to be licensed...we need to know it is safe to be on the road with them. We shouldn't put restrictions or discouragements in the way of overall safety. When you place people in a sudden position of being non-compliant, outside the law for a victimless offense, then you create a criminal class. We have enough of that already.

From a politically pragmatic view point it will not be productive to anger and alienate the Latino population who do vote. I suspect that will be a growing segment in coming years.

Sorta like....be careful whose ass you kick today, it may be one you have to kiss tomorrow.

"They do--drunks drive all the time without licenses, and hit bicyclists and kill them."

That's point I was making, just taking a license away is not a guarantee, but at least it is an impediment.

Otherwise, if someone is convicted of drunk driving, why take away his license? Because he is a lot less likely to drive, not 100% guaranteed not to drive. It is a statement by society, that he has done something illegal and doesn't get the privilege of driving legally anymore.

It's the author's logic that if we have a solution that fails 5% of the time then we should discard it, that troubles me. Waiting for a perfect solution may take a while.

Jeff Alworth

How could you be so wrong about the following statement: "But I think Mike's insinuation that the Dems are doing this purely for exploitative reasons is easily refuted by demographics: undocumented workers can't vote"

Illegal aliens are not only voting, but being encouraged to do so. I refer you to the following article:

Please, take the time to read it. It is very interesting. Thanks...

Well, since BusHitler's AmeriKKKa sux so bad how 'bout we do like those brave Mexicans do!!: "The question of whether to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants ignited a national debate in the United States. But in Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigrants, there’s no question: Here, you must be a legal resident to get a driver’s license.

All of Mexico’s 31 states, along with Mexico City, require foreigners to present a valid visa if they want a driver’s license, according to a survey of states by The Arizona Republic.

“When it comes to foreigners, we’re a little more strict here,” said Alejandro Ruíz, director of education at the Mexican Automobile Association.

licensing offices in all of Mexico’s 31 states, along with the Federal District, where Mexico City is located, said they require applicants to prove their citizenship, preferably by showing a federal voter-registration card issued by the Federal Elections Institute.

“Our constitution has certain restrictions for foreigners“

That linking feature never quite works the way I want it to, but close enough.

Jeff Alworth

I ask this question with all due respect and sincerity. What would it call it when the Clinton, Obama, and Edwards campaign websites can be translated into Spanish, but no other foreign language. I am sure that Spanish is not yet the second official language of the United States. I am also sure that there are many foreign languages spoken here as first languages. So why only Spanish? If you don't consider that pandering, what do you call it?

This law won't stop undocumented workers from driving. As a matter of public safety, allowing thousands of unlicensed drivers on the road is borderline crazy.

No license, no driving! We aren't allowing unlicensed drivers to drive, period! Driving is a revokable privlege, not a right, and even if you're a legal citizen, it's far too easy to get a driver's license and far too hard for dangerous drivers to lose it. For the public good, no unsafe drivers should be licensed, period, end of story. If you can't provide proof of legal residency and identity, and that you can competantly drive, and you can't maintain that driving record, you do NOT belong behind the wheel anywhere in any country as far as I'm concerned.

If it wasn't so tragic for this country, I would find it humorous how closely the positions of the Lunatic Left and the Big Business Right track each other on the "immigration" issue. You leftists are doing the hard work that the ultrarightist bosses of Big Business could never do on their own. No one is working harder to undermine the working class than you folks. Hypocrites all.

Jack | Nov 17, 2007 7:17:03 PM

If it wasn't so tragic for this country, I would find it humorous how closely the positions of the Lunatic Left and the Big Business Right track each other on the "immigration" issue. You leftists are doing the hard work that the ultrarightist bosses of Big Business could never do on their own. No one is working harder to undermine the working class than you folks. Hypocrites all.

You can get an "Amen" from me!!! Wesll said!

"....you do NOT belong behind the wheel anywhere in any country as far as I'm concerned."

Paul, are you willing to support a dedicated source of funding for state police that can withstand recession? Or are you one of those "pay for state police out of general fund money which is available right now, don't worry about the future, and by all means never mention ending a tax break because that would be the same thing as raising taxes!"?

Enforcement can't happen without funding.

And I wonder if some people really worry about undocumented residents who come from Asia, Africa, Middle East, N. Europe, or only those who come here by way of the Mexican border.

Jeff, "undocumented workers," your term -- suggests you want to "regularize" illegal aliens. In other words, give them amnesty. The majority of Americans and 50% of Democrats, don't want to give amnesty to law breakers.

Driver's licenses are one rod in a bundle of "status" signals.

What America needs is a series of "signals" to illegal aliens that they will not be tolerated.

Denying diver's licenses to illegal aliens is rod or signal to illegal aliens to self-deport.

Jeff, you are right that in itself denying DL's is not a strong enough signal.

The KEY signal is not being able to get a job if you are illegal, period.

But the driver's license "signal" is not just a signal to the illegal aliens, but also signal or demand, if you will, to the politicians to enforce the law.

What is the law now? Answer: Deportation of people in the country without valid authorization.

Can active deportation be carried out? Yes, but realistically with upwards of over 20 million illegal aliens, to be effective, illegal aliens need to self-deport.

Illegal aliens will only self-deport, a policy of attrition, if every single "signal" in the bundle of signals says, "Illegally entering this country will not be tolerated."

The DL decision reveals the pendulum is swinging to "enforcement" first, second, and last.

That is a good thing for America and illegal aliens themselves.

For far too long, there has been a "wink and a nod" to illegal aliens that it is alright to come into this country illegally.

The sooner illegal aliens understand that "wink and nod" is gone the better off all parties to the illegal alien issue will be.

Driver's licenses for illegal aliens were just one "wink and nod" among many. Americans understood that.

In that sense, the denial of driver's licenses is a symbol that Americans want sent out to illegal aliens and politicians -- ENFORCE THE LAW.

Jeff

There are 311 languages spoken in the United States, yet those candidates choose to focus on only two. Why?

That's all real nice Dave.

I'd like to hear what you'd say to the immigrants who have been on the eternal waiting list...jumping through all of our hoops.

All in an effort to come to the country they love enough...that they respect enough...that their very first act on the road to citizenship is not to thumb their nose at our laws?

What would you tell them?

It's sort of odd to debate any single issue related to treatment of illegal workers (because thats really what we're talking about here, people who come to the US for jobs, and yes, most are latino) when what underlays every policy is really our entire immigration policy.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the more liberal folks would have a huge problem with restricting rights to get licenses and apply for benefits if in fact there was some method for workers who have been here a while to get on a path for permanent or at least legal residency.

These workers and their families have not been prevented from coming here, and in many cases, were recruited by Coyotes hired by your local businessperson. These workers, put down roots and had families. And because US businesses, and the US government, knew that their labor was vital to the way they've constructed our country's economy, there has been virtually no enforcement for their removal. Until now.

In a perfect world I'd agree that people who are illegally in our country shouldn't get benefits.

But thats not our history. We've seen collusion by inaction between the government, industry and consumers to ignore illegal workers as long as it benefited us personally.

So as a matter of fundamental justice, it strikes me, and many others, as unfair and hypocritical to turn a blind eye when we reap the benefits of illegal workers, then passing laws, or suddenly start to enforce the laws that are on the books, when it strikes our fancy or becomes politically profitable. That simply ignores the real personal tragedy that such enforcement can cause to workers and their families who have come, stayed and worked based on this perhaps unwise, historical unspoken arrangement.

What we need is comprehensive immigration reform and that should be the debate.

And in my opinion, if the Republican party business base, who really want some form of immigration reform, hadn't allowed their strategists to stir up the anti-immigrant segment of voters in order to create a wedge issue, we'd have it by now.

Sometimes I even wonder if certain interest groups want us to debate things like licenses or benefits to illegal workers, or whether we should build a fence. Those actions do little to nothing to reduce the number of illegal workers, but it does keep the debate, and the wedge issue, alive.

Mr. Harris: You are mistaken in regards to who wanted to "stir up" ani-illegal sentiment.

It was never the big business and other profiteers of illegal cheap labor. But, rather, law and order, and, yes, blue collar Republicans, who saw their tax money expended on illegal aliens and their wages reduced.

Also, folks, who saw this as an invasion and, therefore, feel the culture is threatened, are social conservatives.

You try to sound scholarly, but are completely wrong.

But, go ahead, go on being wrong while Republicans and a few smart Democrats, respond to the majority view of Americans.

I listened to a discussion of reporters, who always seem to veer to the left. Their discussion was either simply wrong or intellectually dishonest.

It was hard to tell, but it certainly didn't reflect current politics or sentiments of the voting public.

The truth is that most blue collar Democrats are looking at the issue with fresh eyes, not controlled by the far-left of the Democratic Party.

So are independents.

Democratic Leadership plans for power aren't as important as econoomic and social well being for blue collar Democrats and independents.

You are whistling past the grave yard. I understand you are deperate to keep Democrats on the open border, amnesty plantation. Many are saying no to the master, after looking at the issue for themselves and their own self-interest.

The debate about illegal aliens, brings out an interesting and potentially crucial fact: Democratic blue collar workers have more in common with Republican Blue collar workers than with the elite far-left leadership of the Democratic Party.

It's true, a very sizable portion of the Republican Party is made up of blue collar workers. This is where most of the impetus, originates, for controlling illegal cheap labor.

Of course, elite Democratic leadership would never tell you this.

They would never remind blue collar Democrats that the elite is more interested in power in Washington D.C. and state capitols than the economic well being of blue collar workers, they claim to represent.

The best representation of blue collar workers, regardless of party, is a tight labor market. where meaningful labor negotiation with management results in higher wages and better working conditions.

Flooding the labor market with cheap labor, decreases wages up through the Middle Class. Elite Democrats have stood shoulder to shoulder with elite Republicans in an effort to flood the labor market for years, in a kind of silent conspiracy.

True, they have tried to make up for this with Socialist programs. But Socialist programs rarely makeup for an undermined wage environment. That's why elite, globalist, open border, amnesty Republicans have a soft spot for Socialist programs: It's cheaper than paying higher wages.

Democratic blue collar workers should look over at Republican blue collar workers: They would see folks living like them, dressing like them, with the same dinner table, pocketbook concerns.

Republican blue collar workers have already thrown off the elite open border, amnesty Republican leadership.

Question: When will Democratic blue collar workers consciously throw off the elite open border, amnesty Democratic leadership?

I suggest it's happening now!

the recent Chavez debacle (he was for stricter immigration control, by the way.

Not really. He was against anyone who broke strikes regardless of where they were from.

Illegal immigrants lie to get false FICA numbers

They do? To who? Those awful people, paying FICA taxes that they can never collect on. What a threat to our security.

Calling people bigots, when people who hold your view are tightly allied with wealthy exploiters of labor, would be laughable if such policies had not been a key tool in keeping blue collar wages flat for the past thirty years.

Pat - that is complete BS. The folks who sneak across the border looking for work are hardly "allied with wealthy exploiters. Wealthy exploiters are the guys bringing in foreign workers legally. And, just so no one is unclear about the relationship between racial bigotry and anti-immigrant movements, our current system of immigration was a direct result of the KKK's efforts during the 20's.

would be laughable if such policies had not been a key tool in keeping blue collar wages flat for the past thirty years.

And there goes that bigotry again, trying to blame poor brown people for the problems created by wealthy exploiters. Blue collar wages are flat and falling because of anti-union policies supported by an increasingly white collar middle class. Not because of immigration.

No license, no driving! We aren't allowing unlicensed drivers to drive, period!

We don't allow undocumented workers to work either. You see how well that is going? The fact is we are better off if drivers know the rules of the road and can competently operate an automobile. Whether they have the papers to legally work here or not.

The KEY signal is not being able to get a job if you are illegal, period.

It has been illegal for employers to hire people who lack proper papers for a long time. It is a law which has not been enforced - at all. Is it surprising we are "sending signals" to the poor brown blue-collar immigrants looking for work by denying them drivers licenses while letting the scofflaw wealthy white collar employers off the hook?

If you really want to stop people from coming for work, stop patronizing businesses who hire people without papers. Of course, it might be a short list for you to do business with.

What would you tell them?

Are you proposing increasing immigration quotas? Because unless you are, the answer is the exactly the same regardless of who comes here illegally?

Mr. Williams:

Illegal aliens are not "closely connected to wealthy exploiters," it's true.

But at the end of the day, that is the net effect, for wealthy exploiters get what they want CHEAP LABOR.

True, the "wealthy" also use legal means such as the H-B1 visas, and I might add, this has been used to knock down wages in hi-tech employment fields.

And, yes, of course, cheap illegal labor holds down citizen's wages, particularly in the same field, but also up the wage ladder, as well.

Why do you think unions want minimum wage increases, even though their members make more than minimum wage?

Because the minimum wage floor affects the entire wage scale pyramid.

But the quote's point was that your position, Mr. Williams, is the same as the "wealthy exploiters," again, in a net effect. What you apparently want and what the "wealthy exploiters" want is the same. Possibly for different reasons, but with the same result.

No, Mr. Williams, the current immigration system is the result of the 1965 Immigration Act spearheaded by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

And, African-American leaders, in days lone past, were against flooding the labor market because they understood it would undermine African-American wages. And, true, Cesar Chavez, didn't limit his objections to illegal aliens -- he objected to all strike breakers -- but illegal aliens were the main strike breakers used by the farm owners.

Anti-union policies are more affective when there are plenty of strikers to break unions.

People don't strike when they know they can be easily replaced by a scab.

And, their ability (strength of bargaining position) to negotiate for higher wages and better working conditions is reduced.

People don't unionize in the first place, if they think unions will provide little benefit for the union dues they would pay apon joining a union.

Mr. Williams, you cite the fact that only sporatic and little enforcement has been carried out in the last thirty years. Good, that needs to change. White collar employers should not be let off the hook.

ENFORCE THE LAW ON EMPLOYERS!

The fact that DL's will not be handed out to illegal aliens is only one signal. Obviously, that alone would be insufficient to get the job done, by itself.

Every "signal" that can be employed to inform illegal aliens in this country, and foreign nationals in their home countries must be used. So they do self-deport, and never cross the border illegally in the first place.

Yes, there are many businesses that are flouting the law -- intentionally, or through willful ignorance.

But as long as America is a Democracy and the majority support and demand the law be enforced, businesses will have adjust and comport their hiring to the law, or pay the consequences.

It can be done. It takes political will.

<hr/>