The entire immigration battle is a crazy quilt of mixed-up priorities.

I'm a frequent Florida visitor–warm weather in winter and all. There, the immigration “problem” isn't a problem so much as an “issue”–Cuban. The south Florida cartel is bitterly-split on the federal government's stance toward Cuba, and whether the borders should be open or closed to Cubans seeking assylum or citizenship.

Hard-right Florida neocons have spent a generation pandering to the Cuban-American citizenry. They want the borders “open” so any Cubans can enter to flee Communism and a failed government.

If those same folks lived four states west, in Texas, they'd be all for putting up a 20-foot wall on the south border.

It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

However, Florida is unique. Most of the immigration issue involves our common border with Mexico. Unless we dedicate billions a year to a massive border patrol or Army-police, we've got to attack the root problem: cheap labor. No such border issues exist with Canada.

Evidently the labor is needed, or the illegals would stop coming. It seems ludicrous to overly-punish workers, if the employers are let off scot-free.

But that's just me.

There's also the growing issue of massive, unchecked drug gangs in Mexico which actually rule some regions of the country. Many folks are afraid for their lives. If they came form anywhere else, we'd probably allow anyone, who's afraid for their life, to be classified as a political refugee.

You know the solution is rarer than precious diamonds, when a border state senator who used to advocate tolerance and some amnesty, McCain, flip to the right to save his hide.

Simple question…. if you could break a law by sneaking into another country but your children if born in that country would be citizens of that country and guaranteed a better life, would you do it? If hypothetically in Canada than here and you would get better healthcare, make 200-300% more in wages allowing you to send money back to your relatives supporting them here, enjoy a better system of government, no drug cartels running rampant, and your children born there would get to stay forever would you sneak across into Canada? Factor in that all Canada would do to you if you get caught would be a slap on the wrist, send you back here where you could sneak across again, or grant you amnesty.

I remember a very interesting piece on the national media a few years ago. It was very pro-amnesty and they interviewed a woman who was the daughter of an illegal (she is a citizen and a law student). She argued for amnesty, etc and was very fluent in English. She continued by how unfair it would be to deport her father who had been here in the US for 30 years. They showed an interview with her father which was translated into English. 30 years and he doesn't speak the language of the country? Lot of effort on his part.

Except in the form of slavery (and fast growing tax slums of share cropped rate payers); cheap labor doesn't exist in the free market organic, there is only affordable labor, reconciled to the agreement & negotiation of free will.

It appears that Arizona is responding to fed failure vs. making new law out of whole cloth.

Our nation's vitality continues to be an infusion of liberty loving people, the essence of American acculturation. However, the universal cause of liberty shouldn't be sacrificed at the altar of self destruction disguised as “tolerance.” Americans should instead denounce & pressure the tyrants of this world, from whom so many of our fellow globe riders take flight.

The 3 items in the blog refer to punishing companies. I'm not sure that is the complete answer to Phoenix which has become the kidnapping capitol of the nation (and 2nd in the world, following Mexico). Arizona has been complaining for a long time about it's citizens safety and the failure of the Fed to secure borders. I don't blame Arizona one bit.

OK, Paul, then let's try this: let's say I'm furious about, oh…the federal enforcement of interstate commerce laws and regulations. So I insist that the Indiana legislature enact new laws, which detail tariffs and regulations for moving merchandise in/out of Indiana.

This is about separation of power, purely and simply.

I'll agree that the feds have done a lousy job. Actually, that evaluation gives the word “lousy” a bad name. The feds have been pathetic. But we have remedies for that. Those remedies should not include 50 different state laws to deal with it. There's a reason some laws are federal.

The Canadian argument makes a lot of sense, Taxpayer. Clip and send to all 435 members of the House.

Whatever the solution, I think it's hilarious that the neocons can't remain consistent on this issue. Florida neocons and Arizona neocons have wildly differing views about the porous nature of their southern border.

But then, consistency isn't their strong suit.

Paul, try to keep up, huh? USCode 311 has bene superceded by Executive orders, Declarations of War and multiple edicts since its enactment.

And by definition of many of the Founders, “militia” meant National Guard, or something akin to that…NOT our individual right to have guns.

But keep on thinking whatever it is that keeps you going.

Abdul -

You had some very good ideas on what companies can do to businesses that hire illegals. I hope they get implemented everywhere soon. Where I disagree with you is the idea that it is only the federal government that can decide if someone is here legally. A person's legal status is a matter of fact. Saying only the federal government can decide if someone is here legally is like saying that only they could determine your height. It is a matter of fact that anyone looking at the proper data could determine.

You are also correct that Americans want cheap labor. Of course there businesses and individuals would also like to have people work in unsafe unenvironments, not be paid overtime, and host of other labor practices that we don't allow. Why do we think we need to allow this one? We would never say that we need to have children working in factories because we want cheap labor.

Of course you are right that stopping or at least dramatically reducing illegal immigration will raise the prices of many things – especially in the fields (no pun intended) of agriculture and construction. I don't believe there are jobs Americans won't do, but they will demand more in pay than people here illegally. Of course many of those people that will get these jobs aren't working today – so the increase in costs will be offset by the reduction in government benefits being paid out. Even if the costs do exceed the cost savings (which I don't actually believe) – I beleive it would be worth it in order to say that we are a just society of laws.

As for the people currently here illegally, I have no intention of having police conduct door-to-door searches for illegals. I do think that anyone found being here illegally should be immediately deported. I also think that stopping anyone here illegally from receiving benefits and having very stiff penalties for any business that hires illegals will take care of alot of the issue by itself. After all, if you can't receive benefits and you can't find anyone to to hire you in this strange country – would you stay here or would you go back to your home?

The amnesty idea was tried in the 1980s. It was sold to everyone as a one-time deal that would solve once and for all our illegal immigration issue. Now look where we are today. What is being proposed that is any different from what was done 20 some years ago? We tried an amnesty – it failed. Let's give this approach a try. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't. But doing nothing will certainly not work.

Really we only have two options. Amnesty isn't one of them – that just pushes the problem further down the road. We make everyone legal, so we don't have an illegal immigration problem, until more keep coming and we end up where we started. The first option is to actually get serious about addressing this issue: secure the border, take away all benefits from illegal immigrants, severely punish people who hire illegals to the point where it is not cost effective to break the law. The second option is to give up pretending we have any control over our border. Let whoever wants to come in come and immediately receive benefits and legally work here.

I vote for option one.

We agree that the federal government has done a lousy job at actually enforcing its own immigration laws. However I think you are stretching to compare a state enacting its own interstate commerce laws to what Arizona has enacted in regards to immigration. Arizona's law is not attempting usurp the federal goverment's power to determine who is here legally – it is trying to enforce the federal definition. It is still the federal government that has the right to make someone a naturalized citizen, give out visas or greencards. Arizona is not attempting to steal that power away. All it is trying to do is when a state law enforcement official finds someone in Arizona is turn that person over the feds so that the federal government can follow its own laws and deport the individual.

I don’t have any problem with punishing employers.
If you place the burden on employers, however, won‘t the employers eventually be accused of the same racist profiling that Abdul is accusing the Arizona police of?

There's a George Will column in the past 2-3 days, even the Star had it, re the Arizona law. I don't think it's devoid of validity. He made a point that there are two sides to the coin on profiling. It seems to be a valid societal standard when it occurs in examples like Affirmative Action. Most Americans would concur it makes sense, up to a point in law enforcement, especially if time and funding are key factors. Some of us may not like it, but the fact is there were no “Norweigan grandmothers” that were part of the 911 bombings, although we sometimes err on the side of wanding them as well at airports.

I think we're trying to evade the common sense of everyday life if we disavow statistical validity. Of the women that burned their bras in the Women's Liberation movement, how many probably went back to wearing them later because it made sense? Was the policeman suppossed to totally ignore the call from a worried citizen before he discovered it was a black professor trying to get into his house?

Do I have to go through life with the inequities of being a statistical minority? Not usually. I was born with the pale skin I have and into a country that's been affluent. Can I blame others for trying to better their existence? To an extent, no. I also am not prepared to sacrifice beyond a certain point to better their existence. I volunteer, I contribute, I try to play fair.

It is one thing to contribute individually. Another, for our country to ask for help for others during periods of affluence. It's another thing entirely to ask us to abandon common sense, particularly fiscally.

Wonder how many commentators here have actually slogged thru reading the actual law about which they are commenting? It is about three pages long.