p_incorrect on November 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I am as conservative as you can get.

Then I’m sure you understand what I am saying if you read here often. Conservatives are absolutely sickened right now. They ( and I say “they” because I don’t know if I technically qualify… I may be a little more moderate than some, but basically I find myself aligned with them on most issues)…anyway, I think the majority feel like the GOP just continues to move left, and they see no reason to continue on that road. Why did it take Romney so long to clinch the nomination? Because he wasn’t considered to be a conservative, no? Romney was probably the 3rd or 4th choice for alot of Republican primary voters…but I digress. My point is that conservatives, IMO, have felt for quite some time that they have given their vote to more moderate nominees for the last two cycles, to no avail. Now they are done. If the GOP is going to continue to tack even further left (with their own proposal for an amnesty), it’s going to be like rubbing salt in a wound that has not healed yet. Not many are truly over the loss of this election. Now to tell them (and me), that we must quickly embrace another amnesty, will only unleash the hounds from hell. In other words….this is really crappy timing to try to get anyone to even listen, no less accept this way of thinking. Conservatives may fight it again, or…if the party just rams it down everyone’s throat, I honestly think many will just walk away. They will have given up in believing that Republicans can truly represent them. I just see all this as being very risky as far as the base is concerned. We have been forced to accept, over the last four years, policies and procedures from this administration that have not been at all helpful, to put it mildly. Now we have another four years of the same or worse in front of us. And if the GOP is going to force even more of a left wing agenda on their right leaning constituents, I just don’t see ending well.

I’m not sure why I’m even going on and on about this…so I will stop. But I will do as I said I would, and try to understand more about our immigration laws… so I can perhaps see the merits in your point of view.

Conservatives will not vote for another Obama, I can assure you…but they will not continue to go along to get along either. Do you read here frequently? Do you actually converse with conservatives on a regular basis? Do you not understand how disgusted everyone is right now? I am honestly concerned the GOP will fracture the party with these amnesty proposals, and conservatives will let them go down in flames.

I will re-read what you have told me with an open mind… and I will attempt to understand our current system more than I do now. I’m sure you are probably right that some of our laws need to changed, however, providing amnesty seems like a lousy answer to our problems.

lynncgb on November 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I am as conservative as you can get. I find myself in the minority here in California but I am as Fox News watching, Hotair/Drudge reader as the most fervent conservatives here.

I didn’t vote for Romney in this election (I left the presidential section blank) because I found it an outrage that he picked Ted Olson to coach Paul Ryan for his debate with Biden. In case you didn’t know, Ted Olson has spent the last 3 years working to nullify the will of the people of California that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Prop 8 passed solidly 4 years ago just as this year prop 34, that would have abolished the death penalty, was defeated solidly (voted No to prop 34). Not sure if I would have voted for him had I lived in a swing state but, needless to say that I despise RINOs from the deepest of my heart. And yes, I am also a very pro life person.

I am talking to you from the perspective of somebody who left his native place in search of everything that conservatives love: individual freedom, free markets, entrepreneurial opportunities, etc. I was born and raised in Europe, so I know pretty much what the “socialist utopia” looks like. Not very pretty unless you are a politician or a government bureaucrat. Becoming either is the dream of college graduates in those countries. I was pretty depressed when Obama was elected the first time because I recognized his rhetoric pretty quickly. It’s the same socialist rhetoric I have heard from European politicians since I was a kid.

And yet, I find this insistence in “enforcing the current immigration system” coming from certain conservatives very troubling. Many are talking from ignorance for sure (as I said I am utterly ignorant about how the immigration system works in the country of my birth) but failing to realize that the current system is untenable is a problem. Take the 2007 law for instance. As I said it was defeated because of the numerous lobbies that were opposed to it. Taking a look at the cloture votes in the US Senate, it seems that hard core conservatives played a key role in defeating it. Well, guess what, 5 years later we have 1 million more potential Democratic voters (200000 per year) that just became Permanent Residents legally that would not have become otherwise (because as I said the 2007 law limited the ability to sponsor family members to spouses and children younger than 21).

Any future deal struck on immigration will be worse, demographically speaking, for conservatives than the 2007 law. In fact, I am sure that many of the Republican senators who voted no then now are having second thoughts.

There are many people who want to come to America legally. And the majority of these people are naturally aligned with the conservative viewpoint even if, as Susana Martinez said, they don’t know it right away. The GOP has to make its party welcoming to them. To be sure there has to be a selection mechanism not only to keep the best and brightest but also to recognize that there are low skill jobs that Americans are not willing to do. There has to be a legal path for non Americans to do those jobs (now there is no such path and as a result most low skilled immigrants are illegal).

By insisting in unreasonable positions, these conservatives are causing the Dems gain ground. The Dems ram through their agendas in those states that are more ethnically diverse. Take California. Prop 8, that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was solidly approved. And the pro gay marriage advocates are so afraid of losing a second time (given that in the state of Washington gay marriage was approved very narrowly) that their strategy is to continue to push for Prop 8 to be declared unconstitutional (with Ted Olson’s help). The death penalty continues to be popular here as the defeat of prop 34 proved this year. So even in the bluest of states, the so called “social issues” are not the ones that keep people from voting for the GOP. In Silicon Valley, where I live, people love money and free markets. Many Silicon Valley high tech workers are in fact libertarians even though they vote Democratic. However, it’s very difficult to attract new voters when you present yourself as the party of not welcoming new members that “look different”. We might not get a plurality of Hispanics, but getting back to the 44% that GW got would have flipped Florida and Colorado this year. The difference between what Romney got and what GW got is 1.7% represents in the total national popular vote. The bottom line is that the Dems are using the hard core, and unreasonable, conservative position on immigration as a proxy to depict the GOP as a stronghold place for racists. Now, the GOP doesn’t have to capitulate on any matter to assuage the Dems but what is doing with immigration is even worse. By not moving, for the sake of not moving, not only it is hurting its brand but what is worse, it is helping the Dems get ~ 200000 more potential liberal voters every year. Not very smart, me thinks.

Who would then go and vote for a liberal democrat like Barack Obama… Now, that’s silly.

Conservatives will not vote for another Obama, I can assure you…but they will not continue to go along to get along either. Do you read here frequently? Do you actually converse with conservatives on a regular basis? Do you not understand how disgusted everyone is right now? I am honestly concerned the GOP will fracture the party with these amnesty proposals, and conservatives will let them go down in flames.

I will re-read what you have told me with an open mind… and I will attempt to understand our current system more than I do now. I’m sure you are probably right that some of our laws need to changed, however, providing amnesty seems like a lousy answer to our problems.

I’m not looking for followers. You on the other hand, have an uphill battle on your hands if you want to attempt to get Republicans to believe this is a good idea…because from what I can tell, as of now, for every one Hispanic vote you think you will gain from amnesty, you will lose two conservatives from the base….at least.

Who would then go and vote for a liberal democrat like Barack Obama… Now, that’s silly.

Anyway, thank you for your perspective… but since you are going to insist on identifying those of us that merely want our existing laws enforced as some sort of extremists, I think I’ll end this. Good luck trying to win the hearts and minds of all those other zealots.

Again, a talking point. I just showed you the ways in which the current laws are broken but it seems that it doesn’t matter to you. The current system is LEGALLY inundating the US with future Democratic voters (the family members of said Mexican/Asian immigrants). You are taking from ideology here, not reason. As I said, you are like those libs who believe that raising taxes for families who make more than 250K is going to fix the deficit problem. Just as their “tax the rich” talking point defies the laws of mathematics, your “enforce the current laws” defies the current reality. The status quo will make things worse for the GOP, not better.

What is sure not to win any followers is to continue with your red herrings.
p_incorrect on November 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I’m not looking for followers. You on the other hand, have an uphill battle on your hands if you want to attempt to get Republicans to believe this is a good idea…because from what I can tell, as of now, for every one Hispanic vote you think you will gain from amnesty, you will lose two conservatives from the base….at least. Anyway, thank you for your perspective… but since you are going to insist on identifying those of us that merely want our existing laws enforced as some sort of extremists, I think I’ll end this. Good luck trying to win the hearts and minds of all those other zealots.

I don’t understand why I shouldn’t be completely skeptical about this so-called “requirement”. Again, the 1986 amnesty law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring illegals. Isn’t that when those nifty little I-9 forms came to be. Well, I’ve seen first hand what a joke they have become.

Because, as I am telling you by having had to go through the criminal background process twice (first for my greencard, then for my citizenship) it’s very comprehensive, not the I-9 joke. You are fingerprinted and your fingerprints and your name are checked against the FBI database that collects information from crime enforcement agencies nationwide. It’s the same process people who need clearance for federal employment purposes need to follow.

Further, say that you somehow manage to break the system, unlikely in this day and age of electronic records, and that somehow your 20+ year old conviction doesn’t show up anywhere and you lie when you apply for the greencard. Legally speaking, your greencard and US citizenship could be taken away because the crime of getting an immigration benefit via willful misrepresentation or lying doesn’t have a statute of limitations. So it’s a good a system as it can get.

More than 200000 thousand were parents, siblings and older children of US citizens. After 5 years, these can become US citizens and thus vote.

I forgot to say, that then they continue exploiting the system. Because say that as a US citizen you sponsor your brother. After he becomes a citizen, he will be able to sponsor his wife who, after she becomes a citizen, will be able to sponsor her parents as immediate relatives and so on. The current system is completely insane and untenable. But yet, those of your kind love it. From what I have seen, most of the conservative talking heads that speak of enforcing the current system, and that would include Allahpundit, as a solution to the problem seem to be completely ignorant about the reality of the current system. In a way, they remind me of those liberals who believe that the solution to everything is to raise taxes to the wealthy. Both are great talking points for their respective bases, but in reality they accomplish nothing to fix immigration or the deficit respectively.

One of the requirements of the proposed law is to keep “good moral character”;

I don’t understand why I shouldn’t be completely skeptical about this so-called “requirement”. Again, the 1986 amnesty law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring illegals. Isn’t that when those nifty little I-9 forms came to be. Well, I’ve seen first hand what a joke they have become.

And as an added thought, if you are serious about wanting to attempt to convince anyone that they should listen to your thoughts….you might want to think about dropping that “zealot” stuff
lynncgb on November 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

What is sure not to win any followers is to continue with your red herrings. I gave you a detailed exposition about why I think the proposed act is a good idea (hopefully you learned something in the process, like the difference between immigrant and non immigrant status or the meaning of “good moral character” for immigration law purposes). Not only you didn’t address any of my arguments but you replied with the same old canards that solve absolutely nothing. The proposed law, just as the 2007 proposals, does not give amnesty in the 1986 sense or the Democratic DREAM Act sense. Non-immigrant status takes these people, those who are in good moral character, out of the shadows. It continues to keep the criminals at bay (even minor criminals that don’t pass the good moral character test). It allows the federal government to track where they are (because as an immigrant you are obligated to notify the Federal Government of every change of address). If the purpose is to limit illegal immigration, enforcing the status quo is not the solution, because the status quo is broken. You could add any number of US patrol agents and it would solve absolutely nothing because the border is huge. Those who employ illegal immigrants of Mexican origin in agriculture will continue to do so, like it or not. The reason is simple, Americans demand cheap food while at the same time many of those who are in the unemployment ranks refuse to work under the conditions that allow those cheap prizes to exist, as the illegal Mexicans do. High tech workers will continue to come to the US, like it or not. Giving these workers the freedom to change employers is something that will benefit the US. And finally, US citizens of Mexican/Chinese origin will continue to bring in their whole families (legally) to the US who will eventually become Democratic voters for the most part, like it or not. According to the 2011 Immigration Handbook published by the USCIS, of the 1 million or so immigrants that got their greencards legally in the US, only 140000 were employment based (which is the statutory limit). More than 200000 thousand were parents, siblings and older children of US citizens. After 5 years, these can become US citizens and thus vote. Those are the facts of the current system. It’s insane to keep it as it is now. And yet, that’s what ZEALOTS like yourself want to do.

You are very misguided.

First, true that people voted over many things but, at the end of the day, it seems to me that their opposition to immigration reform was not as strong as might make it look like, otherwise they would not have given Obama/Dems a solid victory.

Well, I’m still going to disagree. However, even if the backlash to any amnesty proposal is only from Republicans, I believe it is safe to say it will be huge. The GOP pushed for amnesty in George W. Bush’s second term and it went over like a lead ballon. It’s not going to be any different now. And I also think that any Republican representative that votes in favor of amnesty better do it when they are no longer interested in holding office. Republican/conservative voters will not forget.

Worse of all, your nonsensical position, which I am sure is shared by many, is costing us, conservatives many votes not only amongst Hispanics and Asians but also amongst middle of the ground Americans of every ethnicity who fail to understand your nonsense.

Aaah, did we get to the heart of the matter? Votes? If the GOP thinks it’s going to bring into the fold a decent portion of the Hispanic vote by giving illegals amnesty, then they are the ones who are denying history and will have shown themselves to truly be the Stupid Party. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the GOP would be able to capture the Hispanic vote if we pass an amnesty. If that’s all it took, remember that Reagan signed a “one time” comprehensive illegal immigration plan while he was in office. So, if it’s all about amnesty, why aren’t Hispanics already voting Republican? What about McCain in 2008? He ran way to the left on the amnesty issue and he still got less votes from Hispanics than Bush. Nothing will change if we signed on to an amnesty because Republicans will never be able to hand out more free goodies than the Democrats. If we offer a legal status short of citizenship, the Democrats will offer citizenship and say we hate Hispanics because we won’t do it. If we offer citizenship in 10 years, they’ll offer it in five and say we’re dragging our feet because we hate Hispanics. If we offered amnesty for every illegal tomorrow, Democrats would ask for a new amnesty every year for anyone who sneaks across the border and they’d say that we hate Hispanics if we disagree.

You are making it look like as if breaking the immigration laws is the same as committing a serious crime such as murder. It is not. Presidents and Governors in the US have the prerogative to give pardons to people convicted of very serious crimes. The exiting Mississippi governor pardoned several CONVICTED KILLERS and I didn’t see much outrage from zealots like you.

Good grief… you’re the only one comparing illegals to murderers. You are talking about offering eventual citizenship to perhaps 20 million, largely uneducated manual laborers with minimal English skills, most of whom would draw tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars more in government benefits than they pay in over the course of their lifetimes. It would be terrible policy for the country. At a time when the unemployment rate is sky high and the country is running a trillion dollar deficit, how much sense does it make to bring in 20 million new citizens who’ll be a huge net drain on the country? We’re not talking about bringing in ten million engineers, scientists, computer programmers and entrepreneurs, are we?

And as an added thought, if you are serious about wanting to attempt to convince anyone that they should listen to your thoughts….you might want to think about dropping that “zealot” stuff.

If you are at all interested…you can read more here (h/t John Hawkins) about how amnesty distracts us from the voter outreach we really need to do.

lynncgb on November 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM

You are very misguided.

First, true that people voted over many things but, at the end of the day, it seems to me that their opposition to immigration reform was not as strong as might make it look like, otherwise they would not have given Obama/Dems a solid victory. Worse of all, your nonsensical position, which I am sure is shared by many, is costing us, conservatives many votes not only amongst Hispanics and Asians but also amongst middle of the ground Americans of every ethnicity who fail to understand your nonsense.

Second, you are making it look like as if breaking the immigration laws is the same as committing a serious crime such as murder. It is not. Presidents and Governors in the US have the prerogative to give pardons to people convicted of very serious crimes. The exiting Mississippi governor pardoned several CONVICTED KILLERS and I didn’t see much outrage from zealots like you.

Third, I don’t blame you for your ignorance about our current immigration system works. I don’t know how the one of the country where I came from works either. But to say that it is utterly broken is an understatement. The only clear beneficiaries of the current system are US Government bureaucrats working for the USCIS (the new name for the INS) who make a great deal of money out of making the life of immigrants miserable, employers who want to suck the blood of wanna be immigrants and Mexicans/Chinese who abuse the family sponsorship privilege to bring in future Democratic voters to the US. One of the requirements of the proposed law is to keep “good moral character”; since I am sure you are not aware of what that means, let me tell what it is not, it is not compliance with the 10 commandments. It’s legalese to say that those convicted of pretty much any crime not only cannot become permanent residents / greencard holders but, in all likelihood, face deportation. Before you are given your greencard and your US citizenship, you have to pass a very comprehensive criminal background check. Anything beyond a traffic ticket can trigger a finding of lack of good moral character, such as a DUI, even admission of regular drug use for which there was no conviction. None of the last two US presidents would meet the good moral character test. The only time a violation of this standard doesn’t trigger deportation is after US citizenship (ie, greencard alone is not enough to prevent deportation). So with the current law, you are keeping these people who came here illegally under a 10-15 years (for Mexicans probably for life because of the quotas) watch that if they commit any of these crimes, they will be deported.

For the record, I am all for stripping of their US citizenship, and deport them, to all US citizens, including natural born, who fail to maintain good moral character over their lives, but that’s unlikely to happen :D.

Fourth, the 2007 comprehensive reform was a very good deal. It put the GOP on the leadership on the matter. If you see which lobbies caused its defeat you understand why the system has to change. The first that opposed the deal were the high tech companies, the very same that keep complaining about H1B quotas. Why? Because it took away the right to slave high tech workers and gave the immigration benefit to the immigrant. Under the current system, employers have to sponsor immigrants through their way to a greencard; it’s a method that many (although in all fairness not all) employ to suck the blood out of workers. Shifting the ownership of the immigration benefit to the immigrant, so that a qualified immigrant is allowed to change jobs, was a threat to many companies. Canada has been successfully implementing a similar system for decades and it works beautifully there. The second lobby was the unions. Why? Because giving the possibility to low skill workers to work legally in the US was a threat to their increasingly nonsensical demands. They prefer the status quo, that slaves not only illegal immigrants but also businesses to unions, no matter how many jobs it kills. Third it was the Mexican and Asian lobbies because it took away from them the ability to sponsor anybody beyond spouses and children younger than 21. We are the only country in the civilized world that I am aware of that allows its citizens to bring their whole family (parents, siblings) with greencard status.

The 2007 law also significantly increased resources for law enforcement.

We need a little bit of rational thinking here if we are to win (was we were close to do in 2007) the battle over immigration reform.

It might be news to you but in the only poll that matters, that of election day, the majority of Americans voted for Obama and the Dems, who are for a more aggressive amnesty program than the one proposed here.
p_incorrect on November 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Well it might be news to you too, that not everyone who voted for Obama agrees with his thoughts on how to deal with the problems regarding illegals. Look at the poll numbers again…a clear majority supports border security before amnesty and a decisive majority also wants our laws enforced.

I don’t want to reward criminal behavior

These proposals do exactly that. DREAM and ACHIEVE tell the world that our borders mean nothing. Just show up any old time you like and eventually you will be given amnesty.

I am all for securing the border

Well we found common ground then, but…we need to secure the border first. In 1986 we were supposed to get border security along with the amnesty that was given to millions of illegals. Did it ever happen? No…this time…border secured first. We would be pretty stupid if we fell for that line again.

With respect to those who came here legally; I am one of them. I waited patiently in the line to get my greencard and then my citizenship.

Excellent. I am happy you are here then…however, those that choose not to follow our laws are criminals, and granting exceptions for them will only become an incentive for millions more.

Why do you want to reward criminal behavior? Why should illegals that are here now be granted any sort of legal status when there are so many others who patiently wait to legally come here… and pay beaucoup bucks in the process?

Sorry, I’m in with the majority on this… and our desire to have our current laws enforced is being pragmatic.

lynncgb on November 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

It might be news to you but in the only poll that matters, that of election day, the majority of Americans voted for Obama and the Dems, who are for a more aggressive amnesty program than the one proposed here.

I don’t want to reward criminal behavior but there reality is more complex than what you make it look like. These illegal immigrants work for employers who hire them illegally. Nobody talks about punishing the employers. The agriculture industry in California for instance couldn’t function without these illegal immigrants because a) Americans don’t want to do those jobs (and to those who think otherwise, put yourself in the shoes of an employer, why would you go through the trouble of hiring an illegal if you could hire an available American citizen or legal immigrant) and b) because unless you marry a US citizen, there is no legal way to immigrate to the US to do low skills jobs. I am all for securing the border but there is the reality that it’s our irrational immigration laws and a lot of businesses who benefit from them which are as responsible for having these illegals here as are the illegals themselves.

With respect to those who came here legally; I am one of them. I waited patiently in the line to get my greencard and then my citizenship. I would be against giving these illegals a pass with respect to the greencard process. But that’s not what the law does. After 10 years on an non immigrant visa, years during which they will have to duly pay taxes, they will have to wait in the line behind all those who were waiting at the time of applying to the greencard. And, if the current greencard system doesn’t change, that would mean that many of those of Mexican origin will have to wait almost indefinitely in the greencard line because there is an annual cap on the number of people who can immigrate through employment to the US from a single country. I think that the number is ~ 20000 today. If you are a Chinese engineer, you have to wait 6 years now. If you have suddenly several million Mexicans added to the queue, many of them will die waiting in the greencard line before they even get it. So I think it’s a fair deal.

Obama/Dems won the election solidly
p_incorrect on November 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

What does that have to do with securing the border? What does Obama/Dems have against national security?

Self-deportation does work when new reforms to our current laws are put in place. The majority of the American people want the states to enforce our immigration laws if federal authorities aren’t going to.

Why do you want to reward criminal behavior? Why should illegals that are here now be granted any sort of legal status when there are so many others who patiently wait to legally come here… and pay beaucoup bucks in the process?

Sorry, I’m in with the majority on this… and our desire to have our current laws enforced is being pragmatic.

lynncgb on November 28, 2012 at 9:12 AM

And yet, Obama/Dems won the election solidly. Not a landslide, but a solid victory (even in the House they won the popular vote, although redistricting delivered a Republican majority there).

I think that one has to be pragmatic here. The estimated 12 million illegal immigrants are not going to self deport. Logistically, it is not feasible to deport all of them. So, the choice is either you keep the status quo (and have those people in the shadows) or you give them some kind of legal status that is short of greencard/citizenship. In fact, I would apply the idea behind this proposal to long term illegals too. That’s what the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform attempted to do. It was a good idea then and it is a good idea now. True that it was the Democratic backed unions that were mostly to blame for the fiasco, but I think that that law would have solve the GOP’s problem not only with Hispanics but with Asians. The latter voted for the Dems even with a higher margin.

There is a line for green cards for spouses of American citizens who entered the U.S. legally, do the W-3 visa holders get to jump this line?

agmartin on November 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Actually, there is no line whatsoever for said immigrants. There are no greencard quotas for so called “immediate relatives” of US citizens. At this point those defined as such are spouses, children younger than 21 and parents (yes, you read well, PARENTS). Siblings of US citizens are the ones that have to wait in the line. Another thing that the 2007 immigration reform attempted to do well is to restrict this “immediate relative” category to spouses and children (ie, no parents) and to take away the ability of US citizens to sponsor siblings. This change provoked the ire of those immigrants who abuse the privilege (mainly Asians and Mexicans) that added to the pressure to defeat the bill, however it was a good idea as well. No country that I am aware of gives its citizens power to sponsor parents and siblings the type of immigration benefit that comes with a greencard.

if a were to marry a U.S. citizen, that alien, already in W-3 status and now married to a U.S. citizen, would be eligible for a green card (legal permanent resident status)

There is a line for green cards for spouses of American citizens who entered the U.S. legally, do the W-3 visa holders get to jump this line?

Democrats are not going to sign on to any GOP plan (about anything). The media will not credit the GOP for trying.

Actually, pals, I think that the proposed Act is an excellent compromise.
p_incorrect on November 28, 2012 at 1:46 AM

So we’ll get half of the border secured first? /

63% of likely U.S. voters think that border control is more important than “legalizing the status of undocumented workers.” Only 27% put amnesty ahead of border security (Rasmussen, March 2011).

67% of likely U.S. voters believe that states should enforce immigration laws if the federal government fails to do so (Rasmussen, February 2011).

67% believe that illegal immigration is a strain on the federal budget, 23% do not think so (Rasmussen, March 2010).

66% agree that the availability of government benefits attracts illegal aliens to the U.S., 19% disagree (Rasmussen, March 2010). Source

Which means the Left wants a permanent underclass that can vote!

Notice the assumption is that we are stuck with a permanent underclass that is under-priviliged and, thus, needs more ‘entitlements’?

Heads: I win!

Tails: You Lose!

How about we stop playing the damn game and actually fix the borders, first, and then see what the real ‘employment problem’ looks like because, believe it or not, this ‘recovery’ is not getting us out of the ‘recession’ and my guess is that people now stuck with sub-28 hour work weeks just might be willing to work under the table or work for sub-minimum wage to keep food on the table. We don’t need to import a permanent underclass as Obamacare will hand us one made up of already existing citizens! Isn’t that sweet? Close the borders, put our own people to work at sub-minimum wage (either officially or under the table) and compete for the jobs the ‘permanent underclass’ of undocumenteds used to do by just closing the border. That should be a win, win, win for everyone… a sucky Nation, yeah, but thems the breaks when you gots asshats in charge.