Our country is--collapsing from the inside-out--because our legislators are completely oblivious to the interest of citizens and legal residents. California the SANCTUARY STATE, with Arizona, Texas and all border States are beginning to sink in a financial quagmire, because of the occupation and the pandering of Liberal-Democratic-Extremists, whose main believe is tax and spend. CALIFORNIA--the once vibrant state is turning into a third world society in hundreds of communities. If we don't enforce the immigration "Rule of Law" our country great heritage will dwindle away into the immigration crisis, that many European countries whom are now teetering on the edge of fiscal and cultural collapse.

Until the US government summons the courage to provide massive penalties for anybody found as accomplice to assisting illegal aliens staying in America. Until businesses are fined $50.000 to $100.000 dollars for knowingly hiring each illegal immigrant, with an immediate passport to jail for any employer with no clemency. Or going straight to prison for at least one year on the first offense, for aiding and abetting foreign nationals. This type of rigid law will never happen, because immigration is just lip service to the public to show that Washington is superficially doing something. For decades, any kind of serious enforcement has always been trampled into the mud, by pandering politicians. If immigration laws were serious--they would have made trespassing into our country a mandatory felony as other countries, instead of a pathetic slap on the wrist. 20 to 30 million Illegal immigrants have been allowed to occupy our nation, because our lawmakers have been corrupted by the special interest lobbyists. Even the original design of the Southern border fence, was superseded by one single length instead of two, with vehicle surveillance lanes in between. More fencing and additional Border Patrol agents will not be sufficient to protect America because every one of our international airports is part of our border. Tom Tancredo previous Congressman for Colorado warns us that over 140 million international travelers passed through our 20 busiest international airports in 2008. Foreign students from the Middle East are bringing their wives and girlfriends here to have their babies in American hospitals, children who become instant American citizens ? and "anchors" for their parents' future green-card applications.

Large bankrolls have changed hands by wealthy corporate concerns, adding copious incentives to party campaigns to trample new laws. This has been illustrated by Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi and even head of our Homeland Security Janet Napolitano trying to collapse E-Verify. As Part of the SAVE ACT, E-Verify is one of our strongest tools, to eject illegal workers out of American jobs. E-Verify was nearly comprised by the Liberal Democrats, but it surfaced and came to the attention of the public and anti-illegal labor bloggers. Any enforceable law such as E-Verify, 287(g) local police detainment, ICE arrest have been secretly undermined by the legislators. Not completely, but enough to make them almost worthless. Today, more than ever before--we cannot trust our government, who supposedly take this oath office to protect the United States citizenship.

May be there is a light at the end of the tunnel, with the stunned expressions of Democrats when Scott Brown, beat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election. State Sen. Brown has stated he is against any kind of AMNESTY or as its called by open border zealots Comprehensive immigration reform. The Senator also said that we are encouraging more illegal immigrants to come, by awarding AMNESTY. Just as millions more are expected, if the doors remain open before President Obama should sign into law this new act. You cannot stop a deluge with just a thin line of US Border Patrol agents. This is where we must--DEMAND--stringent fines and hefty prison sentences for business owners--with no exceptions. The new second generation well-funded E-Verify will make a giant difference, that will rid this country of illegal workers and those criminal businesses that believe they are above the law. The new E-Verify upgrade will whittle away at the estimated 8 million illegal workers in our country, with their only option to go--HOME?

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga) is the principal author of H.R.1868, which repeals "birthright citizenship" by limiting citizenship to children born of citizens and legal permanent residents, not Tourists, foreign students, temporary workers or illegal aliens. Rep. Phil Gringrey (R-Ga) H.R.878 would end chain migration by limiting the relatives who qualify for "family reunification" to only immediate family members. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) bill, H.R.2305, will end the "diversity lottery" through which 55,000 green cards are awarded annually to people who are exempt from sponsorship and job-skill requirements. (Over 1.5 million legal immigrants enter America every year.) Rep. Marsha Blackburn's (R-Tn) H.R.2406 will strengthen local law enforcement's role in immigration enforcement, for example in extending the reach of 287(g) agreements between local police and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

TAXPAYERS HAVE BEEN SHINED-ON THROUGH MANY ADMINISTRATIONS OVER MANY YEARS. AMERICANS HAVE UNKNOWINGLY BEEN TAXED, TO SUPPORT INSTANT CITIZEN CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT MOTHERS, EDUCATION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND FILLED OUR PLACES OF IMPRISONMENT. MASSIVE DOLLAR AMOUNTS CANNOT BE COUNTED, BUT CERTAINLY RIVAL THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR OUR WARS. Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and asked for your Senator or Congressman. In addition bombard your State Representatives to enforce state laws. GET INVOLVED AND LEARN THE TRUTH AND NOT OPEN BORDER PROPAGANDA AT NUMBERSUSA AND JUDICIAL WATCH. STOP UNSUSTAINABLE OVERPOPULATION IN OUR FUTURE.

It's not liberal at all.

Well written, I must say, sir, but I hesitate to remind you:

Members of society have no difficulty in berating the current legislation for its stance on immigration reform, and you said, ?Our government needs to develop a road plan that increases legal documentation enforcement for employers, and deports illegal immigrants by the truck load.? In 1492, there were 7-10 million Native Americans, with nearly 600 established tribes living in North America alone. Through the ?Colombian Exchange,? not only was there a transfer of cultural ideas, flora and fauna, and neat little trinkets to bring home to the wife, but also diseases, like smallpox, measles, mumps, and rhinovirus (the common cold), which imparted an instantaneous massive depopulation of hundreds of native tribes.

You quoted some stats, so I have one for you: in Haiti, which was settled by Spaniards, a census reports from 1493 totals the population of natives at around 8 million. Nearly fifty years later, the 1543 census reports 25 remaining natives. Most of the population died of disease and overwork forced upon them by the Spanish ?immigrants.?

Jeffery Amherst was an English immigrant, a British army officer in 1763 during Pontiac?s Rebellion, who used bioterrorist tactics to kill off the Native Americans by gifting them blankets covered with smallpox virus. This nearly eradicated the Shawnee and Delaware tribes within weeks of exposure.

During the 1630?s, 10,000 European ?immigrants? arrived to the ?New World? and began to colonize, populate, reorganize, micro-manage, and otherwise virtually destroy the Native American?s way of life. These same immigrants brought 10-24 million slaves with them, adding to the already rapidly growing population of immigrants in this country, and they all reproduced.

Fast-forward to now, where we are all descendant from these original ?immigrants,? and we have such a huge issue with more people wanting to move into a country built on immigration without legislation. Why is this such a problem now? Immigration should be considered a way of life in the United States, not the bane of modern civilization in America. It is one of the paths of progress, and the very reason that the United States is the country it is today.

Are they really taking the jobs we want? Are they really causing the moral decline everyone is so ready to debate? Perhaps we should instill a better sense of direction in our children, giving them the tools to be more productive members of society by instilling the importance of a proper education, regardless of their mother?s immigration status. Better yet, we could use the money we are squandering on that monstrosity of a wall known as the ?Border Fence? towards a better education, including lessons based on tolerance and equality, and we might not have to worry so much about whether we need the ?Johhny on the Spot emptying? job, or the ?migrant orange picker? job, or the ?janitorial? job of our immigrant friends.

Perhaps practicing tolerance as a visual lesson to those around us might help to change the wave of violent intolerance we see every day by Americans against Americans. After we have that under control, we can then began to complain about more important issues, standing on a less hypocritical platform.

@Morgan

History has played its course and right now we have to address the current and future situations.

Immigration, in its legal form, in the sense that someone comes here with the honest intention of applying for citizenship or residency is a good thing.

Now, the problem we have to address, with the help of a border fence and increased border enforcement and legal work status enforcement, is the illegal immigrants that come here with the full intent of working. Supporting one's family is a just thing. BUT the ends to not justify the means. Ever. Your end may be to pass a class but your means are everything in this. You wouldn't cheat would you? Would that justify you passing the class?

You may view this example as having nothing to do with immigration, but we have to understand the importance of principles. Once you sacrifice a principle, you lose everything. Maybe not now, maybe not in the year to come, but you will lose it. As evidenced by our constant fight for political free speech.

Immigrants must come here legally. If the problem is that their visas expire or their application is taking a long time, then we have to address the immigration laws themselves. When you have a mass amount of illegals coming in, you can't expect those attempting to legally be here to have an easy time. Enforcement is going to always assume mal-intent if you stay here past your visa's expiration. The fact is illegals flood the U.S., thus the U.S. strengthens its laws. Now this can have a negative and positive impact on immigration. The laws can be double edged swords in themselves.

With that in mind, as I stated before, we have to direct our attention to slowing and hopefully stopping the illegal crossing. We have to build a fence because we simply do not have the man power to guard the entire border. With the fence comes the help with the "drug wars" because of the constant threat of Coyotes' drugs. Thus by directing funds from this war to building the fence and broadening security we can slow this rate of immigration down.

We must also push for enforcement of legal work status. There must be tight regulations in place that will fine a business for having illegals. This isn't a business regulation in the sense of restricting free markets, this is an issue outside of that sphere. Data has shown that because of the recent economic downturn and the shrinking of available jobs, the amount of illegal immigrants has declined.

Now that presents a mild solution: less jobs available to them would, in a cause- effect argument, reduce the amount of illegal immigrants. I'm no expert on writing legislation, nor am I an expert on law enforcement, but the basics are there. Target the areas with increased hispanic population; which does not mean to say to target hispanics because plenty of them are here legally and are American citizens. This policy should be there Because that is the largest group of immigrants coming into the U.S. via the southern border.

When we have tighter border control, we can address the failures in the current immigration system that restrict the legals from attaining worker status and/or residency. When we talk about better education we have to ask the question, "Who is going to pay for it?" The answer is taxpayers. Illegal immigrants ARE NOT tax payers, yet we want out education to better fit them. No. Wrong.

I will have more to address on this issue later.

Thank you all for comments they are always appreciated! Keep an open mind.

My intent in expounding on American history was not merely to point out the hypocrisy involved in debates such as this, when someone less educated (a common man, so to speak) would argue this point with no factual basis, using a more racial sphere as a point of reference. I also wanted to point out the dangers in the common failure to study the further implications that choosing to ignore prior data hold.
Traditionally, we see that International students work harder and score higher in class because they are semi-forced into that position by their extraordinary circumstances. We also see that students who come here on work visas are forced to pay out-of-pocket for their education, a fact that cannot be ignored when evaluating the progress of International students.

It is true that the end does not justify the means, but that was a more radical example than I would choose, because it involves a discussion of personal scholastic ethics. As a mentor, I am more likely to encounter an International student seeking assistance for a class (lets use the example of ENG 101), and an American English 101 student, who consistently misunderstands the entire concept of plagiarism, and some who never even care...hence, I mean that I explain the concept in its entirety, and then watch them practice academic dishonesty. There is a range on which the means is based, and it is a range with a foundation in personal ethics.

As for the wall, I must point out that the issue, although mostly involved in two separate country entities, has grounds in a continent, and for that we must be more careful about the future impact. As evidenced, the building of any wall has a tremendous amount of impingement, beyond a socio-economic stance.

From an ecological standpoint:

When placing an enormous structure across the site of any land mass, the natural migratory as well as hunting patterns of a species is interrupted. Studies show that a segregated species will produce idiosyncratic characteristics, the product of which is the evolution of a new species altogether. In effect, this type of biological divergence would produce two distinct species on either side of the structure, according to the theory of evolution. This fortification involves the use of materials hazardous to the natural water systems surrounding them, causing further damage to the indigenous wildlife. Pollution from increased visitors to the area, as well as diversion of naturally flowing waterways further inhibits the natural restorative ability of the surrounding terrain.

In the case of Hadrian's Wall (a subject and example I am more apt to argue), the level of deforestation surrounding the area, as well as the sudden eruption of settlements surrounding the Wall, devastated the original ecosystem. Pollen diagrams in another study show that there was a major clearance of wood for grazing during the Roman period, and that the regeneration of the forest only occurred 100 to 200 years after the Romans left. The United States Environmental Protection Agency recently released a detailed commentary on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, California (CEQ# 20070555). The EPA recommended as stated:

"[...] that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) develop alternatives that avoid the filling of Copper and Buttewig Canyons. We recommend the use of clear-span bridges to cross drainages, wherever practicable, or the use of bottomless culverts or oversized box culverts buried below stream grade to encourage natural channel substrate for terrestrial and aquatic life and a more natural sediment transport regime" (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX).

The United States border fence will not only separate two distinct peoples, each with their own distinct culture, but will also split three Native American tribes in the center of their reservations: Kumeyaay in California, Cocopah and Tohono O'odham in Arizona, and the Kickapoo in Texas. Private landowners are facing the same fate, their land split between two countries, the border fence running right through their front lawns. The proposed route for the border fence would divide the campus of the University of Texas at Brownsville into two parts, according to Antonio N. Zavaleta, a vice president of the university. The United States government, without concern for its citizens, will bypass a multitude of laws, by way of the Real ID Act, attached as a rider to a supplemental appropriations bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."

On September 22, 2005, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff used his new power to "waive in their entirety" the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, in order to extend triple fencing through the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve near San Diego. Furthermore, Chertoff's actions are not subject to judicial review.

So, I pose the question: What is the real issue? Are we more upset that there is an incredible influx of illegal immigrants into the United States that will undoubtedly have a negative impact on our socio-economic status, or should we force lawmakers to amend the current legislation to allow for those here on illegal status to access the American way of life more readily, if they choose to work as we do? When our own legislators and leaders choose to bypass laws with real tangible consequences to Americans, as in the case of Michael Chertoff, how can we argue against illegal immigrants who are doing less damage to the American people as a whole?

By the way...I do love our debates, and I am proud to be your sister.