One of the strongest arguments in favor of comprehensive immigration reform is that it will make America more prosperous and competitive.  All credible studies show that an immigration system which meets the needs of businesses and US workers will add trillions to the economy, raise wages, and put Americans back to work.  Simply stated, immigration reform is good business and good for America’s future.

That’s why I was very excited to attend and give the opening remarks at the EB-5 Investor’s Conference which took place last Friday in Boston before a sell-out crowd.  Last month in my installation speech at the AILA Annual Conference I recalled Ronald Reagan’s final farewell to the nation in which he described his vision of America as beckoning immigrants with “the will and the heart” to get here.  Reagan understood that America’s strength is its openness: its celebration of creativity and new ideas.  And who is a better example of that then an immigrant who is willing to risk hard earned resources for the chance at the American Dream?

In his introductory remarks EB-5 Investor Visa conference chair Lincoln Stone referred to the visa as the “Golden Ticket.”  His description is spot on.  The visa has lead to investment across the US in areas that suffer higher rates of unemployment.  To be sure, it is a fast developing area.   Practitioners and entrepreneurs must master not only the intricacies of the law, but be sure to be aware of the ethical and fiduciary issues that come with the territory. Yet, it is beyond dispute that by attracting much needed capital to the US this visa category has the potential to indeed become a “Golden Ticket” for America.  What else can you say about a visa that by definition directly creates jobs for US workers and helps stimulate the US economy?

And can you imagine how golden that ticket would be if, coupled with a successful immigrant investor program, Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform?  The Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center have pointed out that CIR will add at least $1.5 trillion in cumulative U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over 10 years. Over the first three years, higher personal income would generate increased consumer spending—enough to support 750,000–900,000 jobs in the United States—as well as increased tax revenues of $4.5–$5.4 billion. The benefits of additional growth in the GDP would be spread broadly throughout the U.S. economy, but immigrant-heavy sectors such as textiles, electronic equipment, and construction would see particularly large increases. Moreover, wages would rise for both less-skilled and higher-skilled U.S. workers. And these figures are supported across the political spectrum.  An August 2009 report by the libertarian CATO Institute found that comprehensive reform would increase U.S. GDP by $180 billion in 2019.

All we need now is for the Administration and Congress to role up their sleeves and to get to work.

By Crystal Williams and David Leopold

Washington reminds us of Fernando Lamas, the Saturday Night Live character played by Billy Crystal who would interview various celebrities, often confusing them with someone else.  Always during the interview he would say, “You look mahvelous” and the sketch would end with, “It’s better to look good than to feel good.”

In Washington, it’s all about looking good too.  It doesn’t matter what the reality of any given situation might be.  All that matters is how it looks so that it can be packaged into a talking head sound bite and sold to the American public lock, stock, and barrel.

In the national “debate” on immigration, it’s all about looking good too.  It doesn’t matter if what is being said is accurate, or if what is being proposed is effective.  It only matters if someone notices you look tough on immigrants, even if what you propose or pass does nothing to fix our broken immigration system.

So we get a Senator once known for his integrity and thoughtfulness suddenly making up a phenomenon that doesn’t exist (“drop and leave”) and using it as a basis to argue that we ought to make stateless persons of innocent babies born in the U.S. to foreign nationals.  Then we get a group of Senators who only days ago stood for a comprehensive approach to immigration reform suddenly proposing—and passing—an enforcement-only measure that offers no solutions and accomplishes nothing more than adding to the national deficit.

In the meantime, we have approximately 11 million people, the vast majority of whom are here for no reason other than to better their lives and the lives of their families, living in the shadows and vulnerable to exploitation.  We have an over-taxed deportation system that can’t seem to figure out which way to turn.  We have a immigration detention apparatus in which 113 people have perished since 2003.  We have politicians all out-promising and under-delivering.  Nothing is fixed.  No progress is made.

It’s time to stop worrying about how it looks and start looking at how it works.  We know what needs to be done.  Now, will our so-called national leadership show a little courage and do it?  Or will they pretend, like Fernando did, that everything just looks “mahvelous.”

guest blogger Greg Siskind, AILA Board of Governors

One of the greatest accomplishments of the Republican Party was actually one of its earliest. After winning the Civil War and freeing the slaves, the Grand Old Party worked to pass the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the bedrock of civil rights protections in the U.S. that has served as a model to democracies around the world. The accomplishment was so significant that the GOP touts it in its list of greatest accomplishments   (http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/).

So it is, of course, shocking that in the days following the defeat of the Arizona law by a judge in that state, a number of Republican Senators have come forth calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment’s provisions on birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment guarantees that all children born in the U.S. (with narrow exceptions for children born to diplomats) are U.S. citizens. While some have argued that the 14th Amendment doesn’t clearly protect birthright citizenship, this has been established law for more than a century. The Supreme Court removed any doubt of this in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case where, by a 6-2 majority, the Supreme Court held that:

The fourteenth amendment reaffirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes… To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treats as citizens of the United States.

Nearly three decades ago, the Supreme Court relied on Wing Kim Ark in the case of Plyler v. Doe to make clear that the 14th Amendment applies to ALL persons born in the U.S., whether their parents are legally present or not.

Extremists have been complaining about so-called “anchor babies” for some time. To listen to them, one would assume that millions of these children are growing up in America today or will one day choose to exercise their citizenship rights and enter the U.S. Few except politicians on the fringe were willing to support the extremists. But in the last several days, a number of lawmakers have lost their inhibitions and are openly calling for a Constitutional Amendment.

Once the shock of the suggestion wears off, it does pay to at least think about some of the basic reasons why we need to steer clear of an Amendment. Here are a number of reasons why.

1. This is a “solution in search of a problem.”

To hear Lindsey Graham’s and his allies’ description of “drop and leave,” Americans understandably might assume that there are millions of people coming to the U.S. to have children. Is there really any truth to this allegation?

The anti-14th Amendment folks simultaneously talk about two groups of individuals when discussing amending the Constitution. One is the group of mothers that is illegally present in the U.S. having children and the second are mothers who come on so-called “birth tourism” packages legally to the U.S. so they can claim citizenship for their kids.

On the first issue, there is little evidence that a significant number of mothers illegally enter the U.S. for the purpose of having children. The burden of proof should be on proponents of tinkering with one of the cornerstones of American democracy. Before changing the Constitution, we should have clear evidence that there is a problem rather than the anecdotes of politicians pushing an anti-immigrant agenda.

It is true that many mothers here illegally do have children, but their purpose for being in the U.S. is generally to work or to be with a family member who is the breadwinner. This is probably the group that Graham is targeting and he should be honest in saying that the goal is to punish people who are here illegally and to disenfranchise their children as opposed to stopping a mythical “drop and leave” crisis.

As for maternity tourism, there is actual real evidence to point to that shows that this problem is miniscule. According to the Center for Health Care Statistics, fewer than 7,500 births out of an annual 4,000,000 births are to mothers who report residing outside the country. And some of those mothers are U.S. citizens residing abroad as part of the community of 6,000,000 Americans who live overseas.

And perhaps the reason so few mothers come to the U.S. just to have a child is because the immigration benefits are not what these Republicans would have people believe. Children born in the United States cannot sponsor their parents for immigration benefits until after they turn 21 years of age.

Nevertheless, to the extent that there is a “maternity tourism” industry, the better approach to dealing with this is to enforce our existing laws that bar the use of visitor visas for such a purpose. Targeting companies and individuals engaged in this type of visa fraud would go a long way to curtailing this sort of activity.

2. Ending birthright citizenship would not end illegal immigration.

There is no evidence that immigrants come to the United States to have children. They come for jobs. Taking away birthright citizenship would not change this. What would happen is the number of illegally present immigrants would increase dramatically as many children of illegal immigrants are added to the ranks of the illegally present and who knows how many others would be added to the list of the undocumented because they are unable to prove citizenship even if they are entitled to it.

3. Implementing a Drastic Change to the 14th Amendment Would Be Enormously Difficult to Administer and Hugely Expensive.

Because U.S. citizenship laws are so complex and all Americans would no longer have the most basic proof of citizenship – the birth certificate – available, most would have to go through a legal process that would be expensive for the government and the individual. The government would need to hire thousands of lawyers and other examiners, and individuals would also need thousands of new lawyers to help with this process once we get through years of litigation to determine how we actually define citizenship and what is a fair way to prove it.

4. Where exactly do you draw the line?

One of the biggest potential problems with looking at something of this sort is figuring out which population to target. Just the children of illegally present immigrants? What about when one of the parents is a citizen and one is an illegally present immigrant? What about when the parents are unmarried. Does it matter if the father is the citizen as opposed to the mother? If not, in situations where the mother is not legally present and she is not married to the U.S. citizen father, the mother would need to first prove the paternity of the child, something that could be difficult or impossible particularly for individuals without the means to sue for paternity. Should it make a difference if the legally present parent is a lawful permanent resident and not a citizen? How about a legally present non-immigrant?

If the target is broader and we’re going after anyone whose parents are not permanent residents or citizens, does it matter what type of non-immigrant status the person holds? Should a tourist be treated differently than a student or a non-immigrant work visa holder? What about people working on non-immigrant visas but waiting on long lines for permanent residency such as Indian and Chinese advanced degree holders?

5. The citizenship of millions of Americans would suddenly come into doubt.

If birth in the United States is no longer proof of citizenship, a great number of people would have great difficulty proving they are entitled to citizenship. People would face extraordinary administrative obstacles and be forced to hire lawyers to prove entitlement to citizenship. Waits for passports would be extremely lengthy since for all people it would be the main way to prove they are American. Right now there is no registry of U.S. citizens and people generally rely on proving their birth in the U.S. to demonstrate citizenship. One survey by the Brennan Center at New York University found that more than 13 million people would not be easily able to prove their citizenship.

Many other questions would also naturally arise. What about the grandchildren of illegal immigrants? As noted above, figuring out what to do when one of the parents is legal and the other not raises a number of questions over how citizenship is transmitted in the absence of birthright acquisition. If citizenship is not defined by being born in the U.S., then how does one acquire citizenship? For most African Americans, citizenship was likely originally acquired in their families because of the 14th Amendment itself. Are only individuals who immigrated going to qualify? What about Native Americans?

A Pandora’s Box if there ever was one.

6. The American system of assimilating immigrants that has worked successfully for generations would be put under serious threat by creating a permanent two-tiered society with a permanent new underclass.

Taking away citizenship from the children of immigrants would mean more than just not being able to cast votes in elections. It means no driver’s licenses, no in-state tuition, no ability to work legally and so on. Instead, we would have a class of individuals with no real connection to any country other than the U.S., but no ability to become productive participants in our society. This new stateless class would be forced to live in the shadows. For some, they won’t be deportable because their parents’ countries are not legally obligated to take them. This new stateless group of individuals would be stuck in a limbo of not being able to participate in American society but having no other country to which to go as an alternative. Such individuals would be vulnerable to exploitation and criminal activity.

7. It’s a slap in the face to African Americans

After the Civil War, there were many, including President Andrew Johnson, who were prepared to continue to deny citizenship to slaves and their newly freed children because they were not “ready” to take on the responsibilities of citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that no class of individuals would ever have to show they were up to snuff when it came to deserving citizenship, and it is the Fourteenth Amendment that has been the basis of major civil rights progress in the area of voter rights, equal access to justice, protection against workplace discrimination, etc.

The idea of scrapping birthright citizenship has been the cornerstone of nativist and racist organizations for some time and the fact that supposedly mainstream Republicans have suddenly started discussing this topic in polite company doesn’t make it less offensive. The sacrifice of countless individuals who gave their lives to win these rights is not honored by even having this discussion.

8. Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution precisely to avoid “the tyranny of the masses.”

The 14th Amendment is in place precisely to protect individuals from politicians with their own interests in mind as well as the sentiments of the time. The Constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights and never to take away civil rights from any class of people. The framers of the 14th Amendment made birthright citizenship an “inalienable” right and tampering with this really places into question whether our American system of rights and freedoms has been a failure.

9. Where do they stop?

The 14th Amendment has been in place since just after the Civil War and no Congress has ever opened the door to cutting out groups from its protection. Today the discussion involves the children of those illegally in the U.S. Some proposals seek to bar the children of anyone but lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens. But what is to say that we don’t then move to stripping out other children of those who do not “deserve” to have their children awarded U.S. citizenship. Perhaps deny birthright citizenship to the children of those with criminal records? How about the children of same sex couples? What about where the parents express “anti-American” views? The folks pushing to repeal the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship rules are doing so to punish the behavior of the parents. Once we open the door, is it really that hard to envision pushing to add more and more groups?

10. Do we really want to start deporting babies?

That’s essentially what this proposal means. Is this really something our society has the stomach to do and is this really what Americans want to spend our tax dollars pursuing?

Even having a serious debate about this subject has the potential to tear society apart and the grownups in the GOP need to seize control and make it clear that the party does not endorse the idea. Aside from being the morally right thing to do, it’s also smart politics. At this point, the GOP is on the verge of so offending Hispanic voters in order to appease a tiny segment of the public that they risk losing the trust of Hispanics for generations.

guest blog by Deborah Notkin

I am getting increasingly impatient with restrictionists and xenophobes opposing a badly needed legalization program by knocking the 1986 Amnesty Program. The problem with the ’86 Amnesty was not that it encouraged future illegal entries to the U.S.  The real problem was that it didn’t institute a realistic temporary and provisional lesser-skilled worker program for future needs.

The primary reason we needed to legalize three million people in 1987 was that we had a shortage of lesser-skilled workers for many industries, including hospitality, healthcare, quarries, assembling, landscaping and agriculture. Our system of work visas has a very limited, seasonal-only visa option for non-professional workers. There is no visa option for non-seasonal occupations that are not being filled by our U.S. workforce. Permanent residence for lesser-skilled positions takes six to eight years, hardly a reasonable wait for a job that must be filled now. Even in today’s recession, there are jobs that go begging. Examples include quarry workers in remote areas of Upstate New York and packers of ready-to-eat fruit and sandwich packs at the New Jersey Shore during tourist season. Ironically, the limited H-2b seasonal visa will most likely reach its numerical bi-annual cap at a faster rate than professional H-1b visas will cap out this year.

So in 1986, we legalized 3 million people. According to a study by the Center for American Progress, the real wages of the newly legalized workers under the 1986 Amnesty increased roughly $4,405 per year for those in lesser-skilled jobs during the first three years of legalization and $6,185 per year for those in higher-skilled positions. Success stories of legalized immigrants abound. They expanded their education, rose up the job ladder, bought homes and sent their children to college. Their increased earning power enhanced the economy of the U.S. In short, they achieved the American dream. Did we really expect them to produce generations of unskilled workers to forever handle that need?

During the debate over the 1986 immigration reform bill, a lesser-skilled visa was discussed but not included in the final bill. Thus there was no cure for the causes of uninspected border crossings – the draw of jobs with no legal options. The crisis of labor shortages during periods of economic prosperity that ensued exacerbated this problem. We need a worker program that works in recessionary periods as well as periods of economic boom. This can easily be done by offering these jobs to U.S. workers at fair wages first and, when there are no takers, having a visa that allows foreign workers to come to fill these jobs at the same wages and protections given to our native workforce. But counterposing a temporary worker program in lieu of amnesty is not a realistic way to deal with the human toll of the undocumented and their deep roots in our country’s economy and families composed of both U.S. workers and undocumented.

Let’s stop opposing legalization by blaming Amnesty as a disaster. Amnesty was an economic success. Rather, let’s give those here illegally a chance to contribute to our economy in the same way that those who were granted Amnesty did so in the past. But let’s also prevent this problem from recurring for a third time. That can be done by curing the cause this time with a reasonable work visa that lets needed workers come here in a safe, legal and orderly fashion.

Let’s relieve the symptoms with a legalization program and create the cure with reform of our dysfunctional system to have visas that make sense for the fluctuating needs of the U.S. economy.

She’s going to do all that she can to continue down the litigation path to allow secure borders…Jan Brewer has the “cojones” that our president does not have to  look out for Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans, in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country, as was the purpose of the immigration laws

Guess who said that? Who else but Sarah Palin!

The half-term—“I can serve the people of Alaska better on Fox News”—Governor of Alaska was on Fox News Sunday (where else?) talking about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s losing court battle to revive the moribund S.B. 1070 “show me your papers” law.

Catchy sound bites, especially when made on the safety of a facebook page or in a Fox News studio, are pretty easy to construct.  It gets a little more difficult when you try to mix in facts.

Sarah Palin, Governor Jan Brewer, and others who claim Obama doesn’t have the “cojones” to enforce the immigration law may want to read yesterday’s TRAC Immigration Report http://bit.ly/9iR77X.  According to the report “newly-released figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that during the first nine months of FY 2010, more non-US citizens were removed from the country than during any similar period in the Bush Administration.”  The report also shows that the “sharp increases in ICE detention and removal of non-U.S. citizens had been accomplished largely by catching noncitizens who had not committed any crimes in this country but who had either crossed the border illegally or had overstayed their visas.”  TRAC also reports a current shift in targeting to noncitizens who have committed crimes in this country.  ICE “has already broken all previous records, and climbed to an all-time high,” according to TRAC.  In fact, under Obama, the removal pace of criminal aliens is 60% higher than under the last year of the Bush administration.

To be sure, I have serious questions about whether ICE is actually engaging in smart enforcement.  Who is really being removed? Is ICE really focusing on terrorists, violent criminals, and drug dealers?  Or are they continuing to inflate the statistics by removing unfortunate folks that somehow got caught in the web of America’s dysfunctional immigration system?  And, like many others, I am also eagerly awaiting signs of significant improvements in the dysfunctional ICE detention apparatus which has claimed the lives of 113 immigrants since 2003.

Yet, to brazenly claim that Obama is soft on immigration enforcement is pure demagoguery.   But I guess speaking the truth takes “cojones.”

I’ll admit it. It’s summer and I’m cranky. But, come on people. Not another outbreak of hypocrisy on immigration!

We’ve watched while agency officials pulled apart the law to find ways to make illegal the status of people here legally or struggling to attain legal status. Making Muslim men register, and declaring them illegal if they don’t hear about the requirement or make a mis-step in meeting the requirement. Bringing down the full force of law enforcement for not filing a change of address form. Declaring out of status, and thus subject to deportation, people whose statuses expired only because of the government’s backlog in processing their extension or change of status applications (a backlog created in large part by the diversion of resources to administer that Muslim registration program). You get the picture.

None of this went before Congress. It was all done by employees of the prior Administration. They scoured the law, and found ways in it to further break down the legal immigration system.

Along come some officials who decide to look at the law and think about ways to remove artificial administrative barriers to legality. You’d think from the howl that they’ve overthrown the government. Certainly not that they started an internal discussion about how to administer the law in a way that prefers legality over illegality.

Like the proposals in the leaked internal memo on administrative alternatives. Criticize the proposals. Like some and criticize some. But don’t play the politics of outrage against an honest effort to make the system work. Come on now!

The Arizona court ruling enjoining parts of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 is a major victory for all who respect and cherish the rule of  law.  True, Judge Bolton did not halt the entire law.  But what she did do—enjoin S.B. 1070’s most dangerous and damaging provisions—was astonishing.

Federal courts do not easily second guess the wisdom of state legislators and governors after they debate, pass, and enact law. Nor should they.  The courts give great deference to the will of the representative bodies in fashioning public policy.  So, asking a federal court to throw out a law is a tall order and, appropriately, carries with it a major burden.

Judge Bolton’s decision this week was premised on her review of the entire case against S.B. 1070, which included the legal arguments of both sides and the sworn testimony of key law enforcement officials, such as Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris.  Harris explained in a lengthy affidavit that S.B. 1070 would severely hamper his ability to serve and protect the citizens of his community by burdening his officers and eroding trust in law enforcement.  And he was not alone.  Others testified that the ill conceived law directly conflicted with the legal protections offered to victims of crime and human trafficking, threatened U.S foreign policy, and dangerously stymied federal and state agencies.  Judge Bolton came to her difficult decision only after she concluded that S.B. 1070 would cause the United States to “suffer irreparable harm” if its key provisions were not immediately blocked from taking effect. Her extraordinary decision underscores the force of the government’s case.

Perhaps that explains why the anti-immigrant restrictionists have been uncharacteristically sheepish in the wake of Judge Bolton’s decision.  Don’t get me wrong.  I didn’t expect them to offer cogent legal analysis or sound arguments in response.  But I must admit I am surprised that the best they can come up with is the lame talking point that Judge Bolton’s well reasoned decision is merely a “bump in the road” for the “show me your papers” law.

Well, maybe so, but the “bump” appears to have knocked out the engine!

Even Kris Kobach, who is running for Kansas Secretary of State on a platform of anti-immigrant vitriol and boasts that he co-authored S.B. 1070 with Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, has hunkered down on Fox News and his facebook page.  It’s hard to believe that just a few short weeks ago, the day after Arizona enacted S.B. 1070, Kobach spilled his pen on the op-ed page of the New York Times defending the law and belittling its opponents.  http://nyti.ms/9Wq3vL.   He condescendingly wrote,

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws… insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate.

Well, Judge Bolton’s opinion shows she did read the Arizona law—word by ill conceived word—and concluded that S.B. 1070 is not an acceptable enforcement tool as Kobach claimed, but a violation of the Constitution.

Kobach and his restrictionist cohorts would be well advised to read the Constitution too.  But that will have to wait.  At the moment he is busy wiping egg off his face.

guest blog by Charles Kuck

I was driving to court recently down a highway in Atlanta when I drove past a toll booth with a HUGE sign on it. The sign read “AMNESTY.” I thought, “wait a second!” “Amnesty” is a dirty word, literally unmentionable in polite company. How could there be an “Amnesty?”

On my way back to the office, I passed the toll booth again. Again, the sign was there. This time I slowed down (a little), and noticed it was a “Toll Amnesty.” This toll “Amnesty” is apparently a regular event in Georgia. I explored a little more about this “Amnesty,” trying to understand how a toll “Amnesty,” turning illegal drivers into legal ones is permitted, but an “Amnesty” that would turn “illegal” people into legal people is not. I dug around a little on the Internet and found some information about the reason for and the goal of this toll “Amnesty:”

What is the toll violation amnesty program?

Normally, the State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) charges a $25 administrative fee, as provided by Georgia law, each time someone fails to pay the toll to travel on the tolled section of Georgia 400. During the limited time of this amnesty program, SRTA is willing to reduce a portion of the $25 administrative fee to $15 per violation. During amnesty, the Customer will be responsible for the $15 administrative fee plus the toll per violation.

Why is SRTA offering its customers an opportunity to compromise their violations?

SRTA’s primary goal is to collect all tolls due. We believe one way we can accelerate the collection of unpaid tolls is to offer a temporary financial incentive to our customers – namely, a partial waiver of the normal $25 per violation administrative fee-if the tolls are voluntarily paid now.

So, the toll “Amnesty” is designed to FORGIVE people for breaking law (a misdemeanor in Georgia), bring people out of the shadows if illegality, and, as an incentive to do so, have people pay LESS of a fine than if the agents of the state went out and rounded up everyone who is a toll violator. Does the State of Georgia know who these “illegals” are? Sure they do! If you fail to pay a toll, a photo of your car and license plate is taken, so the State of Georgia knows exactly who broke the law and where they live! If only those Utah state employees lived here, they could have put their “hit” list out for the Georgia State Patrol to go out and arrest these illegal drivers.

Let’s compare a proposed national “Amnesty” (or for those of you with sensitive ears–legalization) with this Georgia “Amnesty.” An immigration “Amnesty” would FORGIVE people for breaking the law (a misdemeanor if they came in illegally and a civil violation if they overstayed their visas), bring people out of the shadows and into our mainstream economy, and lessen the penalties currently in place (a 10 year bar in the home country) to encourage people to come forward right away and become “legal.”

Wow, that is the same rationale for both programs. One run effectively by the State of Georgia and one denied a chance at being effective by national politicians and local demagogues. Why can we do one and not the other? Why can we give “amnesty” to illegal drivers but not to “illegal” people? Simple–a lack of political leadership and a lack of political courage.

Once we can convince our national political leadership that immigration reform is GOOD for America (and it would be very good for America) and that the example set by the Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority is a good one to follow, can end this divisive debate over immigration, calm racial tensions in America and get back to work fixing our economy. My only question is — which national politician has the courage to stand up and lead on this key issue?

Yesterday, I looked down at my speedometer to see that I was driving at 55 mph in a 40 mph zone. I clearly was in violation of traffic laws.

I came home to notice my neighbor firing up a barbeque grill on his balcony–a definite violation of the city fire code.

I then read about how a list of supposed “illegal immigrants” was assembled and circulated in Utah, a probable violation of a host of laws, particularly if, as accused, it was state government employees behind the list.

Yet no one calls me or the millions like me an illegal driver. No one would think to call my neighbor an illegal griller. And has anyone called the Utah culprits illegal list-makers? Not to mention, would anyone dream of converting the adjective into a noun and calling us all “illegals”? Yet, we are all just as “illegal” as the people who are in the U.S. in violation of the immigration laws. (And, yes, the grilling and, in the jurisdiction it happened, the speeding are civil, not criminal, violations. But so is being unlawfully present in the U.S.)

Every time I speak publicly about immigration, I get the predictable crop of sloganeering and hate emails, with the former usually saying “what part of illegal don’t you understand?”

So, let me answer.  People who have come to the U.S. to pick our crops, clean our tables, maintain our yards and take care of our children or grandparents are referred to as “illegals,” as though they are somehow heinous people, and yet those of us who put ourselves and others at risk of potentially fatal car wrecks or fires, or those who have put others at risk of identity theft, vengeful violence, and sheer privacy invasion, are not heatedly condemned.

That is the part of illegal that I don’t understand.