People who employ unskilled workers favor immigration because they make and/or save money because of it, Leftists favor immigration because they hate white people, and wish to displace them, George Bush favors immigration because he loves Mexicans, and politicians in general favor mass immigration because it's a means to usurp American democracy, as a former aide to Mexican President Vicente Fox observes

the American political class has a special affinity for their colleagues south of the border. The appeal of their lavishness and impunity seems to strike a positive chord in the American politicians, who perhaps resent being held accountable by their citizens, who cannot become wealthy from politics, and who may be removed from power "unfairly" and without warning.

Given that "low-skill households received at least three dollars in benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid. If the costs of public goods and past financial obligations are added, the ratio rises to four to one", why do any of you not in the above categories continue to be for mass immigration of unskilled workers?

"I'm going to be left all alone!" he said, bursting into sobs.

Let me be the first to ask young Juan the obvious question.  "Your parents wouldn't take you with them to Mexico?"  Of course, they would, and unless I'm mistaken, Mexican citizens who have children abroad are entitled to secure Mexican citizenship for those children, so it's not as though a child would be stuck in the US with American citizenship (only) and his/her parents would be sent back to Mexico with only Mexican citizenship.

I was interested to read that in Plyer v. Doe (cited in the writeup) the court only addressed the question of "anchor babies" indirectly, by reasoning that the children of illegal immigrants were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus citizens under the first clause of the 14th Amendment.

The solution to the problem of citizen children being separated from noncitizen parents is simple: amend the Constitution, using clearer language to close the loophole opened by Plyer v. Doe.  The 14th Amendment was written to guarantee the citizenship and rights of former slaves who were, after all, basically stateless.  

The amendment could exempt children born five or more years ago (since they're presumably already in the school system), and children who are unable to obtain their parents citizenship (for some legal reason, not a mere lack of effort on the parents' part) and would thus become stateless.  

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

If this is the best argument pro-immigrant activists can come up with, then immigrants are screwed.

 Kids suffer for their parents fuckups all the time -- whether its getting beaten because dad lost his job at the mill, to getting whored out for a few dollars so mom can get high on smack. I am not absolutely positive but I  suspect that the OJ jury wouldn't have been swayed if Johnnie Cochran had come out with a defense of "you can't send my client to jail because his kids will be all alone".

I myself am continually amazed by the following issues which affect the immigration debate:

Both political parties argue strenuously for free trade  -- but only for goods and never for labor.  

Both political parties are anxious to create new entitlement programs for the poor - but none seems to want to  actually eliminate the worker pool which the poor competes with. i.e. Giving the poor a chance to get ahead.

Immigrants must be some serious long term planners willing to plan 18 years in advance just to gain a shot at having welfare benefits in America when sponsored by their kids. Just think hijo..in another 10 years I can stop mowing lawns and picking lettuce and live off that sweet government welfare!

FD: I'm an American citizen who was born elsewhere and am in the process of getting the heck out of this country.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

If you want to meet a group of people who have no sympathy for illegal aliens, you could attend one of our gatherings of Russian-American couples... like the one we had Easter Sunday.
My wife did all her own paperwork, and spent a lot of time and money, to become a citizen and subsequently secure an immigrant visa for her mother. If you added up all the fees and legal expenses spent by and for the half-dozen women drinking Bailey's at the kitchen table yesterday, you could buy a really nice car (or even a really small house).
So, when the government caves in and provide another amnesty for those eleven million illegal "immigrants," all of these women -- and many thousands more -- will want their money back. For them, the message is "Sneak into the country, wait for an amnesty, and save thousands of dollars... not to mention all those income taxes you'll dodge by working under the table."

My own opinion is that they're right... and that we should change our immigration laws, but in a different direction.
Right now, immigrant visas are limited by quotas for each country, with exceptions allowed for close relatives (which is how our wives got here). Illegal "immigrants" come here illegally because they will never get a visa by simply applying for one and paying the fees. Let's drop the quotas... and simultaneously start enforcing the laws against employing undocumented workers.
By making it harder to find work, we could significantly reduce the incentives to enter the country illegally. Dropping the quotas would cause a surge of better educated, more affluent immigrants from all over the world, and encourage potential illegals to enter through legal channels.

As for the parents of those "anchor" babies? Personally, I think they should all be sent home. As the parent of a US citizen, they would then qualify for an immigrant visa... unless their previous illegal entry disqualified them.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings...

how about this.  Let's all the people who were born here in the past 50 years to parents of ANY immigrant status be it a working visa tourist or otherwise.