News Bush's border and illegal alien plan

[Ivan Seeking]

To be given in a few minutes, he will offically announce the call for National Guard troops to be sent to the border for support roles with the border patrol, but with no law enforcement directly. Now, in principle I might agree with the effort. Something has to be done. But at the same time, we have ways to manage this - by enforcing the laws for starters. And after being denied the resources for decades, many interviewed such as the NM Governer (D) expresses frustration that they - the people who deal with the problem daily - don't get what they want, but instead they get something that they don't want based on a mandate from Washington.

The really funny part for me is that five years ago, I casually bet my sister that before he was out of office, Bush would find a reason to call out the military for domestic intervention. ...at least I hope that's funny.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So far it sounds pretty reasonable to me. One key limit not mentioned is a cap on the number of temp workers allowed at any time. And I don't know that we can usually determine how long someone has been here. Obviously they will all claim to have been here for years, with family members who are willing to vouch for them.

Also, there must be a definite cut-off date for the use of Nat. Guard troops.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why should there be a cut-off date? As in, for when they have to stop protecting the border or a deadline for when they start protecting it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why should there be a cut-off date? As in, for when they have to stop protecting the border or a deadline for when they start protecting it?

Since I see this as an invasion, IMO it is entirely appropriate to use the Guard to get things under control. That's is pretty much what they're for. But ultimately this is the job of the border patrol - a civilian agency that is incredibly underfunded. The soldiers are allegedly being used as a stop-gap until more border agents can be trained, and that's fine as long as they don't actually start enforcing laws, but even as advisors and observers, I would want the military out of there as soon as possible. We don't use the military as a police force.

 

[SOS2008]

So far it sounds pretty reasonable to me. One key limit not mentioned is a cap on the number of temp workers allowed at any time. And I don't know that we can usually determine how long someone has been here. Obviously they will all claim to have been here for years, with family members who are willing to vouch for them.

Also, there must be a definite cut-off date for the use of Nat. Guard troops.

First off, the number of Nat'l Guard being sent is so small it won't help much (only 6,000), especially when rotation is figured in, etc. We need 36,000 at the minimum to really secure the border. I agree a militarized border is not desirable, but it's estimated that it will take about five years for other security efforts to be implemented. So we need to use what ever resources we can in the meantime. Since the Guard will do support functions (not patrolling) I don't feel it's an issue. The problem is it's too little too late.

Second, the temp or "guest worker" program Bush proposes is to be based on employer request. That's all well and good as long as the employer pays fair wages and benefits, and can prove an American worker isn't available for the job. Still I need to be convinced that these workers will actually return home after three years before I'd support it.

As for determining how long an illegal has been here, just require them to provide the Social Security number they've been using. How many years they've paid Social Security should be considered how long they have been here. I understand they still must pass a background check and pay a fine and any back taxes. Okay, but should they be moved to the front of the line because they have been breaking the law the longest? This would be a very bad message to send. They should have to wait in line to naturalize just like anyone else who has just applied for citizenship. Anything else is amnesty.

 

[SOS2008]

Two-week rotations
The Guard troops would mostly serve two-week stints before rotating out of the assignment, so keeping the force level at 6,000 over the course of a year could require up to 156,000 troops.

Republicans were unified in applauding that portion of the president’s speech. So, too, were Democrats, in a more limited way.

“Democrats are willing to support any reasonable plan that will secure our borders, including deploying National Guard troops,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “But Americans don’t want a plan that’s been cobbled together to win political favor.”

Bush’s call for a guest worker program and his call for a middle ground — somewhere between amnesty and mass deportation — for illegal immigrants, drew no public support from top House Republicans.

Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., issued a statement that made no reference to elements of the president’s speech other than border patrol.

Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that if the Senate passes an immigration bill he was committed to working “to ensure we make border security our first priority and meet our commitments to the American people.”

The House has passed a border security bill that makes all illegal immigrants open to felony criminal charges.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12816021/page/2/

Vicente Fox called Bush the morning before the speech, and they spoke for about 30 minutes. Fox expressed alarm about securing the border (imagine that). Bush reassured Fox that he was not militarizing the border. Hmm...I wonder how the conversation went. Maybe something like this? "Vicente, mi amigo, it will only be tokenism to retain political support for my complete plan, which also is a guise for amnesty--as we planned when I was at your ranch."

The compromise would be between criminalization of illegal entry (per the House) and amnesty (per Mexico), not between deportation and amnesty. How do they get to this as the two choices?

I don't agree with the Minutemen that we must only have legislation to secure the border first. I feel we must address the border and the interior in order to secure the border. To do this right, I would entice illegals to come forward voluntarily to apply for citizenship. However, I would not promise that anyone would be granted citizenship--just that they would be considered for citizenship. After all, if they don't pass a background check they will be deported. As for the rest who pass the background check and are gainfully employed, they must be documented in some way, perhaps the 3-year guest worker ID. Then if they fail to pay fines or back taxes, learn English, or remain employed, they will lose the worker ID and be deported. After that three year period, those who still qualify could be given another 3-year guest worker ID while they wait for citizenship. During this process, any who don't qualify for citizenship per existing criteria should be deported regardless of how long they have enjoyed the benefits of living in the U.S.

To me this would be a compromise that would not be a thinly veiled form of amnesty, and would be fair and solve the problem without dire disruption. Unfortunately, I believe that if congress passes anything that is not a form of amnesty, there will be violent riots. But since when does our country allow law-breaking foreigners to dictate our laws? I'm more than happy to see taxes spent on a wall and riot gear.

 

[edward]

I don't see where the NG acting in a support roll will really change the situation substantially. The NG will only have a significant effect if they are actually allowed to detain illegals.

Just because the NG spots a group of illegals does not mean that the Border Patrol will have the manpower to stop them. The Border Patrol is already spotting more than they can pursue.

Current tactics used by the people smugglers includes feigned moves in one area to distract the Border Patrol from a large movement of illegals a few miles away.

Rounding up a single group of just 10 to 20 illegals takes a lot of manpower on the ground because when the Border Patrol approaches, the crossers take off running every which way but south.

When they are caught and returned to the border the next day, they just try again the next night. And they don't just cross at night which means the NG will have to work in shifts as the Border patrol does. This dilutes manpower at any given location.

We can declare them felons when they are detained, but we will still have to release them in Mexico and they will be caught again and be declared felons again because there are no facilities to keep them in. Plus the word felon means nothing to them.

Those illegals crossing from Mexico but who are not Mexican citizens can not be released in Mexico. Mexico will not allow it. These illegals are given a citation and a date to show up at INS for their deportation hearing. They simply vanish.

The only truly effective solution is to prevent them from crossing the border at the border. I don't see 6,000 or even 12,000 NG troops as being able to do that even if they are allowed to detain illegals.

The NG presence will definitely help and the catch and release numbers may increase, but that will not necessarily decrease the number of sucessful crossings.

 

[Art]

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away their reason for entering the US i.e. Jobs.

If employers were prevented from employing illegal labour by the certainty they will be heavily fined if caught the problem would all but disappear overnight. Bush mentioned this aspect in his speech but his solution was sketchy at best - a reference to biometric ID cards which was thin on details and no timeframe. Contrast this with the measures introduced after 9/11 when foreign countries were told to issue bio-metric passports to their citizens within 3 years or they would not be allowed entry into the US. Interestingly the US has lambasted the EU for being late in implementing this demand whilst they themselves do not yet issue bio-metric passports.

Given that the CEOs who support Bush are quite happy to avail of cheap labour I suspect that the objective of Bush's speech was to placate non-latino voters ahead of the elections whilst not unduly upsetting the latinos by not substantially changing the status quo.

 

[kleinjahr]

How's that poem go? "Give me your tired and poor..."

The U.S. and Canada are both nations of immigrants, 'tis what made them great. Read up on the Yellow Peril etc.

As for the Bush league, I think he's just trying to distract from the war in Iraq. Oh sorry, insurgency in Iraq.
Of course if he is serious about controlling the border, then that means concrete, steel and barbed wire. It means watchtowers, minefields and more coastal patrols. Hmmm, I smell an investment opportunity.

 

[edward]

The deployment of National Guard troops is a ploy according to the Border Patrol union leader. (yes they do have a union) This whole National Guard Fiasco is more about election year politics than it is about the border problem.

LOS ANGELES The head of the union representing Border Patrol officers says deployment of National Guard troops to the border is a political move designed to counter criticism of lax enforcement.

T-J Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, believes Guard troops can provide extra eyes, but won't be involved in making arrests.

Bonner says President Bush is trying to "appease" his critics, who Bonner says have "every right to be critical of his non-enforcement policy."

Bonner believes the government wants the cheap immigrant labor "at any cost" and is trying to justify creation of a guest worker program. He says the Senate's consideration of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants already in the U-S has resulted in "a flood" of people trying to get in as soon as possible.

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=4907879

 

[SOS2008]

A pro-illegal immigration spokesman (who was so upset about anti-amnesty groups burning the Mexican flag) was back on MSNBC the night before last--Juan Hernandez. You have to see this guy live to understand how truly lame he is, but here is the latest:

HERNANDEZ: Well, I had the great honor of coordinating the first meeting between Vicente Fox and George W. Bush. ...And first thing that came out of both of their mouths were, what can we do to bring opportunities, for example, to little areas in Mexico where people must leave because they can‘t feed their families, but at the same time be a great source of opportunity for businessmen and businesswomen in the United States?

So, both presidents have been interested in having a better relationship between the two countries.

Hmm...really?! How business in the United States might benefit from exploiting people who must leave Mexico because they can't feed their families... Yep, sounds like Bush's brand of "compassionate conservatism" to me. They continue:

CARLSON: Yes.

HERNANDEZ: And by the way, I think that‘s the best way to really work on immigration reform and to work on security.

CARLSON: It may be. Let‘s—let‘s take each one of those points in turn. The first, that how can we help Mexico? Why can‘t the government of Mexico help Mexico? I mean, all of these millions of illegal aliens coming here because there are no, as you pointed out, opportunities for them in Mexico. Why aren‘t they staging protests against the government of Mexico for them doing such a bad job running the country?

HERNANDEZ: Well, wait a minute. We live in the northern hemisphere. We‘ve signed a trade agreement between the three countries. I think that we can work together. As a matter of fact if we want to compete with other blocks around the world, I think that we must work together.

But let me mention just something...

CARLSON: But what is Mexico doing...

Note that he nevers answers Tucker's question directly. Even so, his response makes no sense. Why would the U.S. partner with Mexico to compete with other blocks around the world? What does Mexico bring to the table? And since when do trade agreements have anything to do with sovereignty and respect for one another's borders, laws, and culture? Back to the excerpt:

HERNANDEZ: Now, Mr. Tancredo got me going there. I want to say something. Mr. Tancredo—I mean, I just cannot believe. I thought that he‘d be very excited about Bush‘s proposal. He has the five points Bush has. Of course, you can nitpick and those who agree with No. 4 and do not agree with No. 1. But there‘s really pretty much in tat proposal for everyone to find what he or she wants.

CARLSON: Well, that may be the problem.

HERNANDEZ: Exactly. We need a complete reform of the immigration reform. And I think that if we take Bush‘s proposal and analyze it carefully, I think we can find good stuff in there.

CARLSON: How about this, then? Let‘s get to a verbatim quote. This the president‘s description of the illegal aliens. Quote, “Many used forged documents to get jobs. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our community.”

The president isn‘t saying, at least in this paragraph, “Boy, illegal immigration, a boon for the United States.” He‘s saying, you know, it takes money away from our economy, and it puts our people in peril through crime. How do you respond to that?

HERNANDEZ: I respond that it is very complex. And of course, you can have studies that can prove just about anything. On the one hand, you have the Social Security administration just last week saying that around five million people, undocumented people, are paying into the Social Security billions of dollars.

On the other hand, I‘m sure that there are little towns and places maybe close to the border where there are hospitals that are needing some federal money.

CARLSON: Some hospitals. How about the city of Los Angeles?

HERNANDEZ: ... Hispanics and need to give them better English classes. We need some funds for that.

CARLSON: The second largest city in the United States, Los Angeles, totally overwhelmed, its public school system and its public hospitals, because of illegal immigration, as you know.

Let me just get you to concede one point here, though. The government of Mexico has a financial interest in illegal immigration to the United States, because the second largest source of foreign income is from those illegal aliens. So I mean, Mexico has an interest in breaking our laws.

HERNANDEZ: The premise is wrong. Mexico and the United States both have a great interest in working together for the better of both nations. We need to start thinking, as Robert Pastor (ph) has written, an economist in D.C., that we need to work thinking of the future. Ten, 15 years, 20 years from now max, we will have to work together to be able to compete with the rest of the world. Why not start planning for it now?

CARLSON: Yes, I wish Mexico would give a little bit, even as it takes. I wish the governor of Mexico would acknowledge that we have our laws, and we have an interest in preserving and enforcing them. And that it‘s not immoral for us to do so.

HERNANDEZ: Well, these are—these are individuals coming across the border looking for the great American dream. This is not Mexico pushing them. Of course, I understand, many of them leave because they‘re not...

CARLSON: What do you mean? They‘re printing up pamphlets pushing people across the border!

HERNANDEZ: ... better jobs down there. On the other hand, the United States gives a poll. We have the jobs. We want them here. And now, we must create a program that is fair, first of all, for the United States in my opinion. But especially fair for the whole hemisphere and fair for the undocumented.

CARLSON: All right. Well, I‘d say, first, second, and third, fair for the United States. But that‘s just me.

Juan Hernandez, thanks a lot for coming on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12817650/

Why must the U.S. create a program that is beneficial to the "whole hemisphere" (i.e., Mexico), and why should the "undocumented" (i.e., law-breaking illegals) be accommodated? And "fair" is, as Tucker points out, give and take--not just take. Juan Hernadez is a piece of work (i.e., piece of...). And talk about statistics, this is from last nights program:

But first, a shocking statistic that‘s been lost in the immigration debate so far, 193 million. One hundred ninety-three million. That‘s how many new immigrants could legally enter this country in the next 20 years if a bill now in the Senate becomes law, 193 million. That‘s a number greater than 60 percent of the entire current U.S. population.

The figure comes from the Heritage Foundation, which conducted a study of the effect of the proposed bill. Joining me now from Washington, Brian Darling. He‘s the director of the Senate relations for the Heritage Foundation.

Brian Darling, welcome.

BRIAN DARLING, DIRECTOR OF SENATE RELATIONS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION:

Thanks for having me on.

CARLSON: A hundred and ninety-three million. I mean, that‘s almost unbelievable. How did you come to that number?

DARLING: We actually have put together the numbers, and if you add up the 10 million estimated individuals that would qualify for amnesty under the bill. You also add up the fact that they will be allowed to bring in relatives, which would add the numbers quite a bit higher.

You‘re also talking about a temporary worker program that would be set up that would have new immigrants coming in that may add up to as many as 100 -- 100 million people in the next 20 years. And if you project it over longer periods of time, you‘re talking about numbers that people really don‘t understand, can‘t get their arms around.

CARLSON: You‘re talking about completely—completely changing the nature of the country.

DARLING: Right.

CARLSON: In other words, more than half again as many people in this country in the next 20 years.

You mention that this bill would allow the relatives of immigrants to come here as well. As I understand it, the current bill in the Senate, bipartisan, the president has endorsed this bill, would allow the parents of immigrants to come to this country. Is that right?

DARLING: Yes. It would allow parents. It would allow children. It would allow extended family. And it would allow some of the people that would get amnesty. Some of them would be allowed to have family.

...What‘s going to happen with welfare costs? We project between $16 and $30 billion over the next 20 -- I‘m sorry, on an annual basis once this program kicks in and these individuals are granted citizenship and permanent rights in the 11th year. It‘s really staggering what this 600-plus page bill, how dramatically it would change our nation.

For more - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834948/

Sending the NG to assist border states is a start in correct thinking. Let's just hope it's sincere and not done in an inept manner--however, in view of the track record of this administration, I have grave doubts and am in agreement with edward that it is only politicking. Also, the president's proposal to spend $1.9 billion is something that is needed.

The Senate made a good start and "voted to cut the president's war budget to put more money into border security." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12504076/from/RL.1/ In view of the deficit, lawmakers must start asking where the money will come from before agreeing to spend it, such as on Bush's "war presidency" (and the power he has usurped with it).

And it's good that the Senate approved 370 miles of fencing, and a crack-down on the hiring of illegals. - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263/page/2/

But...so far it looks like the Senate is still pushing for questionable "legislation that could allow citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and create new guest worker programs" (see stats above).

“Regardless of what the president says, what he is proposing is amnesty,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators in any attempt to draft a compromise immigration bill later this year.

----------

The National Capital Immigration Coalition organized the afternoon demonstration on the National Mall a few blocks from where lawmakers debated the issue they cared about.

“This is a critical moment,” said Juan Jose Gutierrez, one of the event’s organizers. “We oppose the militarization of the U.S-Mexican border.”

The National Capital Immigration Coalition? They aren't just concerned about militarization of the border, they want an open border--oh yes, and amnesty. Keep the phone calls, letters, and emails going to your representatives...

 

[SOS2008]

Bush in Arizona

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12860863/from/RS.2/

Associated Press
May 18, 2006

NOGALES, Mexico - Mexicans say it will take more than three layers of fence and 6,000 National Guard troops to keep them out of the United States.

As President Bush visited the stretch of Arizona desert Thursday that serves as a cactus-studded freeway for thousands of undocumented migrants, those preparing to make the perilous trip said they will find a way around almost any obstacle.

“We’ll go under it, we’ll go over it, we’ll go through the air, the sea or the earth, but they’re never going to stop us from crossing,” said Jesus Santana, a Tijuana truck driver who was caught trying to cross and deported.

...As a tired, bedraggled column of deportees filed across a Nogales border bridge Thursday — just as Bush was giving a speech on border security west of here — some migrants were already furiously dialing cell phones to contact immigrant smugglers for their next attempt.

“They say, ‘I had a roof and a frying pan in Mexico, but I sold both to come north and went into debt, so what do I have to return to?”’ Doraine said.

Why does the press insist on referring to illegals as migrants or immigrants! Okay moving on...

Aside from the ignorant assumption that they could cross a truly secure border, this is why the magnet of jobs must be removed. Otherwise, I'll be fine with a militarized border--I'll be fine with mine fields and artillery--gees! And maybe these people will begin to hang onto their roofs and frying pans (and lose the cell phones?!) and demand improvements in their own country.

“Most countries want to bring their people together and tear down physical, commercial and cultural barriers,” presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said Thursday. “Anyone who proposes separating them is out of line. Walls are a sign of distrust, and that will never be the basis of a good friendship between two countries.”

Walls are a sign of distrust? Now Mexico is threatening to sue against increased border control. With friends like that, who needs enemies. None of these attitudes or actions are making a good case, but rather it shows their true colors and only makes people harden their position on the issue.

 

[loseyourname]

I was under the impression that the bulk of undocumented people in the US were people that entered legally, but failed to leave when their visas expired. Securing the border will do nothing to stop them.

 

[SOS2008]

I was under the impression that the bulk of undocumented people in the US were people that entered legally, but failed to leave when their visas expired. Securing the border will do nothing to stop them.

From a 2005 Global Business Network article:

Some illegal aliens entered the country legally, but then overstayed their period of authorized visit. Most, however, entered the country illegally overland. Recent estimates indicate that the largest group, nearly 6 million, are Mexicans, followed by about 2.5 million from other countries in Latin America.
----------
People who are illegal aliens are less educated than Americans; half of them have not completed high school, compared to 10 percent of Americans. ...Also, about two-thirds of them earn less than the minimum wage, compared to one-third of Americans.
----------
According to a national opinion survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 2002, 70 percent of the U.S. public said that reducing illegal immigration should be a very important foreign-policy goal, compared to 22 percent of American elites. The large difference between public and elite opinion on illegal immigration helps explain the political impasse and difficulties currently being faced by Congress and the White House on this issue.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=33602

The actual numbers are hard to determine. Based on apprehension of 2,000 a day near Tucson (March 2006 figures), and the estimate of that being 1 in 4 caught (more like 1 in 10), you can see very quickly that the number who enter illegally are the largest percentage.

The "undocumented" illegals are why Americans tend to be against a "guest worker" program. Unless the program is properly administered and enforced, i.e., keeping tabs on workers and making them return home after the proposed three years expire, these people will meld into the already existing number of illegals, further adding to the problem. It is so easy for these people to disappear before their worker permits expire--it's ridiculous to consider it, especially for any newcomers.

But as this article points out, the "elites," or in other words, businesses support the supply of cheap labor (note that two thirds of illegals earn less than minimum wage), and businesses contribute the most to political campaigns.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Suppose we do erect a guest worker program. The border will still leak like a sieve and unless the program is a complete giveaway, many potential immigrants will still see advantages in illegal crossing. Many US "elites" will too. So how does a GW program solve the problem?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The border will only leak like a sieve if we don't fix the problem. If the Feds won't do it, then things are going to start getting ugly as people will continue to take the law into their own hands.

This problem has reached critical mass. If things don't improve, we are going to end up with a border war. For those living with the phenomenal crime rate that this problem brings, it already is a war.

I find it funny that people keep talking about how this problem is twenty years old. In fact, in S. Cal it was already a big problem in the early 70's.

Btw, when I was young and very, very poor, [left home with everything I owned in a backpack] I was once denied a job because I wasn't an illegal alien; even though I was willing to work for their pay rate. I was living on tomato sandwiches at the time.

 

[Gokul43201]

I recently saw this map (on the CNN website, I think), that showed the parts of the border that are fenced. I saw long stretches that were completely unfenced - what looked like about five hundred or so miles of it. Am I wrong, and are there only 370 miles of unfenced border, or is there some reason (eg: terrain?) for fencing only 370 miles instead of just doing the whole enchilada ?

 

[SOS2008]

Suppose we do erect a guest worker program. The border will still leak like a sieve and unless the program is a complete giveaway, many potential immigrants will still see advantages in illegal crossing. Many US "elites" will too. So how does a GW program solve the problem?

Everything Bush is doing (and the Senate) in regard to the border and English only rhetoric is merely an attempt to appease the conservative base. Why? Because if Bush can get approval for a "guest worker" program as well, it would completely undermine all these other efforts. Bush is pro-business to the end, so don't be fooled.

However, I would like to know why people think the border will leak like a sieve no matter what we do? That's like saying we should give up on fighting crime because we can never completely stop crime. Fencing is not intended to make the entire border completely impregnable, but rather more effectively patrolled. The current use of surveillance detection has been useless because of lack of required manpower behind it. A three-layer fence, many feet deep (8-10 ft. I believe), fifteen feet high and surrounded by razor wire in key areas (where illegals can easily disappear into populated areas) WILL make a big difference--though I'm disappointed that the Senate only approved 350 miles instead of the proposed 700 miles. It will allow limited resources to be focused on the more rugged and open range that is difficult to cross and/or where illegals can easily to be seen and caught. If the flow is reduced to a trickle, that would be a greatly needed improvement.

Many think we are overreacting to the border problem. Aside from years of criminal activities related to drugs, what we are talking about is 193 million immigrants over the next 20 years if we continue on the present course. As stated above, that is 60% of our entire current population, which would completely change the nature of our country. If terrorists were able to cross from the south, what do you think would happen? OMG, that border would most definitely be secured, and fast. The astronomical number of illegals is just as serious a threat as terrorism, possibly more so. So why isn't this issue being treated appropriately? Because of the influential power of special interests (businesses, unions, religion) who could care less about what happens to our great nation.

 

[SOS2008]

"Senators at odds over English's status in U.S." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12866975/

As already posted, those who assimilate and learn English are more likely to advance. Aside from the poor use of tax dollars to print everything in both English and Spanish, it is discriminatory to immigrants who speak other languages, and contributes to the disillusionment of entitlement by Latin illegals.

But the effect is even greater yet. English is the number one international language that is taught as a second language in most foreign countries. It's bad enough we are becoming a third-world country due to importation of poverty, outsourcing, and a large trade deficit. Why would we want to take our country backward with the inability to speak English? The requirement of speaking English is actually too lenient. Immigrants should also be literate, meaning the ability to read and write English too. So I wish people would stop with the anti-American propaganda, and start pitching into preserve this great nation.