Ben Stein's dad, Herbert Stein was a famous economist and an advisor to Presidents Nixon and Ford. He had a saying: "If something cannot go on forever, it won't."

I would argue that is what we are witnessing today. What are Americans up in arms about? Rising fuel costs, declining quality of life, stagnant wages, sinking schools, and an increasing gap between rich and poor. Most of them the sorts of things, in other words, one might expect from the rapid importation of large numbers of immigrants, especially of the uneducated variety.

Americans will not put up with illegal immigration for much longer because we will not put up with its effects for much longer. The goal of the amnesty crowd is merely to mislead us long enough to sneak through an amnesty for the 15 million illegals here. Once that occurs the political influence of 15 million new citizens will become a sort of perpetual motion machine for yet more immigration. Racism by the new immigrants - a desire to bring in more people who look just like themselves - will keep them voting for open borders.

Speak up now, Utahns, or forever hold your peace.

It is already perpetual. Does anyone else remember the amnesty in the 80s? That worked out so well.

How is paying a fine Amnesty? I don't get it, I probably never will.

No one is listening to the little American anymore as the almighty dollar has more pull. We cannot rely on our leaders who asked us to vote for them to serve us. They are filling their pockets and running after the damage is done. So much for honesty, integrity and SERVICE to those you asked to vote for them

Let's see all of those who are pro-amnesty have someting to gain from that position. (Can you say $$$?) Yet they have much to lose too. Maybe they will have thier identiy stolen or they will be subject to a crime committed by an illegal immigrant, or perhaps they will be involved in an auto accident with an illegal immigrant. Any of these experiences may change their minds about amnesty. Perhaps they may have someone they know affected by such an experience. Think that may change minds?
We can always tell sad human interest stories to ellicit compasion for the downtrodden. However, there are downtrodden US citizens who suffer because of illegal immigration. Where is the compasion for them?
Where is the compasion for those millions of folks waiting in line for the legal proces to work so they can come to America legally?
Employers must be held accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Heavy fines and even jail time for serious or repeated offenses ought to be imposed for those who break the law. When jobs dry up, we will see many illegal immigrants return to their homes and this problem will decrease.

I actually think the new immigrants are a benefit. They add culture to our area and make it so I can afford to get projects done around my house without paying an arm and a leg.

How is it still an amnesty? Because an amnesty does not involve keeping that which you tried to steal. A "tax amnesty," for example, does not free you of the obligation to pay taxes owed; it merely frees you of paying the fines associated with not paying the taxes.

The folks of the 1986 amnesty were passing a bill remarkably similar to the one they tried to pass just last year, but every single one of them called it an amnesty.

The 1986 amnesty was an obvious failure. They said only 1 million people would qualify. 3 million did. Amnesties have been tried in at least half a dozon European countries, and they have all resulted in higher levels of illegal immigration later on. There is NO documented case of these immigration amnesties ever actually reducing illegal immigration. Not one. In fact, the people granted amnesty in the first round often become the hosts for later illegal immigrants.

Aside from all that, the supposed fines that amnestied illegals would have to pay? The one that would make it a "punishment"? There's strong evidence they never would've even been collected. Our bureaucracy isn't big enough to deal with the sheer numbers.

To those of you who think getting rid of the illegals is a benefit to having jobs, do you ever stop to wonder why Lazy-Boy left Utah to go to Mexico just after the Legislature passed some laws making it less easy for them to drive and less easy for employers to employ them?

Americans who have more opportunity tend to keep such jobs only a short time because they have more options. These Mexicans who are used to hard un-rewarding work, by our standards think such a job is heaven and will work hard, stay there for a long time all with a good attitude and less turnover.

The actions of the Utah Legislature this last session was a little like killing the goose who laid the golden egg, lets be smart and not kill it some more.

"Because an amnesty does not involve keeping that which you tried to steal".

So are you offering when you are caught speeding to go back home, wait 15 minutes and then proceed to your destination at a slower pace?

Who says they are taking what isn't theirs, did you ever take history in high school or college? How can you say with a straight face that you have clear title and they have none?

The fact that you choose to ignore history, when it suits you does not discount its validity.

"How is it still an amnesty? Because an amnesty does not involve keeping that which you tried to steal".

Anytime you are punished for a crime, there is no amnesty. Just because the punishment isn't what you want, doesn't mean its amnesty.

In LeMiserable JeanvalJean was put in prison about 10 or 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread, eventually he was let out, he never did return a loaf of bread for the one he stole.

By your defination this was amnesty, because he got to keep what he took.

*** "The actions of the Utah Legislature this last session was a little like killing the goose who laid the golden egg, lets be smart and not kill it some more." ***

What "golden egg" would that be, Senor? The golden egg which has caused millions of Americans to flee California since the late 80s due to high costs and overcrowding? The "golden egg" that has led to massive trade deficits, budget deficits, and consumer debt and to the rapidly growing gap between rich and poor? The "golden egg" that has turned America from the world's economic and education leader into the world's largest debtor nation? The "golden egg" that has led to water shortages now in 36 states and to rapidly growng commutes all over America (at a time when the price of oil is skyrocketing, no less)? The "golden egg" that took California schools from being some of the best in the nation to just barely above Mississippi's in quality?

There are lots of nations all over the world which do not have nearly as many immigrants as we have but are doing quite well: Germany, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Simgapore, ad infinitum.

*** "By your defination this was amnesty, because he got to keep what he took." ***

Whatever, dude. If the exchange is not always exact, then that's not the same thing as amnesty. If Valjean still had the bread when he was arrested then do you think they let him keep it?

No, the bill they're trying to pass wasn't an amnesty - worse, it was a reward for lawbreaking. What they stole - and would get to keep - is far more valuable than the supposed fine of $2000-3000 they would've had to pay. (And, of course, if they DIDN'T feel it was that valuable they could've just left the country - or remained "in the shadows.")

The amnesty bill also would've let them qualify for social security earned while working here illegally and would've qualified them for the Earned Income Tax Credit when "paying" their back taxes.

The bill they passed was worse than amnesty. It was akin to letting a car thief KEEP the car, and then offering to pay for his gas and insurance and maintenance. Why don't we fight car theft that way?

*** "Who says they are taking what isn't theirs, did you ever take history in high school or college?" ***

Then why don't YOU give YOUR land and YOUR home to the people you stole it from. When you're actually willing to do that THEN come talk to me about how we "stole" it from them.

"There are lots of nations all over the world which do not have nearly as many immigrants as we have but are doing quite well: Germany, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Simgapore, ad infinitum".

Yes but aren't we the greatest nation on earth?

Since you insist that deals of this type are amnesty, please point me to where you are lobbying that the US give back all lands to the Indians it took via broken treaty?

A URL will do, or perhaps a title of a book I can buy from Amazon.

What you only care about amnesty when it doesn't go your way? But when you benefit you are silent? ...

For those of you arguing for amnesty and related, a few simple points:

1) Cite one (1) example where an immigration amnesty has reduced illegal immigration. You have several countries to choose from, including the USA, Italy, Spain, Holland, and Great Britain.

2) If the USA "stole" Mexican land, then are you willing to lead by example, and give your own home and land back to the Mexicans your predecessors stole it from?

3) Explain how the federal government bureaucracy, which couldn't handle the deluge of passport applications just a year or so ago, will be able to adequately research each and every one of the 15 million or more applications for amnesty. How will they tell the difference between someone who arrived in time for the amnesty and someone who arrived after it was passed?

4) Given the open borders history of all the congressmen supporting the bill, and their previous lies on immigration bills (Ted Kenendy's, for example) explain why we should trust Congress to keep the "enforecement" part of a comprehensive going after they've already go their amnesty.

*** "Yes but aren't we the greatest nation on earth?" ***

The question is: Can WE have a strong economy without illegal immigration/mass immigration? As per the countries I cited, that answer is YES.

re Anonymous | 12:25 p.m.

"Then why don't YOU give YOUR land and YOUR home to the people you stole it from. When you're actually willing to do that THEN come talk to me about how we "stole" it from them".

I don't want to give it back, but neither do I want to kick them off of what is theirs too.

I'm little more honest than that.

Why does it have to be us or them, why can't we just recognize we took the land wrongfully, as we did the broken treaties with Indian land, and then lets all get along? why do the children of the those who took, insist on keeping the booty? That would amnesty and of course we don't want that do we?

*** Since you insist that deals of this type are amnesty, please point me to where you are lobbying that the US give back all lands to the Indians it took via broken treaty? ***

No, YOU point to me where YOU are lobbying to give back all the land YOU stole. Otherwise it's nothing more than a straw man argument. EVERYONE on the planet is living on stolen land - land that they or their ancestors took, by force, from someone else. Everyone - even Mexicans.

Did we steal the land? Darn straight we did, though from Indians, not Mexico. Do I intend to keep it? Yes, indeed, I do.

If you really think it's immoral, rather than sheer need of survval, then you set the example and return the land to the Indian tribes we supposedly took it from, and then you return to wherever your supposed homeland is, and make the argument with whoever is on that piece of land now that it belongs to you.

I find it so interesting how those who claim to be against Amnesty, would surely pick up arms and fight if the UN were ever to declare and try to enforce that the United States must give back all lands that it got wrongfully.

Amnesty isn't so bad when it works in your favor is now it?

But I agree with the post here that if there is a punishment then it isn't amnesty.

"No, YOU point to me where YOU are lobbying to give back all the land YOU stole".

Uh I am not lobbying that any lands be given back, unlike you, I believe in Amnesty.

What did I say, you believe in when it suits you, but I guess not when it suits you. You are all over the map.

**** "Why does it have to be us or them, why can't we just recognize we took the land wrongfully, as we did the broken treaties with Indian land, and then lets all get along?" ****

Your argument is insane nonsense for a hundred different reasons, but let's look at the most basic:

Who did we steal the land from? Indians, not Mexico. Guess where those Indians who we "stole" it from are living today? Here, in these United States. They are US citizens, and often citizens of their own sovereign tribal nations, as well.

Are you suggesting that a Mexican whose ancestors are from the Yucatan Peninsula somehow have right to California, or the Salt Lake Valley? HOW???

*** "What did I say, you believe in when it suits you, but I guess not when it suits you. You are all over the map." ***

Actually it is the amnesty proponents who are all over the map. They - you - are the rhetorical equivalent of a terrorist inurgency. You don't hold your ground. You are ideologically all over the place. Moral consistency or logical consistency of any sort are irrelevant.

For example, if we "stole" the land, then it is only appropriate we return it. But some of the biggest boosters of amnesty are also very big landowners, like the Ivory and Marriott families. I'm guessing they re not in favor of returning the stolen land.

re Anonymous | 1:02 p.m.

"Are you suggesting that a Mexican whose ancestors are from the Yucatan Peninsula somehow have right to California, or the Salt Lake Valley? HOW??? "

No more than those who live in Salt Lake City and NY City have claim on Alaska.

Mexico formed a country. It was a collective of Indians from many parts ruled over by Spain Initially.

This was their country, All of that country belonged to all of those Indians and the Europeans who were citizens of Mexico. The same as the United States all of it is our country, whether or not we are Indians, or black or white from Europe or what ever. This is our country. however ...

One fact you need to remember. Something that you steal, will never belong to you or your posterity in the same whole sense that it would have if you had gotten it the right way. We didn't get all of our land the right way. This fact along with the good things our forebearers passed along to us is our heritage. This is our inheritance like it or not.

*** "But I agree with the post here that if there is a punishment then it isn't amnesty." ***

What's the punishment? A $2000 fine?

Oh well punish me then: punish me with a brand new Mercedes for $1000. Punish me with a pair of tickets to Hawaii for $1.50. Punish me with a season pass to Deer Valley for $20. Punish me with a brand spanking new mansion for $50,000. And please, please, oh please keep the punishments coming. No, don't stop for my sake.

My family used to have considerable financial assets. Through a series of unprofitable investments, bad years for farming, and even some bad decisions, most of it is lost. Do I then go find all those who "stole" it from my ancestors and demand it back because it used to be mine? Of course not. Immigrants are great, and an asset to the community, and should get here by legal means.

*** "No more than those who live in Salt Lake City and NY City have claim on Alaska. Mexico formed a country. It was a collective of Indians from many parts ruled over by Spain Initially." ***

I wonder how many Indians in Utah knew that they were Mexican, or in any way acknowledged or accepted Mexican authority?

Territory is only held by force. That's why nations have armies. If a Mexican whose ancestors are from the Yucatan has claim over California then why not give a guy from Patagonia claim to that land, too? And if a Patagonian why not a Libyan? And if a Libyan why not someone from Angola or China or Russia or anyplace else? Why not just throw open all the borders in the world? That's the logic - or illogic - of your claim.

As for Mexicans owning this land? California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado were formed from the land we "stole" from Mexico. The Mexican citizens living here then were allowed to stay. Nearly all did. In 1850 the total population of those areas was less than 170,000. Tennessee alone had just over a million people in 1850.

Lets see I can no longer say I am not for amnesty, because I need it to keep what I myself have.

I don't know how to make the argument, but I know what I want.

Give me what I want, give it to me now give me, gime gime gime.

"I wonder how many Indians in Utah knew that they were Mexican, or in any way acknowledged or accepted Mexican authority?"

I guess that was between the Indians, it wasn't our issue to deal with.

*** In 1850 the total population of those areas was less than 170,000." ***

I would add that probably over half of those people were actually Americans. The 11,380 people living in the Utah Territory in 1850? Well, you know where most of those people came from.

Mexico had hardly even settled the land. Their claim to the land - and it was scarcely more than that - was the equivalent of me claiming the moons of Jupiter.

"Mexico had hardly even settled the land. Their claim to the land - and it was scarcely more than that - was the equivalent of me claiming the moons of Jupiter".

I hope you aren't trying to make a back handed argument for Canada or Russia or some other country to take Alaska away are you?

re Anonymous | 1:32 p.m.

For someone who is no doubt against amnesty, I'd recommend for your own good you get over it. You are pretty energetic when it comes to arguing for it when it suits you. I mean you could make a lot of money as a lawyer.

Immigration is only half the problem. We need to get out of NAFTA or else all the jobs will go to Mexico and Canada. And we need to stop declaring China our most favored trade nation, most of the reason why gas is high and the dollar is low, big defecits. The real problem in the greed of the CEOs and stockholders of companies. They will ship every job and dollar offshore so that they can have 5 homes instead of 4.

Since when is paying a large fine, plus back taxes with interest and penalties amnesty?

We are not talking about amnesty, we are talking about reality.

Amnesty would be allowing all these illeagal immigrants to become citizens without penalty. That is not what we are talking about.

I think the big thing is that these people are getting the opportunity to become citizens without the US having the right to pick and choose who enters our country. These people broke into our country, hid out, and are getting rewarded for doing so. I just hope all the other people who get stiffed as a result get a chance to let them know how they feel.

To all of those who think paying a fine is not amnesty, imagine if someone breaks into your home and steals your TV, DVD player and all of your movies. Would you be satisfied if the thief could avoid punishment by paying you a $5.00 fine and in exchange he could keep all of the stuff that he stole?

Illegal aliens are stealing an opportunity to be here and have an opportunity to succeed in one of the best countries in the world. They've jumped in the front of a very long line. In many cases they end up stealing someone's identity, avoid paying taxes, and sign their children up for public benefits normally reserved for citizens. They also avoid a tangled web of legal fees and paperwork, medical screening, background checks that legal immigrants are subjected to.

To offer these criminals amnesty and the opportunity to remain in exchange for a relatively cheap fine is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and creates a future incentive/precedent for additional illegal behavior in the future.