Build the fence first, then let's talk about options. I believe many folks would be more willing to listen if we sealed off our southern border first as a gesture to open a dialogue on how this problem can be solved. I personally suggest that after building the fence we declare a modest 5 year moratorium on all immigration into our country until it can be sorted out. Such are my thoughts....

If he wanted to, Gingrich could help educate Republican voters on these facts. Better yet, he could talk about something that politicians in both parties often ignore: namely, the need to assimilate newcomers.

It's hard to assimilate people who don't want to be assimilated. They want to fly their flag in our country and speak their language instead of English. They basically want our schools to teach in Spanish so their children don't have to learn English. Every document and advertisement has to be in English and Spanish. The demand is that we accomodate them in every way. Sorry, I'm not into that.

Was going to post but realized Ms. Chavez is in her multi-cultural, side with the criminals mode again. Not really doing anyone a favor here.

@Sammy,

I agree totally, assimilate and you will be welcomed. If you want to join La Raza, and speak Spanish, get out! We speak English here, we are un-hyphenated Americans, the great melting pot, become one with us and you are welcome. Come here and try to speak a foreign language and dual citizenship and you can pack your bags and get deported. Come here legally, and become Christian, we have no use for Sharia.

Linda, you started out very well in this article; unfortunately, you quickly left conservatism in the dust as you sped away to endorse amnesty yourself.

You said, "Polls show that most Americans are opposed to deporting the 11 million illegal immigrants who already reside in the U.S." Ms Chavez, polls do not matter! What matters is the rule of law. If they are here illegally, send them home! They can then apply for legal entry. The rule of law is what makes this country a Republic.

"They don't take Americans' jobs; they create more jobs by keeping otherwise unviable industries in the U.S. Without immigrant labor, we'd have no agricultural or meat industry. Without an immigrant work ethic, our service industry would be a lot less productive and would cost customers a great deal more."

Wow. I have debated comments like this one on more liberal sites-- but I never thought I would hear this sentiment from a conservative writer. Some quick points, Ms. Chavez:

1)I can't speak with any authority about the agricultural or meat industry, but I can assure you that illegal workers DO most certainly take jobs from legal construction crews. My father and all three of my brothers are house framers. It is awfully hard to compete with a work crew that does not have to play by the same rules you do.

2)Your argument is similar to the one offered by the defenders of slavery in the American South. "...the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable." (quote taken from http://www.ushistory.org) The same argument was also used in the 1880's when California farmers claimed that proposals to stop immigration from China would cripple fruit and grape production. (http://www.cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture)

Of course, they were wrong.

3)There ain't no such thing as a "free lunch". A large, cheap labor pool has many hidden costs. "The importation of workers with very low levels of education into a modern, high-tech economy imposes a huge burden on America's taxpayers. Analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies shows that two-thirds of Mexican immigrant workers lack even a high school education; as a consequence, two-thirds of Mexican immigrants and their young children live in or near poverty, 31 percent use at least one major federal welfare program (twice the rate of native-born households), and Mexican immigration since 1987 has added 3.3 million people to the ranks of the uninsured." (http://www.cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture)

Been in an emergency room, lately?

4)I have no problem with LEGAL workers. Foreign workers have been welcomed into the U.S. to take seasonal agricultural jobs for generations--legally.

5)In order to work "outside the law", one is also working outside the PROTECTION of the law. Illegal workers are vulnerable to exploitation and have little chance to "move up" in the world. (We used to have a name for unskilled, inexperienced, low-wage workers--it was "teenagers"!)

6)It stands to reason that a reliance on a huge supply of cheap labor--in any industry--would diminish the producers' incentives to seek technological advancements. Cheap labor is also driving our agriculture into fewer, larger, plantation-style operations, rather than the traditional greater number of smaller, family-owned farms.

In short, the "immigrant" labor you claim is so very integral to the agricultural, meat and service industries results in the exploitation of illegal workers, job losses for American workers, a higher burden on tax-payers, and untold missed opportunities in technological advances and inovation.

P.S. Sorry for the long, drawn-out post. I just didn't want anyone to think that I would offer my opinion without some knowlege of this issue. I would HATE for someone to think I need the likes of Newt Gingrich to "educate" me in the matter.

P.P.S. Newt is a lying, treacherous, opportunistic snake. I believe he is indeed "pandering to the hispanic vote"-- once again, abandoning conservative principles for what is politically expedient for NEWT!