Good grief it is the apocalypse for sure. I agree with Jeff Jacoby. For once he looks at a problem and instead of picking it to death recognizes the problem with the legislation or the policy is that it is completely no longer functional in the 21st century. Now if we could just get him to look at the economy in the same way he might move completely into the modern world.

I agree. This is a policy that everyone can support. Many on the far rightwing have said that they do not oppose immigration even though they oppose illegal immigration. If the policy was changed to make all of the immigrants legal, then everyone could be happy with the policy.

I wish our politicians thought like Jacoby. Forget for a moment about content. His geniality? Quite simple and refreshing: He looks at immigration from a different standpoint. Changing the framework of the conversation will unlock the current gridlock. Back to content. Immigration has become a bad word. There's an irrational and foolish fear about hordes of immigrants -documented or not- flooding our nation and contributing to its collapse. Immigration isn't the problem; our political handling of immigration is the problem -and a serious one.

No snarky remarks today. Thanks, Jeff, for some common sense on a difficult issue. I have long thought that people have been concentrating on the wrong end of the problem. Rethinking our immigration laws would not just make it easier for people to enter the country legally - it would also make it easier for people to leave. I've known legal immigrants who are reluctant to return to their home countries, even for a visit, because they're afraid some bureaucratic snafu will leave them stranded on the wrong side of the border. With more liberalized laws many immigrants would go back and forth rather than arriving and staying forever.

Currently reading "A Nation By Design" by Aristide Zolberg. I highly recommend this book to give you an idea of how immigration policy has been fashioned over the years, from the beginning of the Republic to now. Surprises you the depth and breadth of the contention over immigration policy. The last American president to deport this many people was President Eisenhower, in an operation specifically targeting Mexican populations in the Southwest.

Like attaturk, I am amazed to find myself in agreement with Mr Jacoby's well-written analysis. I wonder how the current House of Representatives would react to proposals along the lines that he suggests. I mean if someone other than the President initiates them. If President Obama was to propose changes of the sort espoused by Mr Jacoby, they would be DOA. Still, a good piece.

HHKitchener, you're right, I should have said that all sensible people could be happy with the policy. It seems to me that most business interests would support this change in policy although some small and mid-sized businesses prefer to keep immigrants illegal. I often find that it's much easier to find immigrants who are qualified to work for me than it is to find domestic workers. I believe that those companies that perform meaningful work would much prefer making more immigrants legal. I agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church is very corrupt, but I think that it's paranoid to believe that they are trying to keep people illegal.

Perhaps you missed my point because I failed to articulate it clearly enough. But like many pundits, you chose to copy my comment out of context. I was in agreement with you and Mr Jacoby that a more rational immigration policy would go a long way in addressing the problems caused by illegal migration. My point was more about the mindset in the Congress as articulated by Senator McConnell: On Fox News Sunday, Bret Baier asked him if he stands by his previous statement that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President." McConnell confirmed that his goal remains unchanged. The Republicans in the congress appear to be of a mind to deny President Obama any "victory", no matter how good the idea may be. When a strategy is so clearly and unequivocally stated, how is it possible to misunderstand my comment and how is it right to re-phrase it in a way that omits the context? It can't be intentional. Right? Also, I favor Mr Willie over Mr Mean, Lord Kitchener. Interesting choice of a tag, by the way. A lot of hx goes with that name.

FY2012: 1 million+ new illegals; 1 million+ Green Cards; 1.5 million Work Visas; 1 million+ new citizens; O edict 1.4 million work permits, all vying for less than 1 million jobs enforce our existing federal laws against illegal immigration

BTW, Obama's FY2012 deportation numbers are in the tank, and were in the tank well before his latest edict. ... and deporting 1.2 million out of the total number of illegals in our country, is a drop in the bucket .... there are far more than 11.2 million illegals in our country ... despite anything that our government, or any other advocate for illegals, has to to tell us. ... our nation has been invaded; it's as simple as that

Agree, let people in if they won't immediately go on the dole or go in the hospital and if they will learn English and not try to make the US into their old country.

I thought I might never see a column by Mr. Jacoby that I could agree with. I was wrong; this is it. There's another reason immigration is beneficial that you didn't mention. It can contribute greatly to a solution for the Social Security deficit created by the retirement of Baby Boomers.

It is nice that the radical haters of Jeff see his wisdom, and appreciate his well thought out, and researched piece. There was much in here I did not know, and I thank Jeff for enlightening me. Too many commentators devolve into the political rhetoric Jeff never sinks to to- using phrases like "radical nativists" and the like to insult the people with whom they disagree. NEW PARAGRAPH: This is a very complex issue, and no simple approach will make everyone happy. The big challenge lies in this" Immigration is good economics, as it adds to the earning power of our nation. But inviting new cultures and languages does diminish our own cultural identity. The fine line we must walk is to invite immigrants who can add to our our GDP, but with a requirement that assimilation be accomplished within a reasonable amount of time. Government cannot force outside people to embrace our language, and our values and our heritage, but it can tie incentives for it with an immigration law. NEW PARAGRAPH: The second challenge is to create a system which removes all incentives and rewards for illegal immigration. President Obama's latest law by fiat will encourage zillions of people to come illegally. But for him, winning the election is all that matters.

Your comment is very troubling because it indicates an ignorance of immigration in the past that made this country a great nation. Until recently there were Italian, Portuguese, and Chinese immigrants in Boston (for examples) who never learned more than a few words of English. They lived in certain neighborhoods and preserved many of the traditions from their native lands. It's the children and grandchildren who became Americans. Even today, many decedents of Italian, Chinese, and Irish immigrants preserve some of the traditions of their heritage. So what?

You say, "Many Americans have personal narratives concerning the immigration of their forebears." -- Yes, we do, but my forebears came before there were laws regulating immigration. For half this country's history people could come and go at will. I think it worked out pretty well.

Under Obama's order foreign nationals who (1)entered the US before they were 16, (2) are currently under 30, (3) are in school or have graduated, and (4) resided in the U.S. as of June 15, 2012, to qualify. They will be given a 2-year deferment on deportation and will be allowed to obtain a work permit. It does NOT make them permanent residents or provide a route to citizenship. To repeat -- they must reside in the US as of June 15. Exactly how does that "encourage zillions of people to come illegally." It would have been better to read the order before commenting.