Americans don't want the jobs because, with skills and education, they earn wages that afford them an above-poverty living. The recent Wal-Mart raids for its use of illegal workers in its janitorial services subcontractors show that our low prices on Cheeto's do come with social costs. Immigrants, not required to learn the language by "compassionate" courts and schools, are sentenced to a Wal-Mart-wages-life in the underclass. They are segregated into barrios, shielded from assimilation. They re-create the very society they tried to escape: classes and a caste system in which they could not get ahead.

This life of poverty does not just drain our health and government systems; it breeds crime. The crime rates in the barrios are so high that Arizona's prison population is 10-20 percent "guest workers," documented and otherwise. Poverty creates a multigenerational assimilation problem. Four of every 10 Hispanics in the United States do not finish high school. Economist Milton Friedman's warning for three decades remains unheeded: Open immigration cannot work in a welfare state. The wave of immigration at the turn of the 20th century was different. Among the many questions immigrants faced at Ellis Island (after the health screenings) were: How much money do you have? Do you have a job? If not, do you have a sponsor?

Bush places great faith in present-day INS screening to curb the problem. How will the same folks who granted visa renewals to two of the dead Sept. 11 hijackers police this program for 15 million people?

Economic screening in a pre-New Deal had inherent veracity because there was no fallback position for those who lied about work or sponsors. Those immigrants were left to survive on their own from their moment of entry. Harsh? Following the Ellis Island wave of immigration, just one generation passed before children of those immigrants were fully integrated into American society. They spoke the language and headed to college. By World War II, they were mainstreamed.

The welfare state assuages liberal guilt with a helping hand to underachiever nations. Good intentions have negative consequences. Despite belief in the American dream, generations of Latino immigrants still live substandard lives in a welfare state that tempts and protects them, tragically and ironically undercutting the work ethic that brought them here.

Bush touts national security concerns. He promises to document who is here so that we can then focus on real threats. Right. Is this not the wrong border? Jorge bin Laden? Folks named Santos and Manuel are not hijacking American Airlines' jets. Bush insults our intelligence. Worse, he insults the noble people of Mexico. In pandering for votes veiled with national security promises, he ensures their dependence on a welfare state. Finish it all in one fell swoop, never to worry about the borders again.

Annex Mexico.

---

Marianne M. Jennings is a professor of legal and ethical studies at Arizona State University. Her e-mail address is mmjdiary@aol.com