There are now an estimated 12 MILLION illegal immigrants in the US. I don't think we can afford to send them all home.

Let's assume we could identify, locate, process, and transport them out of the US for "only" $10,000 apiece (that's probably a very conservative figure, I'd be tickled to death if someone could show a more accurate number for this).

12 million multiplied by $10,000 is $120,000,000,000 (in US terms, that's 120 BILLION dollars).

That's more than the entire US budget for a number of Federal agencies.

Not going to happen, EVER.

However, I think we can address this problem with a well-planned amnesty program: first, an offer of amnesty to illegal immigrants who 1.) have not been convicted of a crime, 2.) plead guilty to, and pay a fine for, illegally entering the country, 3.) pay a fee for and apply for amnesty, 4.) pay a fee for and apply for a retro-active work permit, and 5.) agree to file income tax returns and pay income taxes owed for up to the past 7 years.

I don't believe anyone who gains residency status through this kind of amnesty should ever be allowed to attain ctiizenship (essentially, the right to vote).

Social Security is a completely different issue.

Forgot to add: US citizen by birth.

Thanks for the comment Beaugrand, but I didn't see any mention of English-speaking. Do you have an opinion on this part?

I understand all of your other conditions, but I think getting money out of an illegal is probably nearly impossible and probably bad socially.

Why should the government profit when you want to punish someone?

Also, I agree on the final comment--SS is completely different. I believe that any non-American that's here should not qualify for Any free social programs. But if they can't get social security, then employers wouldn't have to pay toward SS for them and that would make them cheaper to hire than citizens. That's not fair either.

There are entire countries outside of the U.S. that have english as thier first language. And having spent time in Germany I can assure you that a large portion of the population there speaks pretty good english. If I read your idea right they would get preferred status if they can get into the U.S.?

Something I didn't consider--however, I'd much rather deal with any immigrant worker--in any profession--that can speak my language than I would someone who can't. So, yes, this is okay with me.

Also, it would encourage more countries world-wide to learn English. I believe a 'world-language' is a good idea--as long as its not legislated or required. It can only be more efficient. BTW, I don't mean to 'pick' English as the world lauguage, but it is easier for me that way. I've always thought it would be a mixed language, like in Blade Runner.

If this means that Indians can immigrate to the US and work more easily than Mexicans, maybe Mexicans will make more effort to learn English--or maybe all of the jobs they would've taken will be occupied by legal resident English-speakers.

What language will we speak when we colonize the planets?

Try this one. . .

http://www.esperanto.net/info/index_en.html

My grandparents came from Europe speaking little or no English, but they learned fast when they got here, without ESL classes in school. A matter of survival. I consider it a non-issue.

Speaking of colonizing other planets, if the US doesn't get its act together, Chinese will be the language spoken.

I somewhat agree with your opinion and I don't live in America. It may be reasonable to make immigrants as you say take the TOEFL test and allow them to enter the U.S. if they pass a certain mark. In some ways like an emergency the caller should know some basic English in order to communicate with the operator. Even though it might be necessary to be fluent in English however immigrants should be holding their own cultures tightly instead of it being derived by the Western Civilization's culture. The foreigner's language or their culture describes their background and America is built up with mainly immigrants since the first people who lived there were the Natives. Additionally if America were to have unlimited immigration then it would have more competition in finding careers making lives difficult for the people who lived there before the foreigners.

I wonder how American citizens would react to allowing amnesty to illegal immigrants if they could pass an appropriate spoken-Navajo test?

Seems to me the main objections people have to the presence of Europeans ... [is] when they aren't integrated into our culture. This is especially exemplified by them not being able to (or choosing to) speak Navajo. If they were able to become legal residents--not citizens--by passing a TONFL (test of Navajo as a Foreign Language) test with a certain score.

I'm not worried about illegals taking my job--I just don't want them to bring their culture here and in the process, push ours out. And I know that we need immigrants and they often work really hard. And often, not understanding Navajo means they don't understand our culture.

If they could get something for speaking Navajo, they'd likely have less interest in even speaking their native language in their homes--since they need practice to pass.

Its not their lack of English thats the problem. Although they should have to speak English (it is the official language..not Spanish or Chinese or Hindi or whatever). The problem is their withdrawing on public $ without adding into the system. They are paid well below Min wage for a reason..they are illegal. This also means they don't add to Social Security..unemployment..Fed/State taxes..lst goes on and on.Be legal, or get out. Look at all the Red Tape all the legal immigrants have to go through, its unfair to them.

English is not the official language of the United States. And it also wasn't the first. The wealth of culture that we currently do enjoy is very strongly influenced by other cultures, if not derived from it entirely. It can't be helped. That's how people are. If you're worried about "American culture" dying out, you should meet the billions of foreigners concerned about the same situation occurring with "Americanism" creeping in.

I'm 100% American, whatever that means. (For a start, it does indicate that native Filipinos do not understand a single aspect of me, and I them, despite being only one generation away.)

Gotoe12, I don't see any reason why we need 'hold our cultures close.' It leads to discrimination. If I'm a mixed person and I like aspects of many cultures, then I can eat Chinese one night and German the next. BTW, I don't really think there is a such thing as 'American' food. If we claim the hamburger and hotdog, I'm embarrassed.

MDCore, if the Native Americans (of which I also am a card-carrying member) had insisted on cultural integration (which they had no power to do), they would still be in charge. But the reason they had no power is because they didn't all speak Navajo. They were a hundred (or more) cultures--and languages--that didn't integrate, so they couldn't stick together as a group. English-speaking immigrants were the reason that Texas revolted from Mexico and was later stolen by the US. Now 70% of S. Texas speaks Spanish. Wouldn't surprise me to see them leave the USA.

If the USA doesn't have one common language, we'll be more apt to split, like the Czechs and the Slovaks, the Kurds and the Iraquis.

Nayhem, I know English isn't 'official,' and I don't expect it to be. I just want to streamline our society so we're not the Tower of Babel. If we all speak one language, we'll succeed. If we don't, our country will not last.

And again, I expect someday--not that far away, the entire world will speak one language, whatever that may be. If we want it to be English, this would be a good move to encourage more people to learn it.

It is also makes border crossing and immigration easier, more logical and solves the US's cheap labor problem without turning our heads-so-to-speak.

I seriously doubt that the world will be speaking one language any time in the future. Why do you think there are so many languages now? Why do you think countries like France and Spain have different languages even though they're right next to each other? Languages evolve over time. Even people that speak "English" in England or Australia can have difficulty communicating with "English" speaking Americans. People actually like having their own language that only people in their "group" speak. That's why you see black guys in ghettos that have their own "language". That's why you see school kids using their own "language" that their parents don't understand. And that's why cultural groups like to maintain their native tongue. It's part of their identity. It set them apart and enables them to know who is or isn't a member of the group.

Dwane, you're absolutely right, I don't know why I would say such a stupid thing. People in the world will continue to speak many languages as long as there are many ways to 'think'.

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed that the way we think is caused by the language we use. And yes, you're also right, people intentionally even speak their own language differently when they want to differentiate themselves, probably due to a different 'way to think,' i.e. your examples.

Still, I see language as defining country borders in the Georgia/Russia conflict today. I don't want that to happen with the USA vs. Mexico.

It is in the best interest of this country if we all agree on some basic philosophical tenants (about liberty, rights, government)to direct our government and our future. This would be facilitated by us speaking a common language.

To ban languages other than English is a violation of free speech.

Employers may care about other features rather than English-speaking ability (e.g. ability to pick fruit) and employers may be very willing to hire translators. To let the State choose what is best for employers instead of letting employers decide themselves is called communism.

You also said the following: "Just don't want them to bring their cultures here and in the process, push ours out." This is also a communist attitude since you are denying individuals from freedom and calling for the State to control the behavior of citizens.

Oral, I didn't ever say anything would be banned. Speak any language you wish once you're here--but learn English before you cross.

Employers and the state have nothing to do with deciding who is allowed to cross our borders now--the US federal goverment does this. And again, it's in the best interest of this country if we can communicate. People will be more likely to interact and things will operate more smoothly. It will help the immigrants far more than it will help me. I'm afraid Latino immigrants have unintentionally caused class divisions in the US because when they don't speak English, they end up with all of the bad jobs.

When I tried to help a guy who's car was broken down, I couldn't come up with a Spanish equivalent for "hose clamp"--I hope he understood my hand-signals--because the clamp I put on wasn't going to take him far.

And I think I need to clarify my thoughts on the culture question--Communism is a form of government--but any form of governance can institute social controls--this isn't only for Communism. The US had legislated segregation once.

I'm in favor of voluntary integration--but it won't happen if the Russian community can't speak to the Greeks and the Mexicans. If we all speak one language, there's more chance that a Chinese will go to the fiesta, a Russian to the tractor-pull. The US has no 'American' culture--we're just a big mix. I want to keep the mixer turning to include everyone.