As of last Thursday the Senate had made a successful block to President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawlful immigrants that would enact amnesty for those workers in our borders, and retaliation to those that may find the opposition argumentative by respected Senators in both parties,including,Republican conservatives who found victory in stonewalling the bill into legislation.

As an American citizen, who finds no wrong with illegal immigration or amnesty for certain individual cases, however in lieu of being a privledged taxpayer to Uncle Sam, I find this has been a small blessing in disguise for the average American.

Why would I say this you ask?

Finding that economics has a way of shifting adversity into the market whether through small business or federal regulations, the question of such bills must be weighed in balance when identifying progressive issues that keeps certain sectors of the free market enterprise depreciative. To say in the least, we have a distinctive problem with an overgrown market that are paid vastly on a differential and qualiatative scale that keeps low wages low and workers in the status of low wage paying jobs affected by several
factors.

So does everyone get their fair share?

I say no.

If four million illegal immigrants were allowed amnesty as the generality of debate, which could be mitigated to just about anything that requires addressability, I would have to beg the question, how that affects Americans overall? How does one live with higher premiums for healthcare, or Medicare supplements that preclude HMO, PPO, or no health insurance at all? Obviously with such rising demands in the industry that are predicting longer lives, the odds that social security will exist in 2050 will be just a non-existent entity secured by nothing more than a promise and a
handshake.

And yet, we still pay into that belief.

Add four million to the equation that are under educated, over worked for pennies on the dollar and you have a huge social ethics problem that adds new meaning to "gentrification by social status".

You may ask, well why would this be a problem to us Americans?

Well where there should be no problem, largely becomes a long stagnant excercise in administration under federal employment laws, a right to work state, the right to compensations,taxes and hourly labor wages. The way small businesses and corporations work this trade is by lobbying congress that there is unfair practices to business that must incorporate higher prices to get better revenue if wages were to be automatically adjusted due to rising inflation. And indeed, having higher wages means paying out more money for respective employees.

However this has never stopped congress by giving themselves a raise every year at the rate of 2.7%.

Just recently the members of Senate increased their salary by $4,400, incongruent to the marginal rate of federal wage increases of 0.27% across the border (no pun intended).

So does the rich get richer as the poor get poorer?

No. This is a myth. An urban legend passed down like a wives tales over history. In actuality, Bill gates himself could not make money if less and less people bought his operating system as the same applies to every consumer that decided that Walmart superstores across the nations are not the bargain barons that we so hoped for. But what happens directly in the economy of free market trade happens indirectly to some other chain or sector that must somehow stimulate the economics of growth; whether this be sweat shops in Indonesian and Pakistan, or outsourcing American jobs to India and Ecuador for cheaper labor. This is just not Government lateralization by means, but also by consumer fidelity.

So if the practice is that consumer goods can be bought cheaply then there must be a place that will make them at a cheaper cost regardless of the source.

So what does this have to do with illegal immigration in America?

Understandably, immigrants who currently work in America with no visa and who pay no taxes should probably think they have a right to legal status as a working citizen. The wrong doings they have committed should only be persuaded by the fact that those who employ them are in the wrong and have
jeopardized a system that is already in need of repair.

Adding to the argument that having four million immigrants working in America only adds more flame to the fire that they don't have to be paid a fair wage for a fair days worth of work. This quid pro quo status only being handled by unfair ethics and stigmata in the service sector industry; an oversight that should be heavily scrutinized by Senate but are too busy collecting a cost of living allowance (COLA) to offset the rising inflation costs to them driving back and forth to work.

My belief on the debate should allow for consensus on the doing of increasing legitimacy before allowing others to use the system responsibly. Such goes the effect of saying, if one wants citizenship, they should apply for it rather than argue a fallacy of I work for the country but don't want to vote for the country I live in should know that is not an exception to the rule. And we should enforce every business practice that accepts this responsibility to hire illegal workers to be chastized with punitive damages for violating work codes and ethics. And indeed, if we must take in
these extreme examples as a cry for rehabilitation to the system then we should definitely act upon it by restricting lobbying from big corporations that try to side step their own tight-rope or(noose).