Besides, the topic is how republicans are constantly pushing the fear button, and it's proved by wrongwingers like yourself being scared of all the brown people.

For an immigrant to get a chance to stay here, he wants a confession and then the undocumented resident will "go to the back of the line." That sounds racistly reminiscent to me of "go to the back of the bus."

Democratic Commentator Pushes the Racist Button

They are here illegally, be it a civil violation or criminal, and they are alien to this country. I see nothing improper or disrespectful in describing people who have came across the border without permission as such.

If you have people who obtained a visa, came here legally and have now overstayed that visa, I would say they are now "undocumented." They have lost, by their or other's actions, what they previously had.

These two groups deserve to be described in such a manner that we can understand their situation and behavior. I think the actions of the "illegal alien" are that they have crossed the border with no attempt to comply with our laws. Some come for work and look to stay. Some come for work and plan on returning and then change their minds. And yes, some may come to do us harm.

The actions of the "Undocumented" are similar.  Some may have come legally to work but not stay. Some may have come legally to work and stay, or have decided to stay. Some may have come to visit and have decided to stay. And yes, some may have come to do us harm. But members of this group all had visas at some point. These I would describe as "undocumented foreign nationals." They have lost what they had.

The waves of immigrants that arrived in the 19th and early 20th century were received, examined and documented. Those arriving illegally were not a particular problem. For both groups the country was huge, under populated and featured almost limitless opportunities for manual labor.

That is no longer true. The country is no longer under populated and manual labor jobs are scarce. Worse, the presence of both groups depresses the cost of labor. Especially for manual labor provided by our underclass citizens. It helps only a portion of the middle class and above, and delays technology advances in agriculture by keeping the cost of labor low.

From a culture viewpoint, a continual high rate of immigration, legal and illegal provides problems with assimilation into our culture. Some nut cases run around saying they will take back the southwest. This only fuel the flames of those who feel we aren't defending the borders and take action on their own. Putting that aside we have 11,000,000 to 15,000,000 people here now and no matter what you call them, with 1,000,000  to 2,000,000 more coming  each year  this is a huge problem in assimilation.

And yes. An almost open border, easy to obtain visas and almost no way of keeping up with people who enter the border legally, is a huge security problem.

A national ID, which could also be used as a Driver's License by information on the ID, that is truly very difficult to forge, coupled with severe penalties for forgery and/or possession would be very positive step forward in solving many problems.

That was but one of many ridiculous lies, in pursuit of Draconian laws. And yet most people are still loathe to see how alike America is to Islamic Fundamentalist nations, despite a Constitutional guarantees to the contrary.

We know that government has spent billions of dollars to create these myths. Divide and conquer totalitarian tactics ought to be generally obvious right now. If empowered in the Total Surveillance Society, the real über perv types like (deep pockets) Romney will have a field day in voyeurism and state/sexual slavery.

Occasionally some daring writer tells it more like it is, such as CounterPunch published once again.

Myth:
"Most sexual assaults are committed by strangers."

Fact:
Most sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim or the victim's family, regardless of whether the victim is a child or an adult.

As for child victims: Approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child's family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). Relatives, friends, baby-sitters, persons in positions of authority over the child, or persons who supervise children are more likely than strangers to commit a sexual assault.

The online predator clearly fits in the category of stranger.

ie., until he accomplished his goal of becoming our "friend."

iow, I think the MO of many child predators, whether they're on-line or driving the neighborhood Good Humor ice-cream truck, is to "befriend" the child in order to carry out their plans.

As for child victims: Approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child's family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998).

iow, what is the percentage of boys and girls who are sexually victimized by someone the child "meets" on-line or at the neighborhood swimming pool whom the parents have no knowledge of?

Significantly higher than 20% and 40%, I'd wager...

So statistically, whether a victim is likely to know an offender or not is irrelevant of whether we should lock up offenders.