For once I am (gulp) in agreement with JPod about an immigration issue: the slavery analogy is dumb. (Though I'd like to register my irritation with JPod's too-free use of the word "insane.")

Sensenbrenner's preposterous argument also pushes the immigration debate in the wrong direction — the direction of sympathy with illegal immigrants. U.S. immigration policy should not be oriented towards what is good for immigrants, but towards what is good for the U.S.A.

Do immigrants, illegal or not, have better lives here than in their home countries? You bet. That's why they're here! It should not, though, be a goal, let alone (as sometimes seems, especially when listening to George W. Bush) the main goal of U.S. immigration policy to improve the lives of the 5.5 billion or so human beings who live in countries poorer than ours. And even if it were, we wouldn't start with Mexico, which by world standards is not that poor. (The latest figure I could find quickly was in my 2003 "World in Figures" booklet from The Economist. By per capita GDP, Mexico ranks 54 out of 174 countries ranked. The actual figure for Mexico is $5,860. For Ethiopia — pop. 63m — it is $100. If U.S. immigration policy is to be oriented towards the welfare of foreigners a la Sensenbrenner, shouldn't it do something for the wretched Ethiopians?