Very interesting analysis that compares the politics of illegal immigration to the reality. Finnegan argues for a recasting of the immigration debate from a particular viewpoint, but his case is well worth considering.

A reasonable and insightful opinion about the heated rhethoric around illegal immigration. This article presents well-sourced factual evidence to suggest that violent crime has declined in border states and is a lesser problem than what to do with illegal immigrants already in the U.S. Arguments for and against measures like the Arizona law are presented fairly and thoughtfully, and provide useful context on this controversial topic.

Though there's nothing particular new here, it's a clear, informative articulation of the author's perspective on the realities, and politics, of immigration reform.

Well written and compelling. Takes a wide, balanced view of the history and pitfalls of the U.S. immigration debate and issues. While it offers no original solutions to the problems at hand, its calm, reasoned tone cuts through all the anger and emotion on the topic towards a constructive, forward-thinking conclusion.

An insightful commentary, at last, on the immigration issue in America. William Finnegan rightly pointed out that the problem of illegal immigration isn’t a matter of violent criminals storming the walls of America's peaceful towns and cities. It’s a matter of what to do about the estimated eleven million unauthorised residents who are already in USA. The story is also in-depthly written, and shows context.

Once more the “New Yorker” delivers the goods. Fair, detailed, covering both sides in an objective manner, the article offers lots of first-class information. It makes a salient point that the 11 million illegals are here to stay, no matter what dissidents dream of doing. The reality is business depends on them, the economy needs them. Although dissidents don’t get it, the question has already progressed beyond anger about their miscreant behavior sneaking into the country being sinful, to how shall they be integrated into American society. A must read.

This is a well written article. The writers at the new yorker must have to submit their work to editors. This is slanted He argues mass-deportation fantasies I counter mass-amnisty delutions. Crime is down so the border is from being “unsecured,” I counter statistics lie. I count deputies being ambushed by drug runners and ranchers murdered on their own property a little differently than this author. It is time, nonetheless, to try to finally bring millions of men, women, and children in from the dark. The USA is a dark place compared to sunny Mexico. I guess well written doesn't always mean good content.

This is typical slanted journalism written by someone whose only apparent knowledge of the issue is second and third hand "information" on the subject, that information seemingly gleaned from sources that agree with the writers own philosophy. Mr. Finnegan's use of statistics, for example, is grotesque. He claims that the southern border is much safer and that illegal immigration has declined "by more than sixty percent since 2000, ..." based on "apprehensions" as reported by the government. He fails to mention that that same government openly refuses to enforce the immigration laws on the books. Such flagrant lack of inforcement on the part of the Federal Government will obviously lower the statistics on apprehensions, but says ... More »

I finished reading it but half way threw the first sentence I new what it was going to say. sites FBI stats that the FBI doesn't trust. A list of companies that want to get into the slave labor pool. No mention that the last time we instituted " immigration reform" those who opposed it predicted a sharp increase in illegal immigration and a corresponding rise in homeless Americans. The stats for immigration are misleading because there is no consistent data source. We have no idea how many illegal aliens have come across the border since the 2000 census because there has been a concerted effort by our government not to count them. Same old socialist propaganda would be easer to read if they would change the wording a little.

So so Looks like he skimmed information from other articles. Maybe he should buy a plane ticket an visit these area and see for himself. May be interview some of these people

So far as contemporary academic guidelines are concerned, this is good journalism. So far as the content is concerned, it lacks facts and objectivity. If one were to depend upon this type of story to be well informed about the subject. one would be poorly equipped.

It is biased journalism. Rather than stating obvious facts, such as almost all illegals are poor, and if legalized and eventually become citizens will overwhelmingly vote for Democratic politicians. Therefore, legalizing the undocumented will certainly benefit Democrats. So for that reason alone, why would Republicans want to legalize them? Second - Why not comment about how law-abiding foreign nationals immigrate to the US? They follow the US Immigration Laws, pay the mandatory fees and wait their turn. Why should they have to wait when illegals simply cross the border or enter on a tourist visa and decide to stay here and illegally work. Doesn't that seem like an obvious oversight on the author's behalf? Third - Why ... More »