The facts and statistics don't support your view that it is simply "realistic" to oppose immigration.

There is a slight negative on social services, but it is not enough to get worked up about, and would likely disappear in a generation or sooner if the undocumented workers living and working conditions improved through legal status.

The claim that immigration is hurting low wage workers (one that I am very sensitive to) is undercut by the fact that the unions are supporting the immigrants here, and by the fact that the downward pressure on wages would be dramatically undercut if the status of undocumented workers could be normalized.

The population claim is a strange one. Certainly the immigrants from Mexico who come to the united states end up having fewer children than they likely would if they stayed in Mexico,so the drain on resources would probably lessen with immigration. On the other hand, the real problem here is consumption patterns of us legal americans, and we need to deal with that before even suggesting there is a problem from across the boarder. The problem with resources is US exporting our consumption patterns, not immigration.

Do you have some kind of expertise about social service spending? Because when I look at the studies which have been done on the subject I see that they have results which are all over the map. Saying there is a modest increase in costs actually gives folks like you the benefit of the doubt -- I could make a plausible argument that, taking into account the taxes paid by immigrants, there is no loss on social service spending at all.

As for prioritizing the expenses for the poor, I am not going to choose between Katrina victims and immigrants. The problem with the amount we spend on social services has nothing to do with immigrants. It has to do with the post-reagan mindset that says helping the poor is a bad thing. In fact, most of those law makers who are opposed to immigration would probably prefer to get rid of the welfare state all together.

And let me explain why changing the status of undocumented workers will help all low skill workers. UNdocumented workers depress wages below minimum wage and minimum working conditions because they cannot complain when they are ill treated. If you give them rights to insist on minimum wage, it will raise the wages for the lowest skilled jobs, since it will take away the employers' option of leaving the legal job market.

Of course, these workers won't command a living wage. Immigration has nothing to do with that. That has to be fought for in a political realm. I am all for it. But again, those lawmakers fighting hardest against immigrants would fight against living wage the hardest.

Great analysis!

We can't resolve the work v. stay at home issue by deciding which makes women happier, because neither are very appealing or pleasing alternatives in our society. Workings moms who are still responsible for the lion's share of child care responsibilities are simply overwhelmed and (real) stay at home moms feel undervalued and are full of anxiety over what they have given up (unless they have some kind of religious sense of purpose to subscribe to).

So instead we fight the work or stay at home issue on the minefield determining of what is better for children. Which is about as critical and central to a mom's identity as penis size seems to be to some men. It's no wonder that Flanagan's little digs about a mother's love are such an amazing gut check.

I think we have to make a pact not to go there. Nobody wins. We win when we work together to improve options for women and children. Only those who want to set back the clock for women are served by this kind of uncivil war.

As you very rightly point out, what makes one women happy would make another miserable.

And a corrolary: the best environment for one child would not be the best for another.

Years ago feminists coined the phrase "the personal is political." At the time I think that was more about validating women's unrecognized struggles and experiences. But I think it also means that our individual experiences and unique circumstances cannot be addressed by one-size-fits-all solution.

Eric and the prior home school fan are afraid of subjecting their children to their "disgusting peer group."

I guess they would be talking about my child?

One of the primary responsibilities I feel as a parent is to teach my child how to live in the world with others. It's not always pretty, but there are a million life lessons that children and parents can learn when coming to terms with those who think and live differently. Where I live, that means learning to live with religious fundamentalists, bullies, and several kids with aspergers syndrome and other learning and behavioral difficulties. My son has done a wonderful job of relating to and understanding all these children. I think those skills are going to be incredibly essential in our polarized society.

Can Eric replicate those lessons with his children in the home school environment? Not if he views the other kids as "disgusting." That just makes me sorry for everyone involved.