I once owned a Pete Seeger vinyl record containing several Woody Guthrie songs including this catchy ditty composed in 1942:

"Miss Pavlichenko's well known to fame.
Russia's her country, fighting's her game.
The whole world will thank her for a long time to come.
For more than 300 Nazis died by her gun.
Died by your gun, babe, died by your gun.
More than 300 Nazis died by your gun."

Lyudmila Pavlichenko was a Ukrainian student at Kiev University and an amateur sharpshooter when the Nazi invasion began in 1941. She enlisted in the Soviet Army and fought for more than two months in the defense of Odessa in the Ukraine, until that city fell to the invaders. She then fought in the defense of Sevastopol in the Crimea until she was withdrawn from combat after sustaining a mortar wound. She was credited with 309 confirmed kills, including 36 enemy snipers. She was sent to the U.S. and Canada where she was received at the White House by President Roosevelt and then spoke at war bond drives. In a year when the war was going badly for the United States, she was an inspiration and a sensation.  She returned home to train snipers for the duration of the war. Of the 2,000 female snipers in the Soviet army, she was one of 500 to survive the war, after which she returned to Kiev University to complete her degree in history. She died in 1974.

"Our relations with the Soviets have taken a startling turn evident during the last two months," U.S. ambassador to Moscow W. Averell Harriman reported in mid-September (1944). "They have held up our requests with complete indifference to our interests and have shown an unwillingness even to discuss pressing problems." Harriman warned that the Russians were becoming "a world bully wherever their interests are involved."

Fredrik Logevall, Embers of War, 2013 (Winner of the Pulitzer Prize), pages 57-58.

Ukraine, it should be remembered, was the third largest nuclear power in the world when it gained independence in 1991 from the former Soviet Union. Ukraine inherited as its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal two thousand nuclear warheads and the means to deliver those warheads, both missiles and heavy bombers. That was a larger nuclear arsenal than was held by Great Britain, France, and China combined.

In 1994 Ukraine agreed under international pressure to divest itself of all nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. In a "Memorandum on Security Assurances" signed in Budapest on December 5, 1994, by U.S. President Bill Clinton, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and British Prime Minister John Major, those leaders committed their nations to:

1. "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine",
2. "reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations", and
3. "refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind".

If Ukraine had resisted international pressure to surrender its nuclear weapons, and instead retained its 2,000 nuclear warheads, or any significant portion of them, does anyone believe Russia would have invaded any part of Ukraine? But having relied on the "security assurances" of the great powers, a disarmed Ukraine now finds those assurances literally not worth the paper on which they were written.

The lesson for Iran and other aspiring nuclear powers could not be clearer. Never trust the commitments of the great powers. Resist international pressure to give up your nuclear weapons.

The United States and the United Kingdom, as signatories to the agreement by which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons, have a special obligation to see its terms observed and the integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine protected. It's not too late to fulfill that obligation, though intent of the signatory nations to do so is not yet apparent.

I strongly oppose and regret the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran or any other country. But I understand why countries choose to acquire them in a world without law and unwilling to act collectively against aggressors.

She admitted that while in the U.S. illegally, she concocted a totally false story about being raped in her home country of Guinea, in order to obtain legal asylum status in the U.S. Ms. Diallo's defenders thought that admission was no big deal, and that telling a good story is how to obtain asylum in the U.S.  Prosecutors concluded, however, that prosecution of Mr. Strauss-Kahn could not proceed in light of that admission.

While the U.S. has numerical limits on the numbers of legal immigrants it admits every year, it has no numerical limit on the number of refugees it accepts every year on the basis of their claim for asylum because they face persecution in their home country on account of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. Illegal immigrants, once they enter the U.S. either illegally or by overstaying a temporary visa, have a strong incentive to lie in making an asylum claim in order to obtain permanent legal status to work legally and qualify for becoming a U.S. citizen.

Asylum claims are currently ruled upon either by officers of the Department of Homeland Security or by immigration judges of the Department of Justice in the course of deportation proceedings. If the story is found to be credible and convincing, and to meet the legal standard of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion, and if the story-teller has not been convicted of a crime, the request for legal permanent residence in the U.S. on grounds of asylum is usually granted.

Outside groups monitor the adjudicators to identify and apply political pressure on any whose asylum approval rate is lower than the average, or who approve some nationalities less than others, even though each case is supposed to be decided on its own set of facts.

Ms. Diallo is not the only successful asylum claimant whose lies are subsequently exposed. Back in 1999 another immigrant, also named Diallo, died in New York City as the result of police gunfire, and was discovered to have made numerous false claims to gain asylum in the U.S. Amadou Diallo had claimed to be an orphan whose parents were murdered, though his parents showed up at his funeral, and he claimed to be Mauritanian, though he was actually from Mali.

While many are believed to obtain legal asylum status by lying, most go on to eventually become U.S. citizens, and the lies they tell to get status are never uncovered.

The August 1, 2011, issue of the New Yorker contains an article, beginning on page 32, called "The Asylum Seeker" by Suketu Mehta, which tells in detail how illegal immigrants educate themselves on how to construct stories which make them sound like victims of persecution. The article features an asylum claimant from Africa who is making a completely bogus claim of having been raped. To strengthen her case, she attends group therapy sessions for rape victims at a public hospital and receives taxpayer-funded medications for her supposed depression, which she throws away.

Other stories of brazen lies told by illegal immigrants in pursuit of asylum include the case of Adelaide Abankwah, championed by feminist and human rights figures. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted asylum to Abankwah in 1999 over the objections of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which later proved fraud in her application including a stolen name and false passport. She was tried and convicted of perjury and passport fraud.

See also the case of the Nigerian imposter calling himself Edwin Mutaru Bulus whose bogus asylum claim was exposed only after a sympathetic story was published in the New York Times. Xian Hua Chen, an illegal immigrant from China was convicted of perjury on his asylum application.

Such convictions and exposures of false asylum claims are difficult and expensive to attain. And the difficulties are compounded when the number of asylum applications is increasing. The total number of affirmative asylum applications has more than doubled in the last five years, exceeding 80,000 in FY2013. Over the same five years, so-called "credible fear" asylum applications made at the border have increased sevenfold from less than 5,000 to more than 36,000 in FY2013. Official statistics show an approval rate of 92% for credible fear claims in FY 2013.

The increasing numbers of asylum applicants is a not just a problem for the U.S. Anyone looking at recent developments in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, even Israel, can see that for many reasons including the worldwide recession, continuing turmoil and conflict, and rising expectations, the number of asylum seekers who need to be processed has risen and will continue to increase throughout the world. Policy planning should reflect this reality.

What should be done?

First, all proposed grants of asylum should be routed through the U.S. Department of State for comment and an opportunity to object.

There's no simple solution to the false asylum claims, but I think the Department of State foreign service officers as a group are better able to determine actual conditions in various foreign countries, and therefore more likely to detect false stories and recognize the truth, than asylum officers or immigration judges based exclusively in the U.S.

The role of the Department of State in the adjudication of asylum claims was reduced and then eliminated because during the Reagan administration, that department was thought to favor asylum claims from countries whose governments the administration opposed, like Nicaragua, and to reject asylum claims from countries whose governments the administration supported, like El Salvador and Guatemala.

But the reality is there are always going to be some political pressures on these decisions, and there are strong political pressures today on the adjudicators at the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. Political pressures on asylum adjudications can be mitigated by involvement of the State Department. Adjudicators with high rejection rates can defend themselves by presenting State Department comments.

I think we can only improve asylum adjudication by restoring a role for the diplomats we trust to represent us in foreign countries, who have first-hand experience in those countries, and who are required to study their languages and cultures. They can call upon specialized resources in every country to evaluate questionable asylum claims.

Second, Congress should reconsider the role of "credible fear" in the expedited removal provision of the immigration statute. The statute already provides that "in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a (removal) proceeding under section 240." That is the standard that should be applied to all arriving aliens.

Finally, just as the credible fear standard may originally have had some utility, but has lost value as alien smugglers game the system and spread the stories that "work" in demonstrating credible fear, so the asylum statute itself, INA Section 208, while a useful addition to our immigration law when added in 1980, may have lost some value as the stories have been spread that "work" in convincing an adjudicator to grant asylum.

How did the U.S. meet its obligations under the Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees before 1980? The answer is through withholding of deportation, now withholding of removal, Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(b)(3). That statute prevents the removal of an alien to any country if, "the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

I would like to see Congress consider enhancing Section 241(b)(3) by adding to it some of the benefits of asylum, like adjustment of status to legal permanent resident, and following to join of spouses and minor children, under certain specified conditions, with the goal of replacing the asylum statute with a single enhanced withholding of removal statute for the protection of refugees. That statute has and will have a higher burden of proof than the asylum statute, and should therefore be less susceptible to fraud.

(This is an excerpt from testimony given on February 11, 2014, to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.)

We've had thin-skinned, petty, vindictive, power-abusing presidents before. But we don't want another one, and that rules Chris Christie out.

Christie's true character was revealed by e-mails showing his administration deliberately clogged traffic from Fort Lee, New Jersey, headed towards the George Washington Bridge in order to punish Fort Lee's mayor who refused to endorse Christie in his re-election campaign. Christie's administration was willing to endanger public safety, to endanger children, to punish those perceived to be his enemies. One of the leaked e-mails dismissed the victims as "the children of Buono supporters," referring to Christie's Democratic opponent in his re-election campaign.

Now Christie claims to have had no knowledge of the conspiracy within his administration to punish the mayor of Fort Lee. Like the police chief in the movie Casablanca, he is shocked, shocked to discover what transpired.

But only last month he mocked those who questioned the motives of his administration in restricting traffic from Fort Lee onto the George Washington Bridge. Even if you hope he's not a bold-faced liar, he could and should have uncovered all the facts before mocking those concerned citizens. At best, Governor Christie is a terrible manager. At worst, he's a crook who used state resources to punish his perceived enemies.

Anyone familiar with politicians and politics knows that political aides demonstrate their loyalty by fulfilling the wishes of their bosses. Even if, as Christie claims, he did not give the order for the traffic restriction in Fort Lee, all his close aides knew his wishes for retribution against those on his list of political enemies. He has long had a reputation for petty vindictiveness, withdrawing invitations and police protection from, and stalling the initiatives of anyone demonstrating independence from the Christie line.

Chris Christie and his administration have deliberately cultivated the image of a tough guy and a bully, releasing videos of his insults, including calling an ex-Navy SEAL an "idiot" for asking a question Christie didn't like.

New Jersey is stuck with Chris Christie for four more years. The rest of us need to make sure he never becomes president, especially those of us now on his enemies list.

The Customs and Border Protection bureau of Homeland Security already operates such facilities at 15 international airports around the world to pre-inspect passengers and cargo bound for the U.S. Once pre-inspected, arriving passengers and cargo can enter the U.S. upon arrival without any further formalities, avoiding the long lines that usually face arriving passengers from international flights.

Congressman Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and other speakers at the protest expressed concern that the new pre-clearance facility would afford a competitive advantage to the only airline to fly directly from Abu Dhabi to the United States, Etihad, the state-owned national airline of the United Arab Emirates. The Congressman said, "Abu Dhabi cut a deal with Customs," that he described as "pay to play", a term commonly used to describe how money improperly influences government decisions.

The criticism of the new plan for pre-inspection at Abu Dhabi is misguided because pre-inspection is in the best interests of the United States. Especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the U.S. has been trying to expand pre-inspection overseas.

As much as possible, we would greatly prefer to inspect passengers and cargo before a flight departs from overseas for the U.S., rather than after a flight arrives in the U.S. It's easier to turn aside prohibited cargo and inadmissible persons while still outside the U.S. After arrival at a U.S. airport, even inadmissible persons can make asylum claims to try to prevent their removal, which must be processed at the expense of American taxpayers.

Why aren't all international flights to the U.S. pre-inspected before departure? The answer is that pre-inspection is very expensive. Stationing U.S. government personnel at overseas duty posts costs a lot more than simply adding them to payroll at an airport in the United States. Additional costs are incurred for living and operating overseas, for security and protection while overseas, for special training, and for travel to and from duty posts.

Negotiating a cost-sharing agreement with host countries willing to support U.S. pre-inspection is normal, and the willingness of Abu Dhabi and other countries to contribute to the cost of pre-inspection should be welcomed.

Concern over disadvantaging U.S. air carriers should be addressed by negotiations to ensure their access to operate at all airports, and especially those served by U.S. Customs pre-inspection. Normally international airports welcome service by U.S. air carriers because of the additional fees collected and business generated. That's how political concerns should be addressed, not by obstructing the business and national security interests of the United States.

According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report released on December 6, 2013, for the month of November, there are officially 11 million unemployed American workers, over 4 million of whom are considered long-term unemployed. There are also officially 8 million involuntary part-time workers who can't find full-time jobs, and officially 800,000 discouraged workers who have given up looking for work after concluding there are no jobs available for them.

Adding up those numbers means there are officially about 20 million unemployed and underemployed American workers, 1.3 million of whom are going to exhaust their unemployment benefits as of December 28, 2013. The official unemployment rate remains at a high 7% of all Americans who want to work. And the labor participation rate of Americans who could work is near a record low.

And the unemployment rate is 10% for post-9/11 veterans. For veterans! It's 12.5% for African-Americans, and 18.6% for teenagers seeking work. The official unemployment rate is 35.8% for African-American teenagers seeking work. That's an outrage.

Over 47 million Americans, about 1 in 6, qualify for and receive food stamps, including many of those counted as employed at full-time jobs, because they can't earn enough to get their families above the poverty level.

President Obama tells us that rising income inequality is tearing at the social fabric of America. He calls inequality "the defining challenge of our age", and pledges to make it a major focus of his remaining time as President.

A widely-publicized economic study from the University of California at Berkeley tells us that in President Obama's first term from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1% of American households grew by more than 31%, while the incomes of the bottom 99% of American households grew only 0.4% on average, confirming what seems obvious, that many American families are losing ground even as the stock market hits record highs.

How does President Obama think unemployed and underemployed Americans will find better jobs if millions of illegal immigrants are legalized and able to compete openly with Americans for jobs? How will they manage if in addition the number of legal immigrants is tripled from about a million each year to about three million? How realistic are their hopes for higher wages if the pool of labor in which they compete is expanded through additional immigration as the President advocates? Is income inequality reduced or enhanced when millions of additional low-wage immigrants are added to the legal labor pool?

The moral argument for keeping legal immigration at current levels and enforcing existing laws to reduce illegal immigration is that we first have to be concerned about the welfare of American families struggling to survive at or below the poverty level. Just as when a member of our immediate family is seeking a job, we hope that family member gets it rather than someone else, so it is understandable that if jobs are available we hope they can be had by our extended family or by our larger community of fellow Americans.

Here's an important point: If so-called immigration reform is rejected and we are left with the current immigration system, we will continue to have the most generous legal system for immigration in the world. The U.S. continues to admit each year more permanent legal immigrants with a clear path to full citizenship than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. As I testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on March 20, 2013, that is an immigration system worthy of American values.

And as President Bill Clinton said in a commencement speech at Portland State University in Oregon on June 13, 1998, "It is wrong to condone illegal immigration that flouts our laws, strains our tolerance, taxes our resources. Even a nation of immigrants must have rules and conditions and limits, and when they are disregarded, public support for immigration erodes in ways that are destructive to those who are newly arrived and those who are still waiting patiently to come."

We all need to pay more attention to immigration history as it colors the perpetual debate over legal and illegal immigration. For the first century of the American republic, there were no limits on immigration. Anyone from anywhere in the world was free to come here. Indeed, our labor needs were so great that people who didn't want to come here were forced to come here against their will in grotesquely cruel circumstances in the first half of our first century.

The first legal restriction on immigration to the U.S. was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It excluded only Chinese immigrants, initially for 10 years, but was renewed regularly until made permanent in 1904. The earliest challenges to the power of Congress to regulate immigration were to the Chinese Exclusion Act. When the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act, it ratified the vast power of Congress to regulate immigration even to the point of discriminating on the basis of race and national origin.

With Congressional power over immigration now clear, Congress turned its attention after World War I to limiting immigration from Europe. The First Quota Law went into effect in 1921 setting immigration quotas by countries of origin based on the existing U.S. population determined by the census of 1910. The base year for setting national origin quotas was later moved to the 1890 census in order to reduce the quotas for immigrants from southern and eastern Europe.

The system of quotas became overlaid with another system of preferences specifying which kinds of immigrants had first claim to the limited number of immigration visas available. Chinese exclusion was repealed in 1943, though exclusion of other immigrants from Asia continued until 1952. Quotas based on national origin were nominally repealed in 1965, though an overall numerical limitation on annual immigration and the system of preferences remain.

At the root of the current debate over immigration policy is the question of whether immigration to the U.S. should be unlimited, as it was in our first century, or whether we should enforce a numerical limit on immigration every year, as is required by current laws enacted by Congress. Our reluctance to clearly choose between those two choices, unlimited or limited immigration, is why our immigration system seems so messed up.

We recognize the problem of unlimited immigration, but we are reluctant to enforce our limits on immigration by vigorously trying to deport immigration law violators. The Obama administration keeps looking for a third way. How about this: We keep the legal limits on the books, but we don't enforce them. We practice prosecutorial discretion to avoid deporting illegal entrants. And whenever illegal immigrants reach a large number, we throw up our hands, say there's nothing we can do, and grant everyone amnesty. But don't call that unlimited immigration! We don't want that!

Vice President Biden's claim of having illegal immigrant ancestors is typical of misinformation being spread by the Obama administration to cause confusion about our immigration choices, and to justify the latest proposed immigration amnesty.

Someday Republicans may control both the Presidency and the Senate, as the Democrats do now. And then Republicans could confirm appointees without regard to minority opinion. So what? If any party can elect a President and a majority in the U.S. Senate that party should be able to confirm presidential appointees, as the Constitution provides.

There's no filibuster in the U.S. Constitution. In fact I'd suggest that the filibuster, requiring a 60% supermajority in the U.S. Senate is actually unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution does require a supermajority in the U.S. Senate for specific reasons like the ratification of treaties and amendments to the Constitution itself. But in all other cases including legislation and confirming presidential appointments, Article I provides that in the event of a tie vote in the U.S. Senate, the vice president of the United States should cast the deciding vote.

Why would the Constitution specify a tie-breaker if a supermajority of 60% or more was required to enact legislation or confirm appointments?

The custom of the filibuster, allowing unlimited debate as long as any member wishes to speak, reflected the courtesies of the 18th century, and was the practice in both houses of Congress at the time of the founding of the republic. But as the House of Representatives increased the number of its members, its rules were changed to limit debate and insure a vote despite minority opposition.

The U.S. Senate retained the custom of unlimited debate in its rules until 1917 when its rules were amended to cut-off debate by "cloture" upon a two-thirds vote. As recently as 1975, the U.S. Senate again changed its rules to reduce the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 out of the current 100 senators. And now the rules have been changed again to require only a simple majority for cloture to confirm appointments (except for Supreme Court justices), to insure a vote on appointees despite minority opposition.

Our Constitution provides for a system of checks and balances. Both houses of Congress and presidential approval are required to enact legislation into law. But only the U.S. Senate is required to confirm presidential appointees, suggesting that appointees should be expeditiously considered and voted upon without the delay of a separate vote in the other house of Congress. All actions of the Congress are subject to constitutional review by the federal courts.

Allowing the U.S. Senate to act by simple majority, except as otherwise specified in the Constitution, seems like the essence of constitutional democracy. The practice of simple majority rule in the U.S. Senate should be expanded to include enactment of legislation and the confirmation of Supreme Court justices.

Yes, it could result in appointment of judges you don't like just because one party controls both the Senate and the White House. Yes, it could result in enactment of a law you oppose just because one party controls both houses of Congress and the White House.

But that's what the Constitution provides, including judicial oversight of congressional and presidential acts. And at least that would end the continuing clown show in the U.S. Senate where a minority of senators can hold the majority hostage on legislation and appointments to the Supreme Court.

The unconstitutional filibuster and its resulting gridlock in the Senate makes us the laughing stock of other democracies with parliamentary governments, where national leaders can be held accountable for their actions without the political cover of being able to blame their minority opposition. The unconstitutional filibuster should be abolished entirely for all matters before the U.S. Senate.

Many more of us remember the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which were equally shocking, tragic, and totally unexpected. But in some ways the Kennedy assassination was even more deeply painful than 9/11.

Most Americans did not personally know any of the thousands of victims of the 9/11 terrorists. But by November of 1963, most Americans felt some level of personal relationship with President Kennedy and his attractive family.

John F. Kennedy was our youngest ever, and most media-savvy chief executive up to that time. He made skillful use of television to vanquish his Republican opponent Richard M. Nixon in the first televised debate between presidential candidates. His campaign and White House made unprecedented use of photography to present the public with intimate pictures of the First Family. He and the First Lady, whom everyone just called "Jackie", gave the first televised tour of the White House.

President Kennedy's voice became so familiar that he was successfully parodied by the comedian and impersonator Vaughn Meader, who won the 1963 Grammy Album of the Year award for his recorded cornball comic impressions of the President, which millions of American families, including mine, bought and played in their homes.

President Kennedy worked hard and successfully at creating an impression of "vigor" to characterize his presidency and inspire Americans about our common future. Americans felt they knew the First Family intimately. Everyone knew the name of Caroline Kennedy's pony, "Macaroni".

So the assassination of President Kennedy was not just a national tragedy, it was for millions of Americans a deeply personal tragedy, like the unexpected loss of a very close and beloved family member.

I was in 10th grade, the first year of the three-grade high school I attended in Dearborn, Michigan. Late in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, we were changing classes. As I walked down a flight of stairs, a girl in my grade looked up at me and shouted, "President Kennedy is dead! I'm not kidding!"

We were quickly informed of what was known. My last class of the day was "Health", and the teacher insisted on proceeding with the class as though nothing unusual had happened. We squirmed even more than usual until dismissal. On the school bus riding home, some of my classmates had transistor radios, and we listened to the unprecedented live coverage which confirmed the unbelievable events we had previously heard only by word of mouth.

My mother, though qualified as a registered nurse, stayed home while raising my sister and me. She had heard nothing when I burst through the door shouting, "Turn on the TV! Turn on the TV!"

Like most American families, we watched television continuously for four days, including the murder of the assassin Lee Harvey Oswald broadcast live as it happened, through the state funeral on Monday, sharing the grief of the Kennedy family.

There followed a dark and fearful end of the year. What did this mean for America? Was there a conspiracy? Were the Communists behind the assassination? Would we ever enjoy anything again?

In late December, I first heard about an English musical group called, I thought, the "beetles". In January their recordings took America by storm. They arrived in New York in February and performed live on the Ed Sullivan Show on CBS television. America decided to breathe again, relax, and have some fun. Little did we know.

It didn't work, as evidenced by the more than 11 million illegal aliens believed to be in the U.S. today. One reason that IRCA resulted in increased illegal immigration was that border controls alone are insufficient to prevent increases in the illegal alien population, both because it's hard to control the border, and because as many as half the illegal alien population is believed to have overstayed temporary visas rather than crossing the border without inspection. And employer sanctions proved to be completely ineffective in preventing the employment of illegal aliens by employers determined to profit by paying the lowest possible wages.

I've always said that the 1986 Act had a fourth leg to its stool which was wishful thinking. And that pattern of a four-legged stool was copied in the failed attempts to enact a second and bigger general amnesty for illegal aliens in 2006, 2007, and in the current year 2013.

Each time the proponents of another amnesty argue that this time will be different. This time, unlike in 1986, the border controls and employer sanctions will work to deter future illegal immigration. I'm reminded of the philosopher George Santayana who famously said that, "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

Border control is difficult because we have long borders. We can strengthen border security in sectors of the border, but doing so in California only moves more illegal traffic into the more difficult terrain of Arizona. Strengthening border security in Arizona moves more illegal traffic into south Texas. It's like trying to squeeze a water balloon, difficult to squeeze everywhere all at once. Throwing money at the border does nothing to stop holders of temporary visas from illegally overstaying.

The latest manifestation of employer sanctions is called E-Verify, an on-line service provided by the federal government by which employers who choose to do so can quickly verify whether those seeking work are legally authorized. The Senate-passed immigration reform bill would make E-Verify eventually mandatory for all employers. This should be done independently of amnesty, but it, too, is not a silver bullet to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

One result of the 1986 IRCA amnesty is the growth of a huge, profitable, and highly sophisticated counterfeit documents industry in the U.S., from which anyone can purchase false birth certificates, social security cards, and any other documents required for a false identity as someone authorized to work in the U.S. That problem is not going away. Many job applicants presenting high quality counterfeit documents to an employer will not be caught by E-Verify. And some U.S. employers will continue to have as their business model hiring the cheapest labor they can find regardless of immigration status.

Illegal immigration is not a problem only for the United States. Australia and many countries in Europe are overwhelmed by the large numbers of foreigners seeking to enter and work in their countries illegally. In a globalized world with easier means of transportation, increased knowledge of the world, and instantaneous communications among immigrants, the reasons for the migration of large numbers of people seeking to improve their lives are completely understandable.

The basic choice for us in the United States is whether to accept all who want to enter and work here without limit, or alternatively to enforce some sort of numerical limit on how many immigrants we will accept every year. I think a coherent, intellectually defensible argument can be made for open borders and accepting all who wish to enter regardless of how many. But I believe that the majority of my fellow citizens would prefer to enforce a numerical limit on immigration as we do now.

Enforcing a numerical limit on immigration, however, is not easy. Someone must decide on the number and what kinds of immigrants should be preferred. Currently that's our elected Congress. However despised and ridiculed, Congress is still the most legitimate authority for making those decisions on our behalf.

But the biggest problem in enforcing a numerical immigration limit is the inherent corollary that we say no to millions of would-be immigrants who remind us of our ancestors. They are not criminals or national security threats, and only want to work hard for a better life for themselves and their families. We have to say no to them not because they're bad people, but simply because admitting them would exceed the numerical limit we have enacted. And if they enter illegally, we have to try to remove them if our numerical limit is to mean anything.

It's a hard choice. But it's a binary choice. No limits or limits. The reason our immigration system seems so unsatisfactory is actually because we are unwilling to make that hard choice. We keep searching for a third and easier way. Like keeping the numerical limits in our law, but not actually enforcing them, and instead enacting immigration amnesty whenever the number of illegal immigrants becomes large. I call that a formula for permanent dysfunction.

If there's no numerical limit on immigration that you would be willing to enforce against people like your own ancestors, then just admit that you're for open borders without a limit on immigration. Don't pretend to be for a four-legged stool that doesn't work.

As Senator Marco Rubio, a sponsor of the four-legged stool, on April 23, 2013, correctly noted, "We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over 1 million people a year to come here legally." The U.S. actually admits more permanent legal immigrants with a clear path to full citizenship than all the rest of the nations of the world combined, every year. That doesn't sound like a "broken" immigration system as Senator Rubio and President Obama claim. That sounds like an immigration system worthy of American values.

I conclude by quoting what President Bill Clinton, now a supporter of the four-legged stool, said in a commencement speech at Portland State University in Oregon on June 13, 1998: "It's wrong to condone illegal immigration that flouts our laws, strains our tolerance, taxes our resources. Even a nation of immigrants must have rules and conditions and limits, and when they are disregarded, public support for immigration erodes in ways that are destructive to those who are newly arrived and those who are still waiting patiently to come."