As she does so often does, my long time colleague, Yeh Ling Ling, [Email her]Executive Director of the Alliance for A Sustainable USA, located in Orinda, CA, has emailed me perceptively about the May 26, 2010 Reuters  report Campaigning on Arizona law may help Republicans: study .

That headline looks good! But Ling Ling caught this detail in the results of the quoted poll: "Overall, 61 percent of the respondents to the poll said they backed the Arizona law, while 60 percent said they would support comprehensive immigration reform legislation."

"Comprehensive immigration reform", of course, is the Treason Lobby's euphemism for amnesty. It has discovered that the American people can be fooled by these weasel words—sometimes.

Ling Ling explains: "This is one of the many reasons why I have urged immigration control activists not to focus solely on illegal aliens! The emphasis should be the number of people added to the U.S. population and not the illegality of people's entry."

She is referring to the fact that legal immigrants are coming to America on various work visas at an annual rate of one million every year!

Let's repeat that: One million legal workers are being imported into the US every year on various work visas. That's real corporate and advocacy group political power at work against the interest of average Americans.

And this continues to be approved by the Obama Administration despite the fact that US unemployment and underemployment remains at over 16%.

Do you believe that we should let our Federal government ram another failed amnesty down our throats, like the one in 1986 which has been a total disaster? It naturally boggles the mind of any thinking American citizen. We are talking millions more, mostly uneducated, often with aged relatives and other dependents.

Ling Ling, a seasoned observer, is a legalized Chinese American immigrant. She has a full understanding of how immigration laws are often twisted, having worked for a law firm which specializes in getting immigrants into the USA. Writing and lecturing widely around the US, she finds that when she can talk to Americans, often key media people, who may have spoken out or written about how they favor amnesty, when they understand its implications, they frequently change their views. As an immigrant herself, the opposition can't readily use their favorite argument by calling her a racist.

Ling Ling continues, "With 60% of people supporting "comprehensive reform", Obama will push vigorously for it and promise many measures to secure our borders!"

Another Reuter's article of May 26, 2010, "Troops not militarizing Mexico border: U.S. envoy, tells us that the US Ambassador Carlos Pascual defends Obama's recent token move by arguing "the number of soldiers was tiny compared to the 26,000 immigration, customs and border patrol agents."

Even the Mexican government, according to another Reuters piece, [Mexico backs U.S. border troops plan in principle] backed the sending of these token troops.

If that doesn't tell you about Obama's phony symbolism and ineffectiveness, nothing will. Obama is simply continuing to try to build a seemingly plausible scenario for another big amnesty.

Who is he representing anyway, Mexicans or Americans?

We know what is required to fix the immigration mess:

•  Absolutely determining if any applicant for an American job is legally here when he or she applies for employment.

E-verify is a good start, but it needs extended permanently and may have to be improved so that phony documentation can be reduced. This will make it so unappealing to illegals that they won't come and those that are here will opt to return to their own nations. The talk of mass deportations is simply scare tactics, although in my view we should indeed identify and deport every person illegally here if discovered for any reason, particularly illegal behavior.

• We must seriously debate and decide how many people we want here legally.

That serious debate has never occurred because of the powerful lobbying by our elites.

Typical propaganda: a very Open Border cover piece, "An Entrepreneurial Recovery" by Carl Schramm and Robert E. Litan in the latest edition of the Wilson Quarterly (Spring 2010).

Among the tools this article claims are vital for keeping our entrepreneurial leadership in the years ahead comes the argument for retaining foreign grad students:

"Ideally, our immigration laws should be changed so that every immigrant who earns a scientific or technical degree at an American University also get a green card stapled to his or her diploma. That would give approximately 60,000 highly trained people a year a shot at contributing to America's future."

Of course, we need to argue vigorously that America's own sons and daughters should be trained to meet those needs. There are surely some cases where foreign graduates can be retained, but much solid research already done shows that most foreign graduate retention is based on price—not unique needs. The thirst of our powerful corporations and universities for ever more cheap foreign employees nee full paying students is impossible to slake.

Dr. Norm Matloff, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, has written volumes about the fact that the foreign graduates of U.S. universities may include some of the best and brightest from around the world, but they are a small minority. It is simply wrong to assume that in general the foreign graduate offers anything more than wage competition against U.S. graduates. In that sense, they appeal to U.S. business and perhaps make it more competitive internationally. But they also limit opportunities for U.S. graduates and they facilitate the practice of ageism by employers.

So there it is. Immigration policy boils down to political games played by the elites of both parties to get more voters and cheap labor into America—regardless of whether it is good for America or not.

Too many Americans have been hoodwinked for years by the mindless rhetoric of "America is a land of immigrants". Now, before their wondering eyes, the dismal, dangerous facts of an out-of-control border and the failure of their Federal Government to protect them have become obvious.

But while 61% agree with Jan Brewer's signing of that Arizona statute, the poll shows they might be fooled by the flimflam of "comprehensive immigration reform"—and that will be tempting to both parties. But especially, alas, to mine.

Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.