Whether there were 3,000 or 10,000 people who stormed the grounds of the state Capitol Monday, it cannot be disputed that there were undeniably high levels of indignation in the air that sunny day. The anger was aimed at a bill passed in the House that would, among other measures, build 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border, make entering the country illegally a felony and criminalize the act of offering assistance to illegal aliens.

For those demonstrators, however, it seems ire comes with a healthy dose of irony. To wit:

— Protesters point out that America is a country built on the backs of immigrants, one that has welcomed "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" with promises of freedom and justice for generations. Fair enough. Yet one really wonders how much illegal immigrants appreciate those values when they brazenly hoist the flags of their native countries at the protest. I'm not a public relations major, but if one wants America to open its arms to him or her, holding up the American flag might not be a bad idea.

— Protesters deride the House bill as inherently racist. Of course, these protests feature members of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), a student group that seeks to establish a Chicano state in the southwestern United States where the modus operandi would be "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." (For the race, everything. Outside of the race, nothing.) That's not racist at all.

— Peg Lautenschlager is the attorney general of Wisconsin. She is the number one law enforcer in the state; the 'top cop,' you could say. So what is she doing speaking at a rally condoning those who broke the law in entering the country? Ms. Lautenschlager's opponent in the Democratic AG primary, Kathleen Falk, attended the rally as well. What fine upholders of the law they are.

Granted, many demonstrators waved the American flag with pride, most protesters do not belong to MEChA, and the vast majority of ralliers are certainly not named Peg Lautenschlager or Kathleen Falk. Still, it's hard to take seriously a message that is so utterly lacking in credibility.

Indeed, the whole national debate over 'immigrant rights' in the last month has been framed in a decidedly paradoxical manner. Maybe that's a product of liberal media bias. Or maybe the crowds of protesters have just been that effective in advancing their flawed arguments.

First, this isn't a debate about 'immigrant rights.' What we're talking about here is 'illegal immigrant rights.' Extremely few would argue the United States should prohibit immigration of any kind — the economic and cultural ramifications would be disastrous. Many — myself included — would suggest that, given the demand for immigrants in the economy, more should be allowed to enter the country legally.

Most proponents of liberalized immigration laws point to how reliant the United States has become on illegal aliens filling jobs that nobody else really wants to do. And despite the fact that approximately 5 percent of Americans are unemployed, they are correct: Illegal immigrants help fill hard manual labor positions in which an increasingly educated workforce has no interest — and in the process keep food, construction and other costs down for consumers.

But that's only one side of the coin. Since they are willing to work for such poor pay, illegal immigrants help to drive down wages for unskilled but legal workers.

Health costs, which are putting a big-time hamper on all states' budgets, also rise significantly due to illegal immigration. And since children born in the United States become citizens — and because having children significantly lowers one's risk of being deported — immigrants put a serious strain on K-12 resources as well.

Because many illegal immigrants send good portions of the money they earn back to their home countries (how else do you explain why Mexican President Vicente Fox is so happy that so many people are leaving his country), American localities lose out on wages that should be invested back into their economies.

Ultimately, whether the economic impact of large-scale illegal immigration is a net positive or a negative is uncertain. It is not nearly as clear-cut as 'immigration rights' protestors would have you believe.

But one thing is black and white: Illegal immigration is illegal. We are a nation built on the rule of law, which is blatantly flouted when immigrants cross the border illegally. Such people deserve no rights. Illegal immigrants can pose grave security risks, pay some taxes but not others, and show no regard, by entering the country, for the laws of a society — not a desirable characteristic.

So I support Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill, albeit with one major change. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country today. Mass deportation really isn't feasible. We could grant amnesty to them all as part of legislation that would hinder future illegal immigrants from working in the country. But the United States tried that in the 1980s, and illegal immigration hasn't slowed one bit. A continuous cycle of large-scale amnesty declarations isn't reform at all.

Instead of declaring them felons, we should implement a guest worker program for illegal aliens currently in the country, keep building the fence along the Mexican border and keep the other provisions of Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill intact. Entering the country illegally in the future, however, should be a felony.

And raise the limit on legal immigrants allowed to enter the country each year. They play by the rules; they get rights.

Don't play by the rules, then no rights. There's nothing ironic about that.

Ryan Masse ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and economics.