Those sentiments, along with all the public policy that goes along with them, are a new vestige of acceptable racism in the United States of America that's drawing good people with good objectives very close to a very dark and un-American place.

After I watched the last Democratic Presidential debate I was struck by how readily the leading candidates uttered what I had always thought where neocon talking points about building walls along the border with Mexico and the horrors of giving driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants.

It honestly made me feel sick to my stomach. I mean, how could Democrats- supposed liberals- be the ones lobbying for a wall along the border with Mexico? Christ, people, this isn't East Berlin, this is the United State of America!

I've even had to suffer my own Democratic representative Nancy Boyda vote for and co-sponsor bills to fund a fence along the border with a nation with which we are at peace.

But, I'm in the minority apparently, and it thusly shouldn't surprise me Congress isn't acting the way I think is appropriate. According to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports released on August 18, 2007 a staggering 56% of Americans want a fence built, while only 31% do not. I guess what I thought was totally outside of the American mainstream actually is the American mainstream.

Now, I should be clear, I'm not necessarily calling everyone who supports building a fence along the Mexican border a racist. No, in some places it probably serves a legitimate security purpose, and I think (I hope) it is from that direction the Democrats are approaching the issue.

I fear, however, for many people it is a matter of not wanting those brown people in their country. Because of that, it certainly doesn't take very much to turn this into a basic human rights issue.

The other part of the immigration debate that has hurt my soul is the sweeping movement nationwide to make English our official language. Similar to state constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage a few years prior, it seemed 2006 was rife with states deciding they were at the cliff's edge of losing their white Protestant heritage if the state printed one more document and/or ballot in Spanish. You could almost here the legislatures scream, "Who cares how many people we'll disenfranchise, dammit, if you want to be an American learn to speak English!"

I was deeply disappointed when the Kansas legislature passed such a bill, and even more disappointed (and, quite frankly, shocked) when my Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius signed it into law.

You know, my great-great grandmother was an Italian immigrant and never really learned English well enough to have a long conversation and I promise you no one ever said she didn't deserve to be in the United States because of it.

But, she spoke Italian- not Spanish.

The issue of "English-only" has left the state's realm now and entered the federal level in the form of a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Salvation Army for firing two women for- get this- speaking Spanish to each other while at work. As reported by MSNBC.com, in response a bill has been introduced to prevent the EEOC from ever again enforcing federal rules barring English-only workplaces.

The rule isn't hard and fast- it can be waived if it would be necessary for everyone at a business to speak the same language (like a hospital, for instance), but the federal rules currently prohibit an employer from firing someone for speaking any language other than English if it doesn't have anything to do with the job they're supposed to be doing.

"You can have English-only rules ... if in fact that English-only rule is relevant to job performance, safety, efficiency and so on," countered Rep. Charles Gonzalez, D-Texas. "If it is not relevant, if it is discriminatory, if it is gratuitous, if it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin -- which we know that's what it is -- the EEOC doesn't allow it."

Know the scariest part of this one? The bill has already passed the Senate- yes, that Senate, the same Senate that won't pass ANYTHING right now. Democratic leadership in the House says it's DOA...but it just might not be- a non-binding House vote taken last week encouraged House negotiators to accept the language in conference committee.

None of this may be active racism- or all of it could be.

For some members of the House of Representatives & various state legislatures, I'm certain they do believe they aren't being "anti-immigrant," but when does being offensively unwelcoming become just that?

How un-American can we be before we lose track of what it means to be "American?"