The problem of illegal immigration is a difficult one and so are the solutions, which is why I don't write about it often. 

Just like my own great-grandparents, today's immigrants are coming here to find a job that pays enough to raise a family on, because they can't find such jobs in the countries they are leaving.

But of course they drive down wages for workers who were born here or went through the nightmare of legal immigration.

George Bush and the Republicans have done nothing to control illegal immigration for the past seven years. But that didn't stop them from running vicious anti-immigrant ads to beat Democrats in this week's elections.

Election results show those immigration ads did not kill Democrats, and some bloggers think Democrats can safely ignore the issue, or deflect it by focusing on trade.

I'm not sure I would agree. Just because immigration didn't kill Democrats in 2007, we can't say they didn't cause a lot of pain.

And with every poll showing our presidential candidates in a virtual dead heat with their candidates, why should we wait for Republicans to figure out how to perfect their use of immigration to beat us in 2008 - just as they did with gay marriage in 2004?

I'd like to see Democrats stop playing defense on immigration, and start playing offense. And I think the best way to play offense is to get tough on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

How exactly? I'm not an expert on the details, but the comprehensive immigration reform bill supported by Democrats (and George Bush) includes tamper-proof SS# verification of new employees, backed by tough penalties for employers who fail to perform the verification.

So why don't Democrats separate that piece from the omnibus bill and push it through Congress now?

Republicans will oppose such a bill for one simple reason: it hurts the greediest business owners, who are one of the GOP's most important constituencies.

But that's a fight Democrats should relish.

What would happen to the 12 million illegal immigrants who are looking for work? Law-abiding companies would turn them away, so they would have to find non-corporate cash-paying jobs with small businesses (i.e. construction) or individuals (i.e. housekeeping). Of course many of them already have such jobs.

Are there any Democratic constituencies that would oppose such a bill? Perhaps the unions that organize low-income workers, whether they are here legally or not - the United Farm Workers, SEIU, and Unite/Here come to mind. But if they have legitimate concerns, I'm sure the legislation could be tailored to address them.

Is this a workable plan? I don't know. What do you think?