Those who scratch their heads and ponder the impossible logistics of deporting millions of people make me want to shake them until the marbles come tumbling out of their ears. There is one simple solution, and one that wouldn’t even require the building of a wall. We’d simply make it a felony for anyone to hire illegals. If the potential employee was unable to supply a verifiable birth certificate and social security number, he couldn’t get a job. You would soon see a mass exodus. After all, if they were able to make their way north, they sure as heck can make their way south.

It’s a big fat lie that there are all those jobs Americans won’t do. The fact is, Americans will do anything from picking fruit to cleaning cesspools, but they won’t do them for lousy wages. But, then, nowhere in the Bill of Rights is it written that the people who own farms, hotels, restaurants and construction firms, will be guaranteed an endless supply of cheap labor. And nowhere is it written that providing the illegals with housing, schools, food stamps and health services, is the responsibility of the American taxpayer.

The question isn’t why politicians on the left pander so shamelessly on behalf of these millions of aliens. After all, this is the same corrupt crowd that has made a practice of offering suffrage to convicted felons and even longtime residents of Chicago cemeteries. The real question is why George W. Bush has elected to lead this ill-advised crusade. There are those who thought his reason was political, that he foolishly believed he’d provide the GOP with millions of grateful Hispanic voters. That’s a possible motive. One must remember, after all, that this is the same fellow who thought he’d garner a lot of black votes by putting Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice in his cabinet.

Then there are those who believed that because brother Jeb was married to a woman born in Mexico, thus making his niece and nephews half-Latino, George was just overly sympathetic to the plight of poor Hispanics.

The latest theory I’ve heard espoused was that young George may have had a Mexican nanny to whom he was particularly attached. Although most people might regard that as a frivolous reason for endangering our national sovereignty, not to mention scuttling the GOP’s chances of recovering from the 2006 elections, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility. If Charles Foster Kane’s implausible life could be traced all the way back to a sled named Rosebud in the movie classic, “Citizen Kane,” I’m willing to accept that in pushing so aggressively for this lousy piece of legislation, the president was merely trying to atone for some youthful shenanigan that provoked his beloved Maria, Consuela or Esperanza.

So, instead of dismissing the bill as amnesty in sheep’s clothing, perhaps we should merely think of it as the nanny bill. After all, there’s no getting around the fact that those childhood experiences often have a very profound effect on us. For instance, do any of you have the slightest doubt that Ted Kennedy was a bottle baby?