The new litmus test for applicants of top federal positions:

“No, I did not hire an illegal immigrant nanny, landscaper, housekeeper, pool cleaner, gardener, roofer; (fill in the blank for the lifestyle most befitting the applicant).”

President George Bush’s short-lived first choice for heading the Department of Homeland Security failed this test.

Bernard B. Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner, withdrew from consideration a scant seven days after his nomination was announced.

Further problems with Kerik’s background continue to leak, including possible mob connections, alleged extramarital affairs and unpaid condominium fees.

But the illegal housekeeper was the first reason cited for the scuttled nomination.

Kerik admitted not paying taxes on the housekeeper’s salary. And, he acknowledged the housekeeper was likely in the country illegally.

The housekeeper’s identity has not been revealed although she apparently has left the United States.

Funny how the spotlight of a high-security clearance within the president’s Cabinet can force sudden reassessments.

Taxes? Illegal? The housekeeper?

America’s unacknowledged dependence on illegal foreign labor is the elephant in the room.

Kerik admitted hiring the elephant.

As head of Homeland Security, one of Kerik’s top priorities would have been immigration reform, including finding a solution for America’s illegal immigration problems.

All of which begs pondering the situation: The hiring of illegal labor is so commonplace that even some of the top choices for government posts have tripped into the practice.

So why does the nation continue to spend so much time with useless diatribes about “rewarding” illegal behavior by making it easier for the undocumented workers to remain in the country.

America regularly doles out the biggest reward a capitalistic country can offer: a paycheck.

Rather, we should focus on the country’s needs, today and in the future.

Which jobs truly need foreign workers?

What industries really have become dependent on illegal labor? Is that a good thing?

The last of the baby boomers are turning 40. Can America attend to the needs of this large chunk of the population as it ages?

Are the foreign worker’s productivity rates higher and why?

Yes, America is a superpower militarily, but are we in brain power?

Should we allow foreign labor to do many low wage jobs, and put more effort toward building a more highly trained work force to keep America globally competitive?

The attitude that the “poor humble immigrant is simply doing work Americans won’t” is a tired one.

So is the opposite side of the pendulum; the idea that every illegal immigrant necessarily takes a job from a willing and qualified American.

A global economy is not that simple.

Economists and demographers should largely lead this conversation.

Not the anti-immigrant lobby that often consists of one person with a whole lot of e-mail addresses.

Not the lobbyists for corporations on the hunt for cheap labor to churn higher profits for profit only, not reinvestment.

Nor, unfortunately, should the sentiment of many Americans lead the decision-making.

Americans, in general, are woefully uninformed about the complexities of immigration and the economy. For too many years, they have been misled by propaganda from both sides of the equation.

Which is why it is a good thing the issue of illegal labor is highlighted now, with a little distance from the next general election.

Congress will soon be asked to make tough decisions on revamping immigration policy.

Too often in the past, decisions have been made that amounted to an increased number of illegal people here, not less.

The job of sorting out the American workplace will call for difficult, honest assessments.

Kind of like what Kerik was forced to do in his household.

Mary Sanchez is an opinion-page columnist for The Kansas City Star.

Copy the Story Link