Replies

Precedent for guest worker programs goes back to August 4, 1942, when the U.S. and the Mexican governments instituted the Bracero program. Thousands of impoverished Mexicans abandoned their rural communities and headed north to work as braceros.

Over a decade later, on April 28, 1956, the El Paso Herald Post said, "More than 80,000 braceros pass through the El Paso Center annually. They're part of an army of 350,000 or more that marches across the border each year to help plant, cultivate and harvest cotton and other crops throughout the United States".

In the mid-1980's, President Ronald Wilson Reagan signed the first bona fide blanket amnesty for illegal aliens in American history. Unfortunately, rather than reduce the flow of illegal aliens, it encouraged a flood of new illegal immigration.

So, as history shows, this is a problem with a long history and precedents set by other presidents. It is a problem inherited by this president. In a post-9/11 world, the question is: What do we do with the millions of illegals already here? President Bush's proposal of a guest worker program most defintely is NOT an amnesty. Rather, it is a modernized form of the old Bracero program. It will be debated in Congress — and can be defeated there if its opponents work vigorously enough.

To reiterate, the title is President of the United States, not president of any particular political party or ideology. Any president will call each issue like he sees it. It is a sign of character and courage in a president if he calls an issue in a way he knows is unpopular. Our system of government provides plenty of opportunity to defeat unpopular proposals by any president. It doesn't require a break with the president, either. All the people have to do is stop whining on forums like this, get off their duffs, and work to defeat it.

And we never had an illegal immigration/southern border problem until the bracero program was killed in 1965 at the behest of labor unions...

One has to wonder if there might not be a connection - cause and effect. I am not one to let a "rule of law" mantra defend bad laws or the misapplication of laws. Otherwise, there lies the road to crap like Elian Gonzalez, going after a farmer who accidentally runs over an endangered rat, or a homeowner who shoots a burglar in his home and is prosecuted.

The more I study this president, the more he reminds me of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had huge fights with his own party, which, because half the country left the Congress, controlled the Congress with a large majority. But the abolitionists were constantly nipping at his heels.

Lincoln knew that he had to first win the war, keep the French and English from recogizing the Confederacy, THEN worry about emancipation...and even then, making sure to only emancipate the slaves in areas NOT under federal control so as to keep the border states from seceding. It was a political decision.

Bush realizes that he must do certain things in order to keep the country moving in the right direction:

1) Win re-election after a photo-finish election last time--otherwise, his "positions" are irrelevant. Can anyone doubt that any of the Democratic candidates (except perhaps Lieberman) won't have drastically different policies on the important issues involving all the areas that are causing ulcers amongst the conservatives on this board? Will Kerry, or Edwards, Dean, whomever be better than Bush? So why would you want to "stay home" and help elect them by your "protest?"

2) Add to the Republican majority in both houses. Especially the Senate. I know I sound like a broken record, but those judges are key to almost every issue Freepers are concerned about. Don't we need more conservative judges to rule constitutionally on school prayer, immigration, health-care initiatives, gun control, abortion, campaign finance "reform", and almost every issue we are debating here?

3) Bush knows that the more "centrist" he is perceived by the electorate, the more "leftist" the Dems will have to be to separate themselves. The Dems know that only by being able to portray themselves as being vastly different on issues from Bush, can they persuade voters to make a change. His positioning himself on several issues as a "centrist" leaves them nowhere to go but further left. That is electoral suicide for them. And in a Bush second term, with a more Republican congress, he can get more judges through and probably make two or three Supreme Court choices. Look at the difference Breyer and Ginsburg's votes on recent issues have made! It's Clinton's legacy which we will have to live with for years! Let's not let Kerry or Edwards make those next few appointments.

Bush and Rove realize this. I wish more Freepers did. Hold your nose if you have to, but...read my tagline...

"President Bush's proposal of a guest worker program most defintely is NOT an amnesty."

Let's go over this again,

What is an amnesty? "An amnesty is a general pardon granted by a government for a past offense. Crossing a U.S. border without a visa is a misdemeanor under federal law, and reentering the U.S. after a prior order of deportation is a felony. Under Bush’s proposal, these crimes will not be prosecuted, and that means it is an amnesty."

Also, "Bush goes on to offer the perpetrators visas and work permits, so it is not entirely accurate to call the Bush proposal an amnesty. It is an amnesty with an awards program."

Would you like definitions for amnesty also? Face it, it is what it is. "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duc, it must be a duck."

It is a sign of character and courage in a president if he calls an issue in a way he knows is unpopular.

Come on, this is being done to try to curry favor with Hispanic voters and some types of businesses, and for no other reason. There is no principle at work here beyond pandering. Why else is this being pushed in an election year?

All the people have to do is stop whining on forums like this, get off their duffs, and work to defeat it.

Do we have your permission to do both? Can we "whine" on FR and lobby elsewhere to defeat Bush's assault on our country? Can folks use FR to rally the like-minded and explain how to lobby?

To reiterate, the title is President of the United States, not president of any particular political party or ideology.

You seem to think this is actually an argument in your favor. It's not.

The same thing was used by the Klintoon Krowd to tell their Left and minority voters why Klinton was going to shaft them. Which he mostly did for the last six years he was in office, after we elected the GOP congress of '94.

Call it the fringe if you want. But after you do that, don't expect to guilt-trip them into the polls. You can't have it both ways, regardless of your rhetoric.

Oh, and they do own their own votes. Not the GOP or the Dims. Staying home or voting third party is a perfectly legitimate way to say none-of-the-above to both parties.

the title is President of the United States, not president of any particular political party or ideology. Any president will call each issue like he sees it. It is a sign of character and courage in a president if he calls an issue in a way he knows is unpopular.

So if a future President (of either party) supports the unpopular stances of totally open borders (without borders patrols), gun confiscation, and a weak military (to name just a few issues) you'd consider that a sign of "courage and character?" After call, that future President would merely be "calling each issue as he see it."

No, I'll tell you what's courageous and indicitive of high moral character: Respecting the Bill of Rights and preserving our borders, language, and culture.