[Wolfstar]

I wrote that it goes back AT LEAST to the Eisenhower administration before I'd had a chance to research its origins. The first form of guest-worker program began in the early 1940's. See my post #51.

Sabertooth, regarding your comment: The Editor's note is even more disingenuous than the President's statement. I know that you have a principled opposition to the president's proposal; in fact, that illegal immigration appears to be an overriding issue for you, judging by your posts during the recall. I respect your point of view and your posts, because they are usually well stated and rarely nasty. Unless I missed a post where you said otherwise, I also respect the fact that you still intend to vote for President Bush despite your vigorous opposition on this issue.

I also am opposed to the guest-worker proposal. However, unlike you, it is not my overriding issue. I take every one of your posts seriously and never assume disingenuousness on your part. I would thank you to display similar respect for my point of view. Everything I post reflects what I believe to be true.

[Sabertooth]

I wrote that it goes back AT LEAST to the Eisenhower administration before I'd had a chance to research its origins. The first form of guest-worker program began in the early 1940's. See my post #51.

That's not the problem with your Eisenhower reference. It's the implication that deporting 1.4 million Illegals in the 1950s is somehow a precedent for rewarding as many as 8 to 12 million of them with legalization under President Bush.

I know that you have a principled opposition to the president's proposal; in fact, that illegal immigration appears to be an overriding issue for you, judging by your posts during the recall. I respect your point of view and your posts, because they are usually well stated and rarely nasty. Unless I missed a post where you said otherwise, I also respect the fact that you still intend to vote for President Bush despite your vigorous opposition on this issue.

I intend to vote for President Bush, barring the actual enactment of his Illegal Alien "not an Amnesty" Amnesty. I think it won't be enacted, but I want to make certain that it's defeated so soundly as to make Amnesty a third rail for politicians in the future.where the fabric of American civilization is threatened: the War on Terror, the Constitutional Marriage Amendment, the dissolution of our borders and sovereignty. free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The President is strong on the WoT, getting stronger on CMA, weak on sovereignty, weak on free speech as a result of CFR, and an unkown on the Second Amendment.

I take every one of your posts seriously and never assume disingenuousness on your part. I would thank you to display similar respect for my point of view. Everything I post reflects what I believe to be true.

I typically find your posts to be thoughtful, even when I disagree with them. Unfortunately, you were well wide of the mark with regard to the issue of Amnesty in the SOTU.

Legalization of Illegals is Amnesty for those Illegals. That's the truth.

The President is splitting hairs on Amnesty, and your highlighting of his hairsplitting while omitting what little substance of his proposal he brought to the SOTU is a serious overreach. Hence, my comment.

You started with a premise of using the SOTU to demonstrate conservatism on the part of President Bush. Many of your points were well taken, but you'd have been better off to omit his Amnesty remark altogether, rather than try and pass it off as something it wasn't, even if you've convinced yourself that wasn't what you were doing.

Lipstick doesn't make a pretty pig, just ugly cosmetology.

Claiming Eisenhower, who deported 1.4 million Illegals who were not made eligible for legalization as guest workers, as a precedent for the Bush "guest worker" Amnesty for 8 to 12 million Illegals, is disingenous.