[Plutarch]

"The length of stay here will be dependent upon the actions of the Congress. It's conceivable you could have a three-year period with a renewal period," he said.

What is inconceivable is that a future Congress or President will forcibly remove people who up until their time has expired have been "playing by the rules", and "contributing to the economy," and who have also produced U.S. Citizen anchor babies. Conspicuously absent from the bills he favors are provisions up front that incentivize or enforce eventual Guest Worker removal from the U.S., such as retention of earnings to be paid upon return to Mexico.

No Western nation anywhere has ever forcibly removed their "Guest Workers". For any of us to believe that this time they mean it is to play Charlie Brown forever being fooled by Lucy.

[Aetius]

I don't disagree in general.

One idea I have heard is to withold a substantial portion of the guests' earnings until they go home, and then pay it out over time to them in their home country. But I'm not under any illusion that that alone would suffice.

I agree that Bush has been awful on the issue. I am suspicious of him. So far, it is only empty words, but I prefer these words to some of his past nonsense, like "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande."

I believe, if any good legislation is to pass, that it will come from the House. This is one reason that I particularly fear the specter of Democratic gains (or even takeover) this November, because it may doom any chance for immigration reform that actually enjoys widespread support from the mainstream of America.

[kstewskis]

For any of us to believe that this time they mean it is to play Charlie Brown forever being fooled by Lucy.

I love it! So true!