Replies

"How can Bush have shown to mislead us. Again the purpose is to show quotes and stances over a period of time."

1st as to Guest worker Thats pretty clear that he has always supported that.

The question comes down to this has Bush mislead on "amnesty" I guess it comes down to what amnesty is and what that means.

The pertinent part of What Bush says he wants is this.
"There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen"

Now when I hear the word amnesty I think of plan that says ok your here you can become citizens now. In fact this is what Kerry was saying that he wanted to do that Bush opposed.(The Been here 5 years you are citizens now plan)
Now that is amnesty. There appears to be nothing automatic about this proposal Bush has stated he would support.

As I try to grapple with the objections people have to this bill or proposal I see the following threads of thought that various people that that oppose the Senate Bill that Bush supports have.

(1)That a proposal will be amnesty to some people if its nothing short of deporting all illegal aliens and allow them never to return. To be honest, I think thats a wrong definition and not one contemplated when people are thinking of this debate

(2) To some it means that a proposal is not amnesty if it makes all illegals leave but allows them to participate in a guest worker program later on however they can never be citizens ever because they broke the law. Again I am not sure if most Americans are thinking of this either in the context of amnesty.
(3)People can come here and work and become citizens only after going through the same process as everyone else. That means they have to leave and stay outside the USA and follow the process even to work. However do restrictions on later citizenship because of earlier illegal entry. That I guess it means they are literally behind everyone else even folks from Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan. Anything more is Amnesty and related to this point
(4)The fairness question. Bush said " People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law." Now the objection I hear to this is that this is hogwash. The fact is that people have to wait long period of time and even illegals with a 11 year period till they could even apply to become citizens will still have a jump on those who wanted to come here legally. This objection is the one I find that has the most merit. In fact in some ways if there is anyway to say that Bush's proposal is amnesty might be through this provision. I am sympathetic here. Every time I hear the story about that now NFL football player(Penn State) and how is Momma is still stuck in Liberia I want to scream. However, if there is a comprehensive reform of the system would this still be the case. Backlogs and staff problems are legend as to the immigration Dept. There are proposals to eliminate this. This would involve also taking a look at the lottery we have for Visa's and the like. If those problems in the system are eliminated then why should the illegals get a jump on everyone else. If the issue is legal versus illegal immigration it should not be a issue.

In short, how is whats most likely to come out of the Senate Amnesty or auto citizenship. The issue to me is not the fact if more Mexicans will become citizens here. Thats seems to be a pretty established fact since so many have family and relations here no matter what happens.
Now of course its apparent that beside the citizenship question these illegals will get a jump on those applying to work here that are from other countries. But that is a less of a concern to me at this point. In fact, studies show that at least a Third want to be here just temporary which I think is a good thing. Its very much easier for the temporary agricultural workers to be from Mexico than lets say Bangladesh. One last note. The reason I took some time to respond is that I spent 30 minutes after dinner looking at the 1986 act Reagan signed. The problem seems to have been laid at Reagan feet. I was surprised that I never saw the word Amnesty mentioned in any of the provisions(perhaps I missed it). I was 15 at the time and have no independent recollection of the events. Buts its interesting to note that much of the problems seem to be the ones that occurred later on and especially in the Clinton administration through various amendments and additions to the act. This includes a compromise in 2000 between Lott, the Speaker and Clinton that added a whopping 900,000 applicants to have their residency requirements reconsidered for the original 1986 act. That shows border security is a must. Something I think we all agree on.