[AirForceBrat23]

I sometimes wonder if the president is pushing for amnesty this hard because, when looking at the big picture, he sees the need for a larger military in the near future. We talk all the time about how we're in a struggle between civilizations and we get irritated when we sense that Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand this. Unfortunately, a struggle of the size perceived by FReepers (and possibly the president) requires soldiers, more than we have now. We've heard comments about enlarging the military, and this is one sure way to do it: increase the pool of likely recruits.

That being said, the president probably knows he would get a truckload of crap if anyone in the administration said that publicly, so we have to have our intelligence belittled by this whole "we need labor" and "they need to feed their families" song and dance.

I hope I was coherent. For the record, I am strongly against any amnesty for lawbreakers, but lately this notion has been popping into my head. I would rather believe that this is a hidden motive than believe that the president is just that bull-headed and tone-deaf about this.

[Pelham]

I think you’re trying to find an acceptable rationale for his bull headed behavior- and there isn’t one. Bush is one of those people who are post-national, it’s common in big business where borders and culture are annoyances to be pushed aside.

[Night Hides Not]

I sometimes wonder if the president is pushing for amnesty this hard because, when looking at the big picture, he sees the need for a larger military in the near future.

I understand the rationale for your post. Still, it falls along the lines of Bush's skills at "strategery", which have waned since the nomination of Harriett Miers.

IMO, he's paying back his contributors in the Chamber of Commerce community, and other big business donors, who rely on cheap labor.

It's ironic how these business leaders extol the virtues of the "free market", except when it comes to paying market price for labor. I'd like to see a reputable economist try and explain that illegal immigration has NOT dampened wages.

[Waryone]

I think the president has a soft spot in his heart for the people of Mexico. Otherwise he would understand that this whole argument is not about immigration. There people trying to enter this country legally from all over the world. No one is saying we don’t want legal immigrants. What we don’t want is open borders.

I also understand that there will be some very unpleasant results to any attempt to get the illegals to return to their own countries. I can see a depressed housing market getting even worse, and with 20 million people going home, there is bound to be a depressed economy for the short term.

But what the president doesn’t seem to understand is that we are in the middle of a war on terror. Our enemies know that for whatever reason, we have no desire to protect our borders. They are exploiting this and they will continue to do so until we realize the importance of defending our country. Unfortunately, it may take another disaster on the order of 911 to wake our government.

This is what disturbs me so much about the president’s stand on the border. His job as Commander in Chief is to defend the United States from invasion. We are in the middle of a war which he has chosen to fight on one front, but he has left our border flank completely exposed. Now, people don’t believe the war is real because he doesn’t really seem serious about defending us.

Either his handlers have purposely explained the situation to him incorrectly or he himself has decided to paint this as pro-immigration versus anti-immigration. Whatever the situation, right now someone has decided to put business interests ahead of the defending our country and the war on terror. I think that is a mistake.

[ovrtaxt]

That’s a good attempt at making sense of all this, but I think it’s a planned progression toward the North American Union.

There are advantages to such a plan for the elites, (not many for a sovereign nation) so they’ve decided that we shall have it.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Sort of have a similar idea about the Iraq conflict: to prime the military for a major (as in a bigger war than World War 2). There have been quite a few technology advances that have come about during this conflict (though not on the order of computers, the nuclear bomb, penicillin).

Also the main point for personal support of an enlarged United States is that the country is currently 'coasting on technology.' China and India have populations several times that of the United States. If the EU becomes a country, it would also surpass the USA in population.

The United States covers around 1/16 of the world's landmass, and has less than 5% of the global population. If huge federal nations (or just China and India) form in the future, the United States stands to become and underdog.

With other countries having more people, and others more raw resources (i.e. Russia), the primary thing (from a secular standpoint) keeping the United States in the lead is American technology. If (when?) other big countries catch up, the USA's one advantage will be lost. The last three paragraphs were more for 'all.'