Isn't this more about supporting companies' wishes to employ illegal immigrants at salaries which no US citizen would work for?

Whether they have jobs or not they're still illegal immigrants. In my view this is rewarding people for breaking the law and it sets the wrong example to those who obey the laws. It is not fair to the immigrant that tries to get into country the legal way.

In theory it is being said that they are taking jobs that Americans don't want but this proposal would promote more and more Americans to live off of the system instead of finding a job since the pay scale would be driven down lower and lower.

I'm not sure what exactly the solution would be to an immigration problem but I would think that the laws currently in place would be inforced until they were changed.

> doesn't his new immigration proposal lean pretty far left?

Bah! Just a political ploy to get hispanic votes during an election year. Hispanics, as a block, are actually pretty conservative; they are deeply religious and lean right on both social and economic causes.* Really the only reason they are associated with the Democrats is that the Republican party has been very anti-immigration (I don't think California's hispanics will ever forget the Republican backed proposition 187). This is a very clever plan to appeal to them, but this will never get by the Republicans in congress and Bush knows that. I doubt very highly he will push it at all to members of congress as a matter of fact, but then when it fails Bush can just say "Well, you can see I tried, I am a good guy, please vote for me". I don't buy it for a second.

* Before I get crucified again, I would like to point out that not all hispanics are any of the things I mentioned. it is a generalization based on polls and general feeling of the group as a whole, but it certainly does not apply to everyone within that group.

I've heard some hispanic folks up in arms over it, actually. They worked very hard to get into this country and are upset that others are getting a free ride. And the important point is that these hispanics who have the legitimate potential to be upset are the ones who can vote. I wouldn't be surprised if that stance becomes a huge backfire for GWB.

I don't think they could use the logic that the real issues are in Iowa, that it's the heart of the nation. It's rather sparsely populated, and the morals and lifestyles are, more than likely, very different from say the East Coast or the Pacific Northwest or Florida. Why are they so important? I hope someone can enlighten us...

I visited Iowa for the first time in my life over Christmas, as my fiancee's extended family are all in Iowa. Small town, Iowa farmers. I went into it with a bunch of expectations, none of which proved to be true. These people are certainly quieter than my own family, but they've all got these wonderful wry senses of humor. And, they play a mean game of pool.

More seriously, I'm more comfortable with Iowa's role in the process than I would be if the same thing were done here in Texas or even out in California. The Iowa culture is, perhaps stereotyping based on my limited sample, less prone to ideological outbursts and thus more likely to reach some sort of consensus. I imagine they're somewhat more resistant to being pushed around and manipulated by outsiders (possibly explaining Dean's 3rd place finish).

The more I've gotten into voting security, the more I've learned about the cultural differences between states in the U.S. Would you believe that Oregon votes exclusively by mail? The fraud opportunities are astonishing (e.g., sell somebody your unmarked ballot and they can mail it in for you), but they don't seem to happen. Not because it's impossible, but because the culture doesn't do that. Try that in other states, and you'd get a very different outcome.

Also, keep in mind that the Iowans aren't selecting the final party nominee. Their main effect is to knock off several of the weaker candidates. We've still got five major candidates standing. I'm not saying that the whole rolling primary/caucus system is in any way optimal, but given the regional differences in cultures, the limited budgets available to candidates, and the limited effect of early decisions, the system actually works better than many other aspects of our election systems.