I don't know why I ever thought President George W. Bush would solve America's immigration problem.

      Maybe it was because of his aggressive courting of the Hispanic vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

      Or his insistence that, as former governor of Texas, he understood the new immigrants' situation. But clearly I was wrong.

      I thought Bush could do what Ronald Reagan did in 1986: grant an amnesty _ and legalization _ to some 3 million undocumented immigrants. But Bush didn't have the nerve to do it.

      While it can be said that the 1986 amnesty didn't solve the immigration problem, something radical and creative needed to be done at the time. And Bush had the power _ and a majority in Congress _ to do it, too.

      But he didn't. The immigration proposal that Bush once again put on the table last week is nothing more than a modified version of the original plan he presented in the White House on Jan. 7, 2004.

      It holds nothing new: reinforcing security on the border _ where approximately one immigrant a minute slips through _ and offering up to six years of work to the undocumented immigrants and then sending them packing for their native countries _ permanently.

      As we all know, that won't happen.

      I've spent a good part of my journalistic career interviewing illegal aliens and I know that they are here because back there (and you can fill in the name of any Latin American country) people are starving to death. And they would rather break the immigration laws than be returned to their native lands, to face a life of unmitigated poverty. Here, they at least get to eat _ over there, who knows. That is why Bush's proposal doesn't have a hope.

      Even if Bush managed to persuade a Republican majority in both houses of Congress to pass his plan, its failure would be plain to see in the seventh year, when no one would want to go back.

      The real problem with Bush's proposal lies in the fact that it doesn't offer a permanent solution to the immigration problem. On the contrary, it would force an ugly, prickly burden on the next president.

      The only proposal that could work is to offer two things: one, legalizing U.S. residency for the millions of illegal immigrants already here; and, two, realistically and efficiently regulating the arrival of millions of people in search of work, food and a better life. Bush's proposal doesn't address these points. And that is why it will fail.

      My deluded hope that Bush might solve the immigration problem sprang up in November 1999, the first time I interviewed the then governor of Texas, in Austin.

      Demonstrating a sensitivity on the subject that I had never seen in a presidential candidate, Bush said he understood why a father who earned 50 cents a day and had a hungry child, would decide to come to the United States to earn $50 a day.

      I left convinced that this was a man who, while opposed to an immigrant amnesty such as the one offered by Reagan, would seek an alternative, real solution.

      Eight months later, in a second interview on Aug. 19, 2000 _ this time aboard a train traveling between Oxnard and Ventura, Calif. _ Bush told me he was in favor of reunifying families separated by immigration problems.

      And then, to my surprise, it was Bush himself who interviewed me and asked my opinion about amnesty; he listened attentively, with respect and interest. Well, I said to myself. Someone with an outlook like that will surely do something concrete about illegal aliens.

      The same theme was repeated by Bush, now as president, in a speech on Ellis Island on July 10, 2001, when he said "New arrivals should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment, but with openness and courtesy."

      Soon after, talking in Washington on Aug. 24, 2001, the president said: "There are people in Mexico who have got children who are worried about where they are going to get their next meal from. And they are going to come to the United States if they think they can make money here. That's a simple fact."

      Days after that last speech came the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and part of the Pentagon in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, and the topic of immigration ended up poisoned by terrorism. Bush's priority _ and the nation's _ shifted and life then became infinitely more difficult for all immigrants, both legal and illegal.

      Even then, I had hoped that during his second term, now free of the strain of re-election, Bush would once again, vigorously and courageously, take up the immigration issue and seek a permanent solution. Wrong. What ever became of the candidate who showed such compassion for the most exploited people in this country?

      The only positive side to this debate is that Bush has given the immigration matter an urgency similar to that of the Iraq war. In each case, the president has presented his plan for victory. Both, however, are haunted by the ghost of defeat.

      Bush, to put it mildly, has drawn fire from both parties on the immigration issue: Conservatives criticize him for being too generous with illegal immigrants; liberals accuse him of providing half-solutions; Mexicans are frustrated because he did not live up to their expectations regarding the negotiation of an immigration accord, and Hispanics who voted for him expected much more help and understanding toward illegal immigrants and refugees.

      And that's where we are _ running around in circles. Finally, here's another fact. The first time I interviewed Bush, in 1999, there were 5 million illegal immigrants in the United States; there are now 11 million and the problem keeps growing.

      We were wrong about Bush. What a deception. What more can I say?