[sickoflibs]

Gowdy SC came up with some good poison pills like letting local law enforcement enforce immigration law but he also said this :

“ Virtually everyone agrees on the broad principles. Where we get ourselves into a little bit of a difference of opinion are the details.....So, you can agree in theory on border security but disagree very strongly on how it's achieved. You can agree on a path to legalization or citizenship. But whether border security is a condition precedent, which it would be in my case, is a very important distinction.”

Like the Senate RINOs he wanted to indicate that citizenship was OK with him. This is worrisome. It is like they are all scared to oppose that in public,.

[Resettozero]

Like the Senate RINOs he wanted to indicate that citizenship was OK with him.

Now that's YOUR interpretation. Listen again to his actual words and discern his intent. Knowing the man, his intent is not precisely as you intimate.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Like the Senate RINOs he wanted to indicate that citizenship was OK with him. This is worrisome. It is like they are all scared to oppose that in public,. “

NOT good!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Like the Senate RINOs he wanted to indicate that citizenship was OK with him.

So far the House Judiciary Committee seems to insist that no path-to-citizenship be in the House immigration bills. Gowdy is on that committee.

AP reports today LINK 07-01-2013: Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he does not foresee a proposal that could provide a simple mechanism for immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as U.S. citizens, as many Democrats have demanded. Goodlatte's committee members have been working on bills that address individual concerns but have not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's effort. The House answer would not be "a special pathway to citizenship where people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have," he said.

However,

1) Boehner/Cantor/Ryan, at some point, could decide they like a path-to-citizenship and try to purge committees of those who don't play ball.

2) I don't like the fact that the House immigration bill is called "comprehensive" and I don't like the size of the bill (which I have heard would be a big lump composed of whatever immigration bills the House passes). Something that big would surely go to conference, where we would see Rubio, McCain and Goober, etc. again.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Gowdy: Virtually everyone agrees on the broad principles. Where we get ourselves into a little bit of a difference of opinion are the details.....So, you can agree in theory on border security but disagree very strongly on how it's achieved. You can agree on a path to legalization or citizenship. But whether border security is a condition precedent, which it would be in my case, is a very important distinction.

Gowdy did not say that he was for a path-to-citizenship. In fact, he also said in that same FNS transcript:

The other thing that's important to keep in mind, John, is the 11 million is not a homogeneous group. All of the 11 million do not desire citizenship. So, it would be curious indeed to force citizenship on someone who does not want it.

What about the Dreamers? I personally don't want them to get the right to vote (nor to import their entire family), but I also don't think either party is going to deport them. Will the House carve out citizenship for them? I think that would be a classic slippery-slope mistake. I am not 100% at ease with legalization-only of the Dreamers either, (but what is a realistic political alternative, given that the GOP has a record of disgraceful cowardice?) because once they get legalized by law, I foresee rogue judges, EOs, bureaucrats, etc. helping them to get from 3rd base to home plate.

Gowdy continues: You would agree with me you should have a different level of scrutiny for a child who's been here for 10 years and was brought through no will or no action of his or her own, as opposed to a 30-year-old who's been here for three weeks. You would not want the same scrutiny or the same level of analysis for those two groups.

The statement you quoted, which sounds a little weasely when read alone, should be read in the context of the entire transcript. And Gowdy, if he wants keep the loyalty of the conservative base, should watch what he says on TV.

I should have added another thing I don't like about the House's immigration plan: The notion that as long as the law has better border security, we all live happily ever after. Gowdy said in your quote, "But whether border security is a condition precedent, which it would be in my case, is a very important distinction.

Note Gowdy has been fighting with Napolitano, Holder, etc. because they choose what parts of the law to enforce. What's wrong with this picture?

Sorry about the long post. I have more ideas but I will stop here.