My position on what you call amnesty is not much different from that of the Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ editorial board is prone to open-borders zealotry Then again, you'd probably any disagreement from your 18-point plan as Amnesty.
Then again, no. I define Amnesty as legalizing Illegals. Then again, your strawman deflection here is moot anyway, since you've said you favor Amnesty, in so many words. I believe those who have a job and who have committed no crimes other than entering illegally ought to be allowed to remain and tracked into either a bracero program or permanent residence that should not displace those currently going through the process. They should be required to develop proficiency in the English language, and English ought to be the official language of the United States. I'm on record as favoring deportation of criminals, those caught entering with drugs, those who have gone on welfare, or who are believers in Aztlan. I'm open as to the time period for which a partial amnesty would be in effect, and as to the specific details, but I do not think there should be a "deport `em all" policy. Those who have been employed, who are working hard and busting their butts to make it here, ought to be allowed to remain, and go legit.
link
|
