This is not how plea bargains work. Under a plea bargain the defendant must cease breaking the law; he isn't given leave to continue violating it.
Frum is in over his head in this discussion by the simple reason that he isn't mentally capable of discerning the difference between an "amnesty" (his word) from a "plea bargain (Bush's plan).
LOL! You've misunderstood most of the mechanics of the Bush plan, which is an amnesty, but you're declaring that David Frum is over his head?
What are your credentials for determining David Frum's mental capabilities, and when did you examine him?
What S meant is that the illegal turns himself in, but then becomes only a guest, a status that at some point must "end." The bargain is that for turning oneself in, one gets to stay awhile longer - legally, but then must leave with the jaws of the law at that point really having teeth, unless one's turn in the queue for a green card has come up. Of course, the reality is that the stay will be until final exit, or retirement to Mexico where the cost of living is lower. S's plea bargain analogy actually has some merit, if one buys into the fig leaf.
No, Bush's plan is NOT President Reagan's 1985 amnesty, or any amnesty, for that matter.
It is a plea bargain. Illegals have to pay a fine. They have to register themselves and their employers. Those aren't the terms of an amnesty, but rather, are the terms of a plea bargain.
Yes, David Frum is in over his head in this discussion. Frum can't discern the difference between an "amnesty" from a "plea bargain."
Such a basic lack of mental acumen rules him out from further consideration.