Do you just have a collection of stock responses you roll out on this issue, regardless of what that the other person actually said? Because your post makes no sense in the context of what I've written repeatedly. Please point me to the post where I demonstrated that I was "more concerned with the feelings/circumstances of millions of illegal aliens." For that matter, please point me to where in my posts I demonstrated any concern for their feelings. My point has never been about the feelings or circumstances of illegals. I've never mentioned that, and really don't care about it.
My point along has been that getting a perfect immigration bill through Congress is not possible, so we've got to look at compromises that improve the status quo. And if a border enforcement mechanism can't get through without some form of amnesty, I'd rather take half a loaf than no loaf at all.
And you're still making no sense with respect to your own ideas. Apparantly, according to your last post, you think we should just enforce the laws now in place. Yet, you've already claimed in prior posts that the government will never do that. So if you believe the government isn't ever going to enforce the laws, and your position on this is stuck at "enforce the laws", you're contradicting yourself big-time.
So then, according to your point of view, amnesty ad nauseum, every 15 or so years must continue.
How is agreeing to continuation of amnesty a compromise when that is exactly what have been COMPOUNDING the problem?
I will never support amnesty. NO COMPROMISE.