My "point" is that you are not "putting it in context of the reality of today" (if you don't like the word "attack") for those who ARE on your side but also point out that no bill is better than a bad bill. Get it now?
The reality of today is that we need a bill even if that bill only states that enforcment of laws currently on the books HAVE to be enforced.
What you miss is that they have a very different position than you do and are not happy with status quo as you are. This means they have a totally different reason for not wanting a bill than you do.
Law breaking goes on today at our border an across the nation by those illegals working. You like it that way and you call it an attack when I inject the rule of law.
It is your position stick to it. In a nutshell, your opposition to the house bill is opposition to enforcing the law. Deal with your own position.
OR
Offer up how you would prosecute the illegal act of entering this nation without permission and obtaining work when not qualifying to do so.
You would not prosecute them for coming here in fact you would reward them. You would not prosecute employers either. Care to post where I am wrong by showing us all what your prosecution for law breaking would be? I would love to see it.