[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I know that you have been one of the good guys on this issue for years. When so many on this forum defended GWB's amnesty in 2007, you stood with me and others who saw that anyone, including GWB, who claimed to be opposed to leftist policies, but fought to give the leftists more votes and power, is not on our side. You have consistently reminded everyone here that "legal" immigration is s threat to our way of life at least as great as any legalization of the current illegals. This is especially dangerous, because the big GOP money wants to increase, not decrease "legal immigration," and the public is not marching on D. C. to do something about it.

You miss my point. If we are going to get public support behind us, we must educate them on the impact of this bill and call it what it is--amnesty. The other side is using Orwellian tactics to change the meanings of words. And even you, a strong opponent of this bill, seem to believe that amnesty is not a precise term. Do you believe that mere legalization is amnesty? I do.

Although I offered a definition which fits all these treasonous "comprehensive immigration" bills up to now, including the 2013 senate "Chuck Schumer Republican" immigration whopper, by the general meaning of the term "amnesty," that term certainly can be used to describe legalization without any specific written path-to-citizenship in the text of a bill/law. And we do need to think carefully about how we write about whatever immigration bills that are going to materialize in the House.

Let's say that the House brings up a "legalization-only" bill for "Dreamer" children under 18. Although that would be different from all previous major "general amnesty" bills (1986,2006,2007, the current senate bill), which essentially legalized all of the illegals present at the time, we could still call such a bill "amnesty." But if I use that term, I would always add a description of exactly what kind of "amnesty" it is.

And make no mistake, I do not want to see such a bill become law. Yes, I have some compassion, but there are all kinds of unintended, disastrous consequences (e.g. it would announce to 7 billion people that we are going to pass a Dream Act every few years).

Some GOP House members may secretly plan to pass such a bill, assuming it will never become law, getting some credit with the media. Playing with fire.

[kabar]

Let's say that the House brings up a "legalization-only" bill for "Dreamer" children under 18. Although that would be different from all previous major "general amnesty" bills (1986,2006,2007, the current senate bill), which essentially legalized all of the illegals present at the time, we could still call such a bill "amnesty." But if I use that term, I would always add a description of exactly what kind of "amnesty" it is.

Based on the contacts I have, it is virtually a sure thing that the Reps will pass its version of the "Dream Act" that will include immediate legalization--already a fact under Obama with his backdoor amnesty for Dreamers--and a path to citizenship. The majority of Reps have already given up on trying to stop the Dream Act. Obama has already legalized their presence and is issuing them work permits. Trying to walk that back would be a nightmare. The failure of the Reps to scream bloody murder when Obama did it should given you an idea as to where matters now stand.

Some GOP House members may secretly plan to pass such a bill, assuming it will never become law, getting some credit with the media. Playing with fire.

I think the fix is in. We will see the equivalent of the Corker-Hoeven amendment in the House that will give the Reps the cover to vote for it. The GOP wants to please its corporate paymasters and what they want is the expanded guest worker program. The Reps will give up an amnesty to get it.