But if you notice I didn't voice an opinion on that one way or the other.
My point is that if there are only 3 of them who fit this category then that completely contradicts the argument that just legalizing those few destroys this nation. This is where King's arguments break down.
If he really believed that most are drug runners then his position that the A students are to be treated the same as those drug running violent criminals makes no sense,
I have a theory that the reason why King is stating this is he is trying to poison the waters, To re-enforce the argument that Hispanics will never vote GOP, by riling them up against the GOP. He probably has < 3 hispanics in his own district so he has his own water supply.
Where did the theory that "only a few" would be legalized come from? If King specified the qualification criteria, they might be narrow, but RINOs want to make sure they are all legalized, and I think King knows that.
I am very skeptical about "strict" requirements where immigration is concerned.
Consider the arguments of apologists for lower tuition for non-citizens. They will claim that only people who are here legally can apply. But if you read the fine print, it will say they must be here legally OR they will apply for legalization in the future. What is the time limit? 100 years? 1000 years? The policy does not specify.
We don't have a House immigration bill yet, but which do you think is more likely: One that legalizes only high school graduates with As and Bs, or one that legalizes all dreamers? Yes, they may tell us that they "have to go to high school," but I advise extreme caution. More likely tha law would say they "intend to graduate from high school."