[grimalkin]

I've read 245(i) in its entirety and it is not an "amnesty" bill. It's fine to disagree with the contents of the bill, but at least be honest about what it actually contains... otherwise, with the premise flawed, the debate is useless.

Another aside: voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all isn't helpful. We don't live in an ideal world and one must live with the fact that elected officials cannot possibly please all of us all of the time. The best approach is the realistic one... would you rather have a democrat in office? If yes, then go ahead and do whatever it is you need to do.

[sarcasm]

When is an amnesty not an amnesty? According to many around here it's when Bush proposes it. Clintonian.

[Carry_Okie]

Another aside: voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all isn't helpful.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Republicans start as a third party, or have I flipped my Whig?

[rdb3]

I've read 245(i) in its entirety and it is not an "amnesty" bill.

Thank you! I, too, have read the bill in its entirety and it is indeed NOT an amnesty bill. It truly isn't.

[Howlin]

It's fine to disagree with the contents of the bill, but at least be honest about what it actually contains... otherwise, with the premise flawed, the debate is useless.

On Hardball tonight, Pat Buchanan said that that bill has given amnesty to over 1,000,000 Mexicans. Is that right?