[Dane]

"But it's not a BLANKET AMNESTY..."

And it's not, it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families, but you go ahead and blather on what you think it is. But that does not matter your hero in a pointy white sheet and anti-impeachment, Robert Byrd has come to your rescue.

BTW, he is also holding up needed changes and reforms in border security.

I also wonder if your new hero(grand wizard Byrd) will support the Attorney General having the right to fire anybody in the INS for incompetance. Currently he can't, because of people like Byrd.

[Sabertooth]

And it's not, it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families, but you go ahead and blather on what you think it is. But that does not matter your hero in a pointy white sheet and anti-impeachment, Robert Byrd has come to your rescue.

You know I've never said it's a blanket amnesty, all of your straw man arguments nothwithstanding.

But it appears you're finally getting close to admitting that it's a mini-Amnesty for those 200,000. That's encouraging.

BTW, where have I ever said Robert Byrd was my hero?

BTW, he is also holding up needed changes and reforms in border security.

Perhaps Bush shouldn't have tried to use Homeland Secuirity as a Trojan Horse for his 245(i) Amnesty.

Rather underhanded politics, when you consider that the 245(i) mods are now too controversial to pass on their own.

I also wonder if your new hero(grand wizard Byrd) will support the Attorney General having the right to fire anybody in the INS for incompetance. Currently he can't, because

Interesting Guilt by (False) Association fallacy, Dane.

I've not said a word about Senator Byrd.

As for Federal Employees, I'd lve to see their Unions broken so that they could be fired at will.

[angkor]

it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families

So it's "for the families" eh? And there are on "200,000 people"?

I don't know where you get this information, but it is flatly wrong in the former, and dubious in the latter.

The legislation clearly states that if you can establish that you had a family relationship (e.g., marriage or anchor children) before August 2001, you are eligible, assuming a resident immigrant or citizen will sponsor you. But if you can find any citizen or resident immigrant who will simply assert that you were working for them prior to August 2001, and will sponsor you, then you also are eligible.

So obviously there is a non-family component to this amnesty which is quite huge, and you are clearly wrong on the facts. It is directed at employees as well as "families."

Your second assertion that the aggregate numbers are only 200,000 is based on precisely nothing, a wild guess pulled right out of thin air. I say the actual eligibility numbers are 10 percent of the illegal alien population, so it's more like 800,000 to 1.2 million.

Find a way to dispute those numbers. You sure won't get them from any reputable source on the illegal alien population.

[Mike Johnson]

...it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families...

Needless to say, I have questions:

1) So the illegals who took advangage of the last amnesty are now entitled to bring in all their siblings? And you think this is a good idea?

2)What is the source of the figure 200,000? How do you know it won't be 2,000,000?

3)Why do you think it's a good idea to reward people who have violated our immigration laws by giving an amnesty, full or partial, for any reason?

[Consort]

It seems to be more of a serape amnesty then a blanket amnesty because it covers less people.

[RickyJ]

And it's not, it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families...

Baloney! Go read the bill for crying out loud!

Bushbots are just like the Clinton whores. UNBELIEVABLE!

[Tauzero]

"'But it's not a BLANKET AMNESTY...'

And it's not, it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families"

Ah, well, the intents or directions of laws are frequently quite different from their actual effects.

[Joe Hadenuf]

And it's not, it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families,

Where did you get this figure? Specifically? I cannot find your source.

[Travelgirl]

I also wonder if your new hero(grand wizard Byrd) will support the Attorney General having the right to fire anybody in the INS for incompetance. Currently he can't, because of people like Byrd

I don't know how you got byrd was his hero. I can't stand byrd, but I hope he does one thing right and stops this. Like hitley said, they can't do things (mass amnesty) (the country won't stand for it). They have to do it in baby steps. Do you really think it will stop at 200,000?

[Marine Inspector]

BTW, he is also holding up needed changes and reforms in border security.

I also wonder if your new hero(grand wizard Byrd) will support the Attorney General having the right to fire anybody in the INS for incompetance. Currently he can't, because of people like Byrd.

I really hate to come back from vacation and agree with you, but on this point I do. Byrd is an idiot, and the border security section of this bill, H.R. 1885, would have passed before the new year, if it was not for Byrd.

On another topic, if you lump salary and benefits together then yes, tax dollars are used. No tax dollars are used in my salary, but they do pay for the benefits of the job. To me it‘s apples and oranges, but I can see how others may think they are the same.