Again, you're changing your tune with each post, each time throwing out an inflammatory attack or inaccurate analogy. Byrd has little to with this, and his name was only brought up by quimby(post #4) in the absence of anything better to say, apparently. Sure, Byrd gave a speech yesterday saying he was against 245(i) at this time. Sure, Byrd is a porkmaster and was already holding up the (good) border security bill before this 245(i) fiasco appeared. Are we all automatically wrong now?
Do you have any reasoned statement to make in favor of 245(i), or unsecured borders, or mass immigration, or having more than 10 million unauthorized foreign nationals in the US, or the other factual issues raised in this thread?
Yes because 245(i) let's people caught up in INS ineptness get greencards. An amount of near 200,000 people. It is not a blanket amnesty.
We had 96 months of Clinton ineptness at the INS and it has to be fixed and it seems Byrd doesn't want that to happen.
Also the President wants to secure the borders, but not to the point where we cut off all economic ties with our second biggest trading partner Mexico. Like it or not we share a 2000 mile border with Mexico and they will always be there to deal with. I know you wish that Mexico would just go away, but they are not.
As for the unauthorized 10,000,000 people in this country, the vast majority do menial but yet needed jobs and yes jobs most Americans won't do.
They do help the economy.
Byrd just want to make sure that he gets enough "BorderPatrol guard" jobs in West Virginia and that they get their fair share or more of border stations and fence. Why should California and Arizona get more Border Patrol than West Virginia? LOL. He probably wants the revamped INS headquartered in WV.