Replies

What I don't see is the difference between what you said and what I said.

Your unfamiliarity with the terrain of truth and logic is not my problem.
"Changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status" is not equivalent to "provide a mechanism for new Illegals to change status where none currently exists."
Your statement requires an existing mechanism to be changed. Mine does not, as none exists.
Your statement was a misrepresentation.

"New" illegals? It reads that they must already be here. Then, another one of your "misrepresentations": the mechanism is already there, the difference is that without 245(i) they would have to return home to apply, with 245(i) they don't have to.

By "new Illegals" I was attempting to distinguish Illegals that would be eligible for a new 245(i) extension from those who had qualified under it's earlier incarnation. Sorry that wasn't more clear.
As for "the mechanism is already there," that Illegals can sneak back out of the country and stand in line like everyone else is not a mechanism for them to "change status," it's the only way they can get away with having been here Illegally in the first place.
Your position is like saying that an Amnesty for bank robbers is equivalent to a bank robber successfully laundering his loot and evading arrest.

No, I simply stated that a number of illegals would be documented, and then could be found.

To paraphrase your own words from above:
"What you don't see is that on this occasion there actually is no difference between what you said and what I said."
You were attempting at #951 and #979 to represent an extension of the 245(i) Amnesty for Illegals as a means of setting up deportations.
245(i) is an Amnesty, which you've denied, not a springboard to deportation, which you've attempted to affirm.
Unless you can get this thread deleted, you're stuck with that.

I know that this will ruin your visions of jack-booted thugs kicking in shanty-town doors in the middle of the night, and dragging illegals out, but not every daydream becomes reality.

Well, you've invoked the stormtrooper strawman, can the race card be far behind?
Pathetic.

"Your position is like saying that an Amnesty for bank robbers is equivalent to a bank robber successfully laundering his loot and evading arrest."

Bad analogy Garfield, that's not what I'm saying at all. Now let's see if I can do this using words with no more than three syllables so that you will understand your fallacy.

The bank robber (illegal) gets a trial (hearing) to find out if he's guilty or not guilty.

The illegal gets a hearing (trial) to find out if he can stay or has to go.

No one evades anything. Only in your mind.

Gotta go, but I will be back later...we're not done.