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.
Well you are getting close to saying that this is not a blanket amnesty and is actually for people who want to keep families together. That is what this really about.
200,000 people mostly by not fault of their own became illegal, such as entering on a valid visa getting married and the beauacracy makes them illegal because their visa ran out.
But knowing you, you will automatically think that the all of these people didn't get married for love but had other ulterior motives.
That is who this bill was trying to help.
That statement is a little hard to reconcile with this statement
President Bush's "No Blanket Amnesty" is a Clintonian promise in spirit, because it's an attempt to conceal his true goal, which is an Amnesty by another name (even more dishonesty) for millions of illegal aliens.
Now maybe you will stop the straw man debating techniques.