Actually, I was expecting the President to protect the borders and uphold our laws, or something like that.
When he doesn't, it's disappointing.
In any case, I'm pleased that you're in the "Amnesty Non-Denial" column.
1. Those who are angry consider any amnesty, for even 200,000 people (and those numbers are if ALL apply and are accepted) a betrayal, because somehow they expected that President Bush would do NOTHING to help these people, even though Bush said so repeatedly.
2. Robert Byrd is now on our side because he is blocking this bill, never mind that the major portion of it involves SECURING THE BORDERS to cut down on FUTURE illegal immigration.
3. Byrd also blocked the FIRST bill that the House passed, even though it did NOT contain the 245(i) extension, but that isn't important, since what really counts is that we not be merciful to any illegal immigrants, no matter how they wound up being illegal (as in bureaucratic snafus).
4. President Bush is at fault for not reforming the INS and firing people, even though in order to do both he must have Congressional action, which is blocked by the hero Robert Byrd.
5. Despite strengthening the military, lowering our taxes, rolling back Clintonian EO's, appointing a stellar cabinet, conducting himself with honor, and generally leading the country better than anyone, even his supporters, could hope, because of this ONE clause in a bill that will be nice to some unfortunate people who are trying to make a better life and contribute to our country, certain people will vote for a third party or a democrat (same difference) because the MOST important thing is NOT any other issue, or the sum total of the presidency, but rather whether or not we can be totally inflexible and hard-nosed to every single person with illegal status, especially Mexicans.
Actually, I was expecting the President to protect the borders and uphold our laws, or something like that.
When he doesn't, it's disappointing.
In any case, I'm pleased that you're in the "Amnesty Non-Denial" column.
I don't know how you can read this extention, with all of it's loopholes, and come to the conclusion that it's targeted at anyone. That's all in your own mind. Stop listening to the con artists in this adminstration and read it for yourself. A good immigration attorney could probably get Osama Bin Laden a green card under this extension.>sarcasm<
Most of us are fed up. We've seen what happened the last time our government offered the last 'last' amnesty. IT DIDN'T WORK! We don't want to get started down that road, again.
We want the borders sealed and we want to see a serious effort at deportation.
We want the Army Corps of Engineers to build fences where there are none and re-inforce those we already have.
We don't want the border patrol stationed 20 miles from the borders.
We don't want the Mexican military to be able to cross over our borders as many as 60 miles and, as soon as NAFTA is phased in, eventually 200 miles.
That's just for starters.
We want Bush to address our concerns first and not those of Vicente Fox.
Bush has got it all 'bass-ackwards' and he better get it straightened out before election time.
And let me boil it down this way: as someone who has been involved in exactly this process since 1997, I can say with some authority that is categorically and morally wrong for some to enjoy the fruits of American residence at their own whim and fancy (merely due to border geography), while others must (and do) follow the letter of the law for both ethical and practical reasons (e.g., we were taught to respect the law of any nation in which we reside).
You do not seem to understand the ethical implications of allowing some to entirely evade the law, while others must follow it. And it certainly makes a mockery of all those who respect it, no more so than native American citizens.
Canadians have been booted from this country merely for making a mistake regarding our arcane immigration laws. But if one is savvy and brazen enough, he need only hide from the law (such as it is) and wait for the next amnesty.
You say this is intended to "help" only those were were caught in some bureaucratic SNAFU. That shows you do not know how to read INS language.
Frankly I'm getting tired of posting the same old stuff over and over again. But Miss Marple, you are wrong wrong wrong in your interpretation of both the specifics of 245(i) and about the motives of those who would benefit from it.