Replies

Some more misrepresentation of facts from you.

245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status, and while it is true that while their applications are being reviewed they are not deportable, it neither guarantees a hearing, nor does it guarantee a change in status.

The misrepresentations are yours.
As it stands, Section 245(i) is sunsetted, expired, defunct, dead, inoperable, no more, kaput, taking a dirt nap, a regulatory null set... no new Illegals currently are eligible for "change of status" under 245(i) because it is no longer the the law of the land.
Reactivating 245(i) would provide a mechanism for new Illegals to change status where none currently exists.

Hence, once the determination has been made that they do not qualify either for a hearing, or for permanent change in status, they are very, very deportable.

So, you're suggesting that extending 245(i) is a part of a clever bait and switch operation to look like Amnesty but actually set the stage for deportations?
Please, go on... show me how many Illegals changed status under Clinton's first round of 245(i) Amnesties and how many were deported in the resultant dragnet.
BTW, you're aware that INS Director James Ziglar has said that there will be no mass deportations of Illegals, are you not? Is that all part of the Section 245(i) subterfuge to lull ineligible Illegals into telling us where to find them?
Laughable.

"245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status..."---I said that.

"The misrepresentations are yours...Reactivating 245(i) would provide a mechanism for new Illegals to change status where none currently exist."---You said that.

What I don't see is the difference between what you said and what I said.
"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.
"So, you're suggesting that extending 245(i) is a part of a clever bait and switch operation to look like Amnesty but actually set the stage for deportations?"
No, I simply stated that a number of illegals would be documented, and then could be found.
Being turned down for either a hearing or change of statute means that you no longer can stay on the country, and will be deported. And yes, I am aware of Zieglar's statement, and he's probably right. I don't see us rounding up hundreds of thousands illegals and shipping them out of here in one fell swoop, the courts couldn't handle that.
It will happen in a more measured manner.
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.

Let's look at it another way. If 245i is reactivated, with no changes to it's present terms and conditions, which illegals, out of the millions and millions of illegal aliens in our country, wouldn't be eligible to apply?

Answer: Almost none.

Which illegals that applied, out of all of the millions and millions of illegal aliens in our country, to remain in the USA, under a reactivated 245i, would be allowed to?

Answer: Almost all.

It's an amnesty.