Voices of reason on Immigration enforcment?
The NY Times editorial gives some idea of the left's argument in the debate over the immigration bill. Amendments are designed to make "the tortuously drafted compromise meaner, narrower and nastier."
So what does a "particularly noxious amendment from Senator John Cornyn of Texas" do?
Why it's "purpose is to 'close a gaping loophole' that Mr. Cornyn says would allow terrorists, gang members and sex offenders into the country," which will, "destroy it (the bill) by attacking one of its pillars: a path to legal status for an estimated 12 million immigrants."
H'mmm. Doesn't the Times normally tell us what upstanding citizens these immigrants are?
BTW, the expansion of aggravated felonies is probably to cover the 600,000 abscondors who have already been convicted and have fled to avoid sentencing.
Admittedly, I was probably going to vote for Cornyn's reelection anyway, but he has sealed the deal with this amendment. It appears that the major difference between the two sides so far in this debate is that proponents of "immigration reform" engage in name calling while those who want to enforce the law try to salvage that principal.
Barry Casselman gives a good definition of amnesty.
Sen. Cornyn makes his own case. It is worth reading in full.
So what does a "particularly noxious amendment from Senator John Cornyn of Texas" do?
Why it's "purpose is to 'close a gaping loophole' that Mr. Cornyn says would allow terrorists, gang members and sex offenders into the country," which will, "destroy it (the bill) by attacking one of its pillars: a path to legal status for an estimated 12 million immigrants."
H'mmm. Doesn't the Times normally tell us what upstanding citizens these immigrants are?
... Some people who used fake identity papers — a huge portion of the undocumented population — would be disqualified. The amendment would also expand the definition of “aggravated felonies,” an already overbroad category of crimes, to include the act of entering or re-entering the country illegally.Oh no! Could it be the the NY Times wants amnesty for all these offenses? Yes, to the NY Times requiring people to obey the law would be "legislative sabotage."
Even more perversely, the amendment applies retroactively. So people who crossed illegally years ago — even those whose sentences have been suspended — would be subject to the drastic consequences of being declared “aggravated felons.” They would face mandatory detention and deportation under already negligible protections of due process. Under the system Mr. Cornyn wants, someone who comes forward to immigration authorities in good faith and admits using a fake Social Security card could end up not on a path to earned legalization, but arrested and deported, depending on the whims of zealous prosecutors.
...
BTW, the expansion of aggravated felonies is probably to cover the 600,000 abscondors who have already been convicted and have fled to avoid sentencing.
Admittedly, I was probably going to vote for Cornyn's reelection anyway, but he has sealed the deal with this amendment. It appears that the major difference between the two sides so far in this debate is that proponents of "immigration reform" engage in name calling while those who want to enforce the law try to salvage that principal.
Barry Casselman gives a good definition of amnesty.
Sen. Cornyn makes his own case. It is worth reading in full.
Comments
Post a Comment