GWB and Mccain swore that their amnesty plan was not amnesty because they pay a fine and ‘back taxes’, but they were clearly amnesty plans, and they claimed it put them in the back, when it put them in front.. They just made up their own definitions to suit their arguments.
Just being in the US puts them in the front of the line in some ways (’we cant deport them all’).
So my comment/question stands, exactly where do they draw the line?
I am not opposed to evrerything like many here are, but I am very against giving illegals the vote to vote Dem.
This isn't about the vote but legalization of status, which gives the lawbreakers everything but the vote. It is an amnesty pure and simple. And there is no way the courts would ever uphold two different classes of legal permanent residents, i.e., one with a path to citizenship and one without. They will get the vote eventually.
Politically how does this help the Reps? The Dems will benefit even if there was an attempt to withhold voting rights. The Dems will just use it as ammo against the Reps politically. The next step would be pushing for a path to citizenship citing the fact that the new legalized residents must pay income and payroll taxes, be eligible for the draft, etc. It is a loser politically.
Let's not focus on voting as the central issue. It should be legalizing their status. And let's get real about legal immigration. Every ten years we have what amounts to an amnesty. With 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ENTERING ANNUALLY, they will be able to vote eventually and two thirds of them will vote Dem. Illegal immigration is the shiny little bauble that distracts us from the real game changer--legal immigration. The status quo will make the Dems the permanent majority party. Amnesty just hastens the process.