ChrisWeigant.com

Immigration Reform's Chances

[ Posted Monday, April 22nd, 2013 – 16:51 PDT ]

What are the chances comprehensive immigration reform is actually going to happen this year? Your guess is really as good as mine, since we're only at the beginning of a very long path -- one that leads to Obama's desk, but one that also has a lot of dead-ends and side branchings off to legislative doom. Whether a bill can make it through the Senate and (especially) the Republican-controlled House is a very open question, even without the complications of the Boston Marathon bombers.

I'm not going to directly address the impact the Boston terrorism will have on the immigration debate today, because immigration reform foes will always have plenty of other issues they can bring up in an effort to halt the bill in its tracks. So I don't think the political calculus changes all that much due to Boston, to tell the truth. I could always be wrong about that, but then I could be wrong about any of this stuff.

The first battles over immigration reform will happen in Pat Leahy's Senate committee. The second round of battles will happen on the floor of the Senate. In both cases, there will be attempts to push the bill so far in one direction or another that it becomes impossible to pass with bipartisan support. Bipartisan support will indeed be necessary for any bill to pass, especially after it gets through the Senate.

The "Gang of Eight" bill has already come farther than some skeptics ever thought it would (myself among them, at times, as full disclosure). Democrats have already won an enormous battle both in the legislation and in the world of political messaging, through their insistence on a "path to citizenship." This was a huge concession for Republicans to agree to, and it is now permanently framed as the minimum any bill must achieve. That's a big victory, right at the start, and people should realize how significant a victory it truly is.

This victory was made possible by the 2012 election, of course. Republicans knew they pretty much had to have an immigration bill to support, and so they have already agreed to the path to citizenship before the debate even really starts.

Some Republicans, that is. Others will be looking to ways to make that path to citizenship as long and as hard as possible, and they will do this in various ways. Look for increasingly-impossible "triggers" to be proposed that have to be met before anyone even starts the process of becoming a citizen.

Most of these will likely be voted down in committee, due to the Democrats' edge in the Senate. But there will be some fierce battles on the Senate floor, where pretty much everything is going to require 60 votes to move forward.

Assuming the four Republicans responsible for drafting the bill with Democrats continue to support their own work, and also assuming Democrats hold their votes together, this really means only convincing one more Republican to support the Democrats' position. Also assuming Democrats hang tough, any Republican amendment that doesn't actually improve the bill (rather than attempting to doom it) will likely not pass muster.

These are all very large assumptions, I realize. But I'm feeling optimistic, at least about the Senate. I think that not only will the core legislation remain intact, but that nothing too odious will be attached to it before the final vote. And I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict that the bill won't just pass, it'll pass rather overwhelmingly on that final vote. Many Republicans will fight hard for poison-pill amendments, lose, and then oh-so-reluctantly decide to support the final bill in the end. Remember, all it will take is one additional Republican to support it, and we're already at 60 votes (maybe they should have formed a "Gang of Ten," to avoid this problem?). When the rest of the Republicans realize that the bill's going to pass no matter what, then they're going to have to ask themselves what the whole point of this exercise is for their party in the first place. After getting shellacked among Latino and Asian voters, they're supposed to be painting a happier face on their party's brand, after all. So, given the excuse of "it would've passed anyway," I foresee a whole bunch of Republicans getting on board at the last minute, eager to be perceived as being on the right side of history. The final vote tally will be at least 70 or 75 in favor, and I could even see it higher than 80.

Hey, I warned you I was going out on a limb.

This will put an immense amount of pressure on the House Republicans, and John Boehner in particular. He will not be able to use the stock GOP line "Senate Democrats are trying to ram this down our throats," because with that kind of bipartisan support, he'd look like a fool if he tried to do so.

This is where I get more pessimistic. The House will be forced to act, but they're going to drag their feet as much as possible. My guess as to how this will play out is that at some point in the debate (perhaps when a bill reaches the Senate floor) there will be a "House Republican alternative" bill proposed. This will not achieve anywhere near the goals set out in the Senate, and may not even include a path to citizenship at all. If such a path is actually included, look for the triggers, hurdles, and conditions before it happens to make it all but an impossibility in real life.

The House will move forward with this shell-game bill, but even such a watered-down approach is still going to cause a ferocious intra-party fight. There are many Republicans in the House who would vote right now for "self-deportation" to become official government policy, to put this another way. There are probably even a handful of House Republicans who would stand up and vote for a "send them all home next week" bill, at least until they were presented with a cost estimate for doing so, that is. Such Republican hardliners are not particularly concerned with the party's overall image, and they are not concerned in the slightest over their prospects for re-election back home in their safely-gerrymandered districts. So look for them to rant and rave no matter what immigration reform bill is proposed.

The real question is what Boehner and the House Republican leadership will do in the face of this opposition. Will they denounce the more extremist language that is sure to be uttered? Will they try to convince the hardliners that Republicans will be committing electoral suicide if nothing passes? Will they actively reach out to (gasp!) Nancy Pelosi and try to pass a bill with just enough Republican support to counter the hardliners?

My guess at this point is in the realm of cautious optimism. House Republicans will put together a package that is as "tough" as they can make it without losing all Democratic support whatsoever. This will be seen as a necessity for Boehner, because if he can't move a House bill, he will be under enormous pressure to just introduce the Senate-passed bill intact, on the House floor. He will be under pressure to do so anyway, which he can use to strongarm a few of his fellow Republicans into passing a separate House bill, which he can sell to them as "better than the Senate version."

Although it will cause a deep divide in his own party, I'm betting that Boehner actually pulls off this trick and passes some sort of House bill. Because, by doing so, Boehner's House Republicans will wind up with a lot better bargaining position and a lot more political leverage. If a House bill passes and a Senate bill passes and they don't match, then both pieces of legislation will move to a conference committee.

This is the stage I reserve my deepest pessimism for. Because this is the point where actually passing a bill becomes less important to the politicians (read: Republicans) who are more concerned with "sending a political message" than in "actually fixing a problem." If the House manages to pass a bill, then Boehner can appoint some hardliners to the conference committee, which will all but guarantee that no workable compromise with the Senate can ever be reached.

Republicans, at this point, may figure that it won't matter much politically if the reform effort winds up dying in such a committee. They'll figure that they have inoculated themselves on the issue, and will be able to campaign on "We passed comprehensive immigration reform, but the Democrats killed it!" and it'll do just as much good among Latinos as if Obama actually signs a bill into law.

I am extremely optimistic that a comprehensive immigration bill can pass the Senate, and with overwhelming support. I am a lot less optimistic that any immigration bill whatsoever can pass the House, but I think the chances for passing their own bill (rather than the Senate's) are greater. But I have no idea that, should I be right about those first two steps, any bill will emerge from conference committee. The longer they take to try to hash out some sort of compromise, the closer Congress will get to the 2014 election season. If Republicans think that "we tried our hardest" is going to work for them out on the campaign trail, then I could (sadly) see the whole thing fall apart at the end. I do hope I'm wrong about that last part, I truly do. But, at this juncture, I honestly do see it as a strong possibility.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

38 Comments on “Immigration Reform's Chances”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Immigration reform could be bonanza for Democrats
    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html

    That is solely, completely and unequivocally why Democrats are championing illegal immigrant amnesty..

    The power-mongering is perverse and disgusting..

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,

    What do you think about the idea that supporting this bill could cost Rubio the Republican Primaries come 2015-16 as it will lose him the fanatical lunatic base?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is solely, completely and unequivocally why Democrats are championing illegal immigrant amnesty..

    Where are the moderators around here when you need them? Heh.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where are the moderators around here when you need them? Heh.

    Is there ANY evidence whatsoever that Democrats are taking this action because they genuinely CARE about immigrants??

    None whatsoever...

    Or, put another way...

    Ya'all have absolutely NO problem believing that Republicans are disenfranchising voters to further their own partisan agenda...

    Is it truly such a stretch that Democrats would illegally enfranchise illegal voters for the same reason??

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is it truly such a stretch that Democrats would illegally enfranchise illegal voters for the same reason??

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!

    So, in other words, Democrats are goodness and light and Republicans are evil incarnate...

    "Well, aww right.."
    -Adam Sandler, BILLY MADISON

    :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There you go again, Michale, jumping to the wrong conclusion ...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What do you think about the idea that supporting this bill could cost Rubio the Republican Primaries come 2015-16 as it will lose him the fanatical lunatic base?

    Par for the course? Heh.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    There you go again, Michale, jumping to the wrong conclusion

    By all means, feel free to correct me..

    But when you say that it's too much of a stretch to think that Democrats are as bad as Republicans then, logically, how I summed it up is perfectly accurate..

    Par for the course? Heh.

    Have any of ya'all actually READ the Rubio Immigration plan???

    If so, what exactly is wrong with it??

    Besides it comes from a Republican, I mean...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Why do you think ENFRANCHISING people living and working in America is in the slightest bit comparable to DISENFRANCHISING people living in working in America?

    Franchising is a GOOD thing, almost always; disenfranchising is a BAD thing almost always. To act like they are comparable is ludicrous. You know that the right to vote is a cornerstone of any democracy?

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, Michale

    I haven't enough time, not to mention zero inclination, to correct all your mistaken assertions.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you think ENFRANCHISING people living and working in America is in the slightest bit comparable to DISENFRANCHISING people living in working in America?

    When it's done illegally for the sole purpose of winning an election??

    How is it any different???

    Franchising is a GOOD thing, almost always;

    Really??

    So, you wouldn't have a problem with Republicans rounding up 11 million people from around the world and send them into the voting booth to vote GOP??

    Somehow, I doubt you would accept that so blithely...

    You know that the right to vote is a cornerstone of any democracy?

    Wrong...

    The right for CITIZENS to vote is a cornerstone of any democracy...

    But we are NOT talking about citizens, are we??

    Liz,

    I haven't enough time, not to mention zero inclination, to correct all your mistaken assertions.

    Then I guess they will just have to stand as fact until proven otherwise.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I haven't enough time, not to mention zero inclination, to correct all your mistaken assertions.

    "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the very blanket of freedom that I provide and the QUESTIONS the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just say 'thank you' and go on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. EITHER WAY, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO!!!"
    Colonel Nathan R Jessup
    Commander, Ground Forces
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
    A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    When it's done illegally for the sole purpose of winning an election??

    How is it any different???

    What? How is ENFRANCHISING illegal? That's basically a paradox, I don't think you understand the definition of enfranchising. You seem to think that enfranchising = holding a gun to someone's head and telling them how to vote or something.

    People who live and work in America and contribute meaningfully to society should be allowed to vote. Period. Not allowing them to vote because they might vote against the party you like couldn't be further from democratic than if you just skipped the bullshit and installed a dictator.

    So, you wouldn't have a problem with Republicans rounding up 11 million people from around the world and send them into the voting booth to vote GOP??

    Uhm if they lived in, worked in and contributed to American society not a problem in the slightest. As long as they were given free reigns to vote for whomever they wanted to. This is pretty much how a democracy works lol.

    The right for CITIZENS to vote is a cornerstone of any democracy...

    But we are NOT talking about citizens, are we??

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then what is it? People born in America, who have spent their whole lives in America, who work hard for America, who have served in the military for America, went to school in America etc etc etc. Denying these people - who are effectively US citizens in everything but name - the vote is denying them their right to life in a fair and democratic country.

    To be honest I believe certain Permanent Residents should also have the right to vote in a country they live in and pay taxes in. But that's a whole different argument...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Franchising is a GOOD thing, almost always;

    I bet you would sing a different tune if a couple million redneck American Right Wingers headed up into your neck of the woods and voted for a candidate that you despised and that candidate won..

    I bet you would be singing a different "Enfranchising Is A GOOD Thing" tune then, eh??

    "What kind of city doesn't have a SINGLE gun store!?"
    "Maybe they're Canadian."

    -STARGATE: UNIVERSE

    :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm if they lived in, worked in and contributed to American society not a problem in the slightest.

    Other than that one little minor detail of it being against the law..

    Denying these people - who are effectively US citizens in everything but name - the vote is denying them their right to life in a fair and democratic country.

    Other than the fact that it's against the law...

    If they want so bad the right to vote, let them take steps to do it legally...

    NO ONE can be disenfranchised w/o tacit approval..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also know that, if illegals voted GOP, you would ALSO be singing a different tune..

    But, since we're on the subject, what do you think about Rubio's immigration plan??

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I bet you would sing a different tune if a couple million redneck American Right Wingers headed up into your neck of the woods and voted for a candidate that you despised and that candidate won..

    Lol there is literally no scenario in which enfranchising people is a bad thing. Not one. Democracy is democracy. If someone is fulfilling their obligations to society then that society owes them the chance to partake in democracy.

    If 1m red-necks who are lunatic right-wingers want to vote for a lunatic right-wing party that is their right to do so. I would probably respond by leaving that area not disenfranchising them and trying to oppose the will of the minority on the majority - which is what Republican tactics are trying to do.

    Other than that one little minor detail of it being against the law..

    Right and some people didn't have the choice to obey the law. They were brought to the US illegally by their parents as small children. Can you imagine being told 'you are illegal' through no fault of your own? You grow up, work hard but are denied the basic rights that your peers have. And now one party wants to continue denying you your rights because, rather than change their policies so that they have a message in line with the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY they'd rather just deny a bunch of people the vote and get their minority backed positions through that way.

    Btw Latinos are Catholic, pro-life people. If Republicans weren't such whack-jobs and anti-minority they would do very well in the Latino vote.

    But, since we're on the subject, what do you think about Rubio's immigration plan?

    Haven't really looked at the details. Outline the key points here if you like...

    I only care about immigration as much as the fact people have retarded views and negative connotation towards immigrants. Some of them are sub-consciously based on race. It gives me great pleasure talking with people like this in Canada - after they've done their anti-immigrant rant I point out to them that I am an immigrant. Usually the response is 'you're ok though'. Lol. So it has nothing to do with race but as a white male who speaks English 'I'm ok'. That usually quietens down their anti-immigration ranting considerably ;)

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    If 1m red-necks who are lunatic right-wingers want to vote for a lunatic right-wing party that is their right to do so. I would probably respond by leaving that area not disenfranchising them and trying to oppose the will of the minority on the majority - which is what Republican tactics are trying to do.

    So, you have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a couple million American Rednecks, heading up to your neck of the woods, swaying the election to elect a scumbag politician that you despise and then heading back down to America, laughing their asses off??

    You would have NO PROBLEM with that??

    Com'on, michty! I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night...

    Right and some people didn't have the choice to obey the law.

    Oh yea, always the whiney "poor poor me" excuse..

    So, if someone breaks into your home while you are on vacation, eats all your food, runs up thousands of dollars in utility bills and destroys your house, you would accept, "Sorry, buddy.. I had no choice"...

    Once again.. At night, but not LAST night...

    I only care about immigration as much as the fact people have retarded views and negative connotation towards immigrants.

    WRONG...

    people have very logical and rational connotations towards ILLEGAL immigrants..

    I know you would like to make this argument about something that is noble to fight for, but the simple fact is, this debate is about CRIMINALS. Period..

    No amount of elitest, bleeding heart liberalism will change that ONE fact...

    It gives me great pleasure talking with people like this in Canada - after they've done their anti-immigrant rant I point out to them that I am an immigrant.

    But you are not an ILLEGAL immigrant..

    That one little difference makes ALL the difference...

    That usually quietens down their anti-immigration ranting considerably ;)

    Well, I can't speak to that because I wasn't there..

    All I know is that THIS discussion in the here and now is NOT about immigrants..

    It's about ILLEGAL immigrants. Criminals...

    Period....

    As far as the key details of Rubio's plan..

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/23/immigration-will-continue-to-benefit-all-americans/

    It's FoxNews I know.. But hold your nose and read all about it.. :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    michty6 wrote:

    So, you have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a couple million American Rednecks, heading up to your neck of the woods, swaying the election to elect a scumbag politician that you despise and then heading back down to America, laughing their asses off??

    You would have NO PROBLEM with that??

    Uhm that's a totally different analogy lol. You do realise I mentioned many, many, many times that voting is dependent on someone fulfilling their obligations to society? Immigrants who are living, working and doing this should have the right to vote. No ifs or buts. No candy or nuts.

    So, if someone breaks into your home while you are on vacation, eats all your food, runs up thousands of dollars in utility bills and destroys your house, you would accept, "Sorry, buddy.. I had no choice"...

    Lolol amazing. Again: read my answer. This act is them deliberately choosing to break the law. Being dragged to a country illegally as a child by your parents is NOT deliberately choosing to break the law. To compare the 2 is completely laughable.

    people have very logical and rational connotations towards ILLEGAL immigrants..

    Uhm nope. I hear it all the time. Many people actually don't even differentiate between illegal immigrants and immigrants. Many just see them as people who weren't born here and have come to 'steal our jobs' etc etc. Funnily enough the same people change their tone considerably when I tell them that effectively I am an immigrant stealing their jobs. Strangely enough they don't seem to have a problem with me - a white, male, English speaker - doing this... But naaaah it's nothing to do with race relations ;)

    As far as the key details of Rubio's plan..

    I glanced over the link and it looks like nothing but a puff piece written by Rubio himself. I'm not surprised in the least that Fox would post this. Anything else?

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm that's a totally different analogy lol. </I

    Wrong. It's the EXACT analogy I gave at the beginning..

    You do realise I mentioned many, many, many times that voting is dependent on someone fulfilling their obligations to society?

    And the FIRST obligation that someone must fulfill to society is to OBEY THE LAW...

    Until they fulfill that function, they are criminals.

    Pure and simple...

    . Being dragged to a country illegally as a child by your parents is NOT deliberately choosing to break the law.

    It is when they reach adult hood and continue the crime..

    Uhm nope. I hear it all the time. Many people actually don't even differentiate between illegal immigrants and immigrants.

    Well, then many people are idiots..

    But LOGICAL and RATIONAL people differentiate...

    We are NOT talking about immigrants, no matter how hard you try to change the subject.

    We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.

    Criminals...

    I glanced over the link and it looks like nothing but a puff piece written by Rubio himself. I'm not surprised in the least that Fox would post this. Anything else?

    So, in other words, you don't care about immigrants at all..

    You just want to further your partisan agenda at the expense of immigrants AND Americans..

    Well, I am sure glad you aren't around here to vote.. :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me repeat that, for the cheap seats..

    The FIRST obligation that someone must fulfill to society is to OBEY THE LAW...

    Until they fulfill that function, they are criminals.

    Pure and simple...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol you realise that a parent is a guardian of a child by law so a parent has actual legal authority over a child? So when a parent says we are going to America, the act of the child coming with them IS that child obeying the law.

    So people who entered the country, lived and breathed America and fulfilled all their legal obligations to society should be denied their right to vote when they become an adult only because they were obeying parental guardian laws as a child (like a child would have a choice anyway).

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol you realise that a parent is a guardian of a child by law so a parent has actual legal authority over a child? So when a parent says we are going to America, the act of the child coming with them IS that child obeying the law.

    And when that child turns 18 and is an adult, they are legally responsible for themselves.

    If they continue to violate the law, that is on them..

    They are criminals.. By ANY definition, they are criminals..

    Spare me the bleeding heart.. I have seen too much of the crime and heartache, the brutality and the bloodshed caused by these "children" to really care one whit about them...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And when that child turns 18 and is an adult, they are legally responsible for themselves.

    If they continue to violate the law, that is on them..

    They are criminals.. By ANY definition, they are criminals..

    Absolutely not. Their parents are criminals, sure. That's a no-brainer. But holding children responsible for the criminal actions of their parents is not going to fly with me.

    Spare me the bleeding heart.. I have seen too much of the crime and heartache, the brutality and the bloodshed caused by these "children" to really care one whit about them...

    This is exactly what I talked about before - people either consciously or sub consciously aren't thinking rationally or logically when talking about immigration, they are letting race and their own personal biases impact their views. I think we finally got to the truth as to why you're so opposed to the DREAM Act in this statement.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absolutely not. Their parents are criminals, sure. That's a no-brainer. But holding children responsible for the criminal actions of their parents is not going to fly with me.

    Once they turned 18 and did not voluntarily deport, they became illegal.

    Period..

    No amount of bleeding heart equivocating will change that one simple FACT...

    I'll ignore the rest because it's nothing but emotional bleeding heart felgercarb..

    No matter how much you try, the simple fact is, this isn't about immigrants.. My own step-mother is an immigrant.. Hell, technically speaking, my lovely wife of 32 years is an immigrant..

    This is about criminals..

    PERIOD...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Once they turned 18 and did not voluntarily deport, they became illegal.

    Period..

    So you're saying the act of them turning 18 is a crime?? Wow I'd hate to live under your laws. I wonder what other nonsense you would make a crime...

  28. [28] 
    michty6 wrote:

    17 years, 364 days old = hello, nice to meet you.

    1 day later = GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY YOU CRIMINAL SCUM!

    Lolol amazing.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you're saying the act of them turning 18 is a crime??

    Com'on, michty.. I know for a fact that you are not THIS much of a moron..

    Turning 18 is not illegal..

    But being an illegal adult in this country IS illegal..

    Iddn't it funny how Liberals are all about the rule of law..

    Until it's ideologically inconvenient...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Com'on, michty.. I know for a fact that you are not THIS much of a moron..

    No it is you who is missing the point completely. The point at which the crime occurred was when the kid's parents took them illegally into America. When their foot touched down on the ground.

    The fact they are 16, 17 or 18 has nothing to do with it. Saying that someone becomes a criminal merely by the sun setting on their 6,205th day on the planet is just ridiculously laughable. There is no 'criminal responsibility' for someone to rectify the criminal actions of others.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    No it is you who is missing the point completely. The point at which the crime occurred was when the kid's parents took them illegally into America. When their foot touched down on the ground.

    Wrong..

    The CRIME occurs EVERY DAY that they are in the country illegally..

    Once the kid turns 18 and becomes an adult, the CRIME now belongs to him/her..

    And will continue EVERY DAY that *THEY* are illegally in the country...

    THAT's what YOU don't get...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The CRIME occurs EVERY DAY that they are in the country illegally..

    Once the kid turns 18 and becomes an adult, the CRIME now belongs to him/her..

    And will continue EVERY DAY that *THEY* are illegally in the country...

    THAT's what YOU don't get....

    No, you don't really get basic principles of legal and human rights. Read my last sentence in my previous post again.

    You can't 'pass' a crime on to someone else. The parents committed the crime. A crime can't be inherited from your parents lolol. And you can't commit a crime that has already been committed.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't 'pass' a crime on to someone else. The parents committed the crime. A crime can't be inherited from your parents lolol. And you can't commit a crime that has already been committed.

    You STILL don't get it.

    They are committing the crime by remaining in the United States illegally..

    There is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from leaving the country.

    If they make a CONSCIOUS choice to remain in the United States illegally, THEY are committing the crime..

    You are not an American. You are no where NEAR an LEO... Don't presume to lecture me on what I lived and breathed for decades...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    michty6 wrote:

    True I am sure there is almost certainly personal bias in your opinion but whatever.

    There is absolutely no convincing you that you are looking at this from the wrong view so I give up.

    I presume you support no immigration bill that will keep these evil criminals in the country?

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    True I am sure there is almost certainly personal bias in your opinion but whatever.

    Abso-posi-loutly...

    But it doesn't change the facts..

    There is absolutely no convincing you that you are looking at this from the wrong view so I give up.

    Now that's the first thing you have said that makes sense.. There IS no convincing me..

    Because I have the facts, the law AND a wealth of experience on my side..

    I presume you support no immigration bill that will keep these evil criminals in the country?

    I support the Rubio plan as it puts the onus of responsibility where it belongs.

    On the criminal..

    And it doesn't reward the criminal.

    It PENALIZES the criminal...

    It's justice.. not coddling...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I have no idea what the Rubio plan does but if it makes sure justice is served to these evil criminals who had the audacity to turn 18 in America then I'm all for it...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have no idea what the Rubio plan does

    And yet, you have already commented that you don't like it..

    Ergo, it is as I stated...

    It's a bad plan simply because it's from a Republican...

    I wish I could say I was surprised...

    But I am not...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a bad plan simply because it's from a Republican...

    In other words....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/04/19/ftp254/#comment-35880

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]