Things that don't match.
So I was reading the CNN Article on "Senate immigration bill suffers crushing defeat", and about 1/2 way through, it had this sentence:"On Wednesday, supporters beat back a number of potentially fatal amendments."
Wait...what? How do they know those amendments would have been worse for the bill than shooting down the amendments and pissing off the amendment sponsors? Or maybe by their very existence, ALL of the amendments were fatal.
The next paragraph says:
"Proponents won a major victory with defeat of an amendment removing the bill's most controversial feature -- a path to legalization and eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country, which critics charge amounts to amnesty."What if removing that amendment would have allowed the rest of the bill to go through. Was that trade off worth it? Or are we saying that the only portion of the bill worth keeping was the path to citizenship?
It was really interesting, at our dinner party the other night, hearing the South Africans talk about how difficult it was for them to take the steps to staying in the country legally. I tend to stick to the "no politics or religion in polite company" rule (blog readers are not polite company!), but I'd love to know their thoughts on having gone through the onerous process of staying legal if this bill had passed and allowed 12 million people to skip around a lot of what they've had to go through.
posted by MyHusbandRules @ 11:59 AM
1 Comments:
Speaking of, I thought the cringe inducing moment of the night was "We've apologized for apartheid enough". I really thought Bono was going to drop from the sky and karate chop his soul.
-the husband.
Post a Comment
<< Home