>Thanks Alex, is very clear now. I thought you were against the idea of having a path to legalize the undocumented.

No.


>Now, this is the only thing I may not agree with you on, it's about the bill that has been killed yesterday, how do you associate it with an amnesty?
>
>I do agree that is a tough call, but sometimes a 'bad' agreement is better than nothing (I used to think the opposite last year when I knew about Kennedy-McCain's bill), being realistic considering the other options.
>
>This law was far from being ideal but in a peculiar way, it was rejected by both parties for opposite reasons, Democrats said it was too harsh, Republicans because it was permissive and a form of amnesty, however it was offering a solution at least, which by the way won't happen in the next 2 years, I just can't imagine what's going to happen until that moment comes, if ever.


Correct. My rejection was more from the indentured-servitude side. Most republicans complained about amnesty. Not so if you make them pay and jump through some hoops. My beef with that portion was they would jump ahead of the line. I know people that have waited legally for years, and paid money to attorneys and to the US Govt for applications that are not being processed. This would have put these people ahead? Why?

From the other side, which the reps did not seem to care much about, is the president's push for a 'guest worker program' as he called it. This part would not have given them permits or path but just let them come in temporarily, be slaves to the farms/factories that got them the permit and still not be able to get dignity, health, social services, pay taxes, competing salaries. These companies would basically do with them as they please under the threat of revoking their temp worker permit and sending them back. We need letal immigration, not indentured-servants.