I've been contemplating the linguistic gymnastics that the Gang of Eight has used — not only to describe their massive, 800-plus page immigration bill as "stringent but fair", but also within the bill itself. They (the gymnastics) are a wonder to behold.
First, consider this: To be entitled to apply for what is euphemistically entitled "Registered Provisional Immigrant Status", an illegal alien need only have been in the United States since December 31, 2011. At the moment I'm writing this in mid-April, that's less than 18 months! A year-and-a-half. What happened to all of that hoo-haw I read and listened to in the media from interest groups about how the average time that all of these poor folks needing to legalize had been in the United States was 10 years? So we're going to seal the border and prove we're serious by granting legal status to people who slipped in within the last 18 months? Uh huh.
Second, consider this: To apply, you have to prove your continuous physical presence (CPP) in the United States since entry — except when you don't. There's an "exceptions" provision that hurriedly follows the CPP requirement that tells us that departures of less than 180 days (six months) don't constitute breaks in physical presence, provided that they're "brief, casual, and innocent". So, let's see here, 17 months divided by six months —aha! That's tough. Tough! Tough! Tough! At this moment, you could have been outside the United States more than one third of the time since your entry and still be eligible to apply.
Finally, there's that pesky little phrase "brief, casual, and innocent" that needs to be disposed of, lest it constitute an inconvenience to potential applicants. Got it! Let's add a second clause to the exceptions provision: "An alien who departed from the United States after December 31, 2011, will not be considered to have failed to maintain continuous presence in the United States if the alien's absences from the United States are brief, casual, and innocent whether or not such absences were authorized by the Secretary [of Homeland Security]." (emphasis added)
Here's the thing: I find it difficult to conceive of any absence from the United States that was not legally authorized, as being "brief, casual, and innocent". The juxtaposition of the two phrases — "brief, casual, and innocent" vs. "whether or not such absences were authorized" — makes my head spin and my eyes roll back, because the only way an alien could have reentered the United States, if his departure had not been authorized, was illegally. What could possibly be brief, casual, or innocent about that?
This little peek under the covers of the bill, ladies and gentlemen, shows you just one of the many ways in which the bill's framers reveal their true disregard for immigration law enforcement, and their complete indifference toward changing the culture of alien lawbreakers to one of compliance and respect for the nation's immigration laws.
Stringent? Pulleez. I don't know whether I'm more irritated by the Gang's presumption of my fundamental stupidity or their brazen manipulations of the English language to stand logic on its head.