What could the following mean?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-outlook16apr16,1,6553805.column?coll=la-headlines-politics
(...)
So as House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) prepared his border security bill last year, the Justice Department asked him to include a provision making unlawful presence in the U.S. a crime. Sensenbrenner, on the House floor in December, said the idea came from the Bush administration, and an administration official last week, speaking anonymously, confirmed his account.

Both parties agree the administration did not tell Sensenbrenner what sort of crime it believed unlawful presence should be. So Sensenbrenner proposed to make it a felony, subject to a year and a day in prison.

Contrary to the description from Hastert and Frist, Democrats and immigrant groups opposed this proposal from the start. In particular, they charged that the idea advanced a hidden agenda distinct from the argument about equalizing the penalties for overstaying a visa and sneaking across the border.

During the Judiciary Committee debate, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood) pinpointed one of those concerns: By designating all illegal immigrants as criminals, she said, the bill would increase pressure on local law enforcement officials to apprehend them

And that when the Democrats and the Republicans get together to do something both stupid and evil - like this immigration reform aka amnesty - it's called bi-partisanship.

The Dems know that a large percentage of the population is stupid and/or illiterate and that the MSM will let them get away with their lying to them. The more intelligent part of the "hate America" coalition is largely unconcerned with such "ends justify the means" tactics. This case is a reminder of why the late Sam Francis called the Dems "the evil party" and the Reps "the stupid party".