That's a false equivalence. It doesn't suggest that their respective CEOs disregard the counsel's input. If it's still relevant to pursue their corporate inter

That's a false equivalence. It doesn't suggest that their respective CEOs disregard the counsel's input. If it's still relevant to pursue their corporate interest in very fresh legislative ground afterwards, that's another thing. While I might be persuaded in general that amendments should be made and the constitution not be static, immigration isn't a new frontier. And in that area, it's not in need of revision.