I thought the article was clear.
Supporters of the bill are saying publically that criminals wont be allowed to be granted amnesty.
where as the bill allows the government to ignore any number of crimes committed by illegals, to grant them amnesty from both.
Its not automatic. But why even grant that power?
My questions is if the power is even granted to waive the punishment for assault, or is this simply a conflation? One quote from the article that is used as a 'basis' for what's happening:
the bottom line is an immigrant could have more than three misdemeanor convictions in his background check and still qualify for legalization.
Does not imply that the punishment for the actual assault is waved.
In addition, the chart appears to state that the crime can be waived for determining RPI status:
Eligible for crime to be waived for RPI status
But again that's not the same thing as waiving the crime.
I'd be interested to read the actual text that says granting RPI status waives the responsibility for those crimes.
By way of example, if someone proposed a bill that waived certain felonies for determining voter eligibility, that is not the same thing as saying those who vote are exonerated for committing those crimes.