As other reviewers note, it is very politically loaded with all the leftist P.C. viewpoints prominently featured, and anything contrary not admitted to in the least

For a publication Named Financial Times, to use P.C buzzwords when financial comparisons are more effective for the same argument ... (Noting that energy use to make Ethanol comes from oil or coal should have simply noted that it negated much, if not most or even all, of the energy production benefits)( the two most cited studies take opposing viewpoints, and both are flawed) The whole premise should have been stated in terms of energy cost (in both joules and $) to yields. It is what I would expect from a financial paper, but as that was not the viewpoint, it was not the story angle. The facts got there, but pretty weak as an argument instead of moderately solid as it could have been.

The story lists the PM's position and offers the opposing parties reasons why they dislike his position and want everyone to help overturn it. Nothing about why the PM has taken that position in the first place. Is it that immigrants are more likely to infect unwitting Australians? Or maybe that the costs of care exceed any likely benefit that is likely to accrue from their coming to the land of Oz. Or no more likely to infect, no more costly against the Aussie government supported health care system (ROFLOL) but simply more people possible to infect Austrailian citizens, and more bodies on the Aussie medical dole. This story does not even admit to any possible reason for not wanting more expensive-to-treat HIV ... More »

THe story uses proponents to describe the positions of both sides of the issue. It comes as no surprise that none of the "unintended consequences" are admitted to, and the positions against are misstated to make wonderful "straw men" to knock down. THe few "bones" thrown to opponents are ones that Congress can change their mind about later without altering the amnesty parts. (like the refusal to enforce the laws enacted at the first amnesty back in '86)

When a story cannot even use the proper term of "illegal alien", it is unsurprising that the story reads like the two sponsoring Senators wrote the thing for CNN.

THis story is NOT about the issue. It is about the Politics. That is OK. It would be better if a clearer headline were there, but ... It almost exclusively covers supporters of different intensities, with a shot at Romney at the end. The author carefully parses his definitions to avoid the fact that the rest of the GOP field ranges from opposition to strong opposition, which should logically be part of this story.