felony at any time have for admission is affordable so what you're saying is we don't have to go back that the in iran invented mission ordered because the portability is already been determined by twelve twenty eight  designed to make it easier to deport illegal aliens not more difficult and that feeds into the government's argument that the congress is unlikely to create such a substantive change in policy that's at odds with the expressed policy at iraq and to do so in such an been required to inform him of and to give him the opportunity to assert grounds really under that so the government doesn't challenge the the the argument that despite the language of twelve there is no absolute prohibition of or absolute  class of aliens to be subject to administrative removal and there's nothing clearly expressed nothing of that sort that the government can point to so instead of relies on this these theories and then tries to  that would preclude the court from constructor going to legislative history and i think once you look at kind of goofy and you look at the reasons that the that the government advocated for in that case it's possible reasons why the congress did what it did and then of course all the conclusion that saying well it may have been fairer and it may have been smarter and it made them more efficacious to do it in another way we can say the congress was irrational in doing it this way i think the same thing can be said saying that there's a separate requirement after you determine whether somebody has a legal permanent resident or not even if they're not a legal permanent resident you don't go to the next step to determine whether the reportable under twelve twenty seven hundred to a three if they aren't you don't go in for why we're at where we're at now but there's a lot more going on in one thousand nine hundred six the government does not contest the fact that mr hernandez if he had the it i provision which said the section doesn't apply to people who are eligible to vote for discretion really and therefore it's very possible that congress intended to allow people like legal i guess the question would be why would congress do that given what they had been doing up to then they weren't giving anybody more rights to speak out and then i was under pick up illegal immigrants and so you get more but the people hundred sixty it's not just a matter of congress saying there's these people who who have these rights and we're going to narrow the taken away and take them away what happened in ninety six was some people made out better some people may not work and i constitutional analysis but here they are trying to decide who gets what rights on deportation reichl that argument doesn't carry over because why do we expect more just start right at the bat looking at the legislative history trying to figure out what congress wants to do it should start first looking at the language and i think that the language is plain there is no ambiguity there so the only way to govern the court ends up looking at the legislative history is to find out whether the plain language is absurd in that respect i think that it's appropriate to look at taniguchi where the question was granted it wasn't a staffer construction issue but a rational basis issue and if there are rational reasons for permanent residence and they commit an aggravated felony then they should be held to a higher standard and there's a reason to treat them more harshly than people who enter the country illegally again i recognize has supported in taniguchi that it may not have been the rejected the argument that illegal aliens should be categorically exempt from twelve twenty eight and this is another reason might have a good she's not a good fit as an analogy to this case because in this situation if the rationale can who she is