Journal pudge's Journal: Amnesty 17
There has not been one immigration proposal that amounts to amnesty.
If you call any of these plans amnesty, you are wrong.
Amnesty is forgiveness and forgetness of an offense. All the proposals call for penalties for illegal immigrants. Therefore, the plans are not amnesty. This is not complicated.
We don't say jaywalkers get amnesty just because we let them go free after paying their fine. We punished them, and it goes on their record, and it is not amnesty. Same too with all of these immigration proposals.
You may disagree that the punishment is severe enough, but that doesn't mean it is amnesty: as long as there is a penalty, then it is not amnesty. You may also disagree that there should be a path to citizenship, but that concept is orthogonal to whether or not there is amnesty.
If we sent you to jail for 10 years for being here illegally, and then upon being released and paying your debt, allowed you to apply for a Green Card like anyone else, and eventually to become a naturalized citizen, would that be "amnesty"? Of course not, because you paid the price for your crime, and it was a severe one, and upon paying that price, you were allowed to do things anyone else was doing. The concepts of amnesty and a path to citizenship are, again, orthogonal.
Update: Also, I was told today that the McCain-Kennedy "amnesty" plan (which is not an amnesty plan) does not limit the number of "guest workers." That's not true. It limits it to 400,000 annually for H-5A visas, and to who has been already here and working for the H-5B visas. So the limit is ( (illegals here and working) + 400,000 ).
You are splitting... (Score:1)
The effect of the proposal I have heard about is a minor slap on the wrist and then rewarding the illegal immigrant. In short, the requirements are to not break any laws (except for illegally crossing the border I guess), hold down a job, and pay $6,000 dollars over the course of 6-12 years. If you can manage that, you basically broke the law and got bounced to the front of the line. Congrats, you win.
The only penalty in this system is $6,000 dollars to the illegal immigrant. But
Re:You are splitting... (Score:1)
Duh. Didn't he say that? He specifically said that you may not agree with the severity, and that his ONLY point was that it was misuse of the word.
What did you think his post was about?
Re:You are splitting... (Score:2)
No, I am not. I am saying a word being used does not mean anything similar to how it is being used by opponents of the proposals. That's not splitting hairs, that's stating a clear fact.
The effect of the proposal I have heard about is a minor slap on the wrist and then rewarding the illegal immigrant.
But, again, that is orthogonal to whether or not this is amnesty.
In short, the requirements are to not break any laws (except for illegally crossing the border I guess), hold down a jo
half a hair in one hand. . . . (Score:1)
So I looked up pardon [reference.com].
Based on your description the immigration proposal would release people from some of the penalties. So at the least you would have to admit it is a partial pardon.
The plan you described doesn't qualify as a pardon under this description because
Re:half a hair in one hand. . . . (Score:2)
No. Read the definition again. You're ignoring the important modifier "general" in "general pardon." "General pardon" and "amnesty" are synonyms, and are a special class of "pardon," so you won't get very far trying to figure out what "pardon" by itself means, and reading that definition into "amnesty."
Sorry to say, but your entire analysis is
Pudge is right (Score:2)
Immigration (Score:2)
By extension I also like the McCain-Kennedy bill.
As for the underlying problem I think we need to go after those who hire illegal aliens _HARD_, as in subject to huge fines and jail time for those who knowingly hire those without the legal right to work in the US. To make "I didn't know" less of a defense, provide some mechanism for employers to easily and quickly check on an employee's right to work in the U
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
it's called nafta. working great eh?
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
In the case of Mexico much more than NAFTA is needed. I read an article in the Economist (I think) a while back that detailed the needed measures, they boiled down to:
1) rule of law
2) reduce corruption
3) further economic liberalization
4) strong monetary policy
Essentially they felt Mexico needed the same reforms that have transformed Ireland and Spain.
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
I am not familiar with what has been done in Ireland and Spain, but Mexico has deep, deep rooted issues that would take a long time to fix. Just do a google news search on Nuevo Laredo.
I see Mexican reform as dealing with the root issue, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, so there needs to
much ado (Score:2)
they should pass some laws against the earth orbiting the sun while they are at it. as long as people can cross the border at will, they will do so and what the government (local or federal) says is really besides the point. that's what really gets me about this. that people think there is some solution to this problem that doesn't inclu
Re:much ado (Score:2)
I agree. While I don't think the "amnesty" policies are amnesty, I am against them until we can demonstrate we can control the border.
Re:much ado (Score:2)
but even if we completed an impeneterable wall on the land border, i can see a great flotilla making its way across the gulf and up the west coast
what is wild here
Re:much ado (Score:2)
Saying we should control the border does not mean it has to be done to perfection. That it cannot be done to perfection has absolutely no logical bearing on whether we should try: we cannot with perfection stop terrorism, petty theft, murder, or any other crime. That doesn't mean we stop doing passport checks, leave our doors unlocked at night, and cross gangste
Re:much ado (Score:2)
It's kind of like the whole argument that the U.S. could have prevailed in Viet Nam if we had gone all in-- rather than always being half in/half out. There is no way to know, what would have happened. I don't think we will ever see the unity necessary to find out if denying physical acces
we need more amnesty (Score:2)
Re:we need more amnesty (Score:2)
Considering illegal immigrants are COSTING us tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars a year in social programs, and millions of them do NOT do sufficient work to pay for themselves and their families, I cannot agree.