They're calling it amnesty?
(crossposted to my blog at An Experimental Life)
I won't pretend that I have the answer to the illegal immigration problem, nor do I deny that a problem exists, but those who claim that the proposed illegal immigration bill offers amnesty for illegal aliens are way off base.
Here is the definition of amnesty according to The New Oxford American Dictionary:
amnesty |ˈamnistē| noun ( pl. -ties) an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses : an amnesty for political prisoners | the new law granted amnesty to those who illegally left the country. • an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period : a month-long weapons amnesty. verb ( -ties, -tied) [ trans. ] grant an official pardon to : the guerrillas would be amnestied and allowed to return to civilian life. ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek amnēstia ‘forgetfulness.’
The bill that certain members of congress have proposed would require illegal aliens to pay fines, learn English, go back to their country of origin for a year, then apply for a visa. This does not constitute amnesty, and that many of those against the bill who are calling it amnesty either do not know the definition of the word, or are using it to twist truth, inclines me toward the conclusion that the opponents of the bill are not as smart as its supporters, and/or that they are less concerned with facts than with inflammatory rhetoric and soundbites. This, in turn, inclines me toward supporting the bill, as I would assume smart people are more likely to have good answers than, well, stupid ones.
If I get, say, a traffic ticket and am required to either pay a fine or face suspension of my driver's license, is that amnesty? According to the logic of many opponents of the current bill, the answer is yes.
Now, of course, the bill also depends in large part on illegals reprting themselves, but how is that amnesty to those who don't? They're still subject to arrest and deportation if we find them on our own. All reporting themselves does is give them a less severe consequence. This resembles a plea bargain for those who do report themselves more than it does amnesty. You voluntarily admit that you're here illegally, as opposed to waiting to be found out--That is much like getting a lighter sentence if you plead guilty, sometimes to a lesser charge than the initial one. This saves the cost of a trial, etcetera.
I doubt that illegals will be lining up to turn themselves in under the provisions of the bill under discussion, but as I said, I don't necessarily have the solution.
I do, however, know a few things that aren't viable solutions.
On the whole border fence idea--Come on, man. These people have already made a dangerous journey, many of them from countries south of Mexico. A lot of them have dealt with gangs or individuals who specifically prey on those trying to get to the U.S., traveled in some cases thousands of miles, swum or forded rivers, etcetera. But a fence? "Oh, wow... They've got a FENCE! Oh, well... we'll just turn around and go back, then."
There are considerations we should take into account when deciding how to deal with the illegal immigrants already in the U.S. One is that for quite some time we have not been diligent about enforcing existing laws.
To put this into perspective, let's look at another set of laws we have been lax in enforcing--The laws requiring drivers to use their turn signals starting at least one hundred feet before making a turn or changing lanes. These laws have seldom, if ever, been enforced. If we suddenly decided we should begin giving tickets, not just to future offenders, but everyone who committed an infraction against it during the period during which we were not enforcing it, most would consider it unfair. This is, on a smaller scale, what we would be doing by heavily penalizing illegal aliens who entered this country during the period when we were not enforcing immigration law. I'm not saying that we should do nothing about the problem, but in all fairness, there should be some path to citizenship for these people, whether the one currently being debated, or some other path as yet undefined.
There are those who want all illegals rounded up and either put in jail or deported, or both. Let's see... I don't know how much tracking down the estimated twelve million illegals and deporting them would cost, but I've got a pretty good idea that it would be expensive. And imprisonment? We pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for every federal prisoner, and we already have a higher percentage of our population in prisons than any other developed nation (which is an issue unto itself). That's a lot of moolah, and thanks to Dubya's policies, we've already gone from virtually no national debt to the highest level of national debt in our history.
As far as gripes about illegal aliens, some of them are just not well-thought out.
There is an argument that illegal immigrants are taking American jobs. Frankly, illegal immigrants are locked out of most jobs, as they are unable to provide proof of United States citizenship. Instead, they are often severely underpaid day laborers, migrant farm workers, or workers in other fields that pay cash or in some other way pay "under the table." Employers who knowingly hire them are just as guilty, and perhaps more so, than the illegal aliens themselves. They often treat these illegals unfairly, too, knowing that these they dare not appeal to any authority lest they expose themselves to the possibility of deportation.
I do sympathize with all those U.S. citizens whose life's ambition is to be a day-laborer or a migrant farm worker, etcetera, and who feel shut out of these fields. I can't imagine that there are many of these people, though.
There are, of course, those who have stolen identities to gain employment here, but identity theft is already a crime, so sure--Prosecute 'em! Put them in jail and after their sentences are served, deport them and never let them back in again. Do the same with any other illegal guilty of crimes above and beyond coming here illegally.
There are those who protest against even legal immigrants who keep their native language and culture, sometimes only learning the most rudimentary English. Now, I'm all about cultural relativity, and I believe that when living in any country, one should learn the native, official, or dominant language and culture. This can take some time, though.
I practice what I preach here. When I was stationed in Germany, I learned German. Admittedly, my German was not the best in the world, but I did make the effort. Most of my fellow soldiers, though, made no attempt at all to learn either the German language or culture, and this seems to exemplify the predominant attitude of United States citizens in general. While most of those in the developed world speak at least two languages, most Americans speak only English, and expect the rest of the world to learn English in addition to their native tongues, making the "English only" stance on the language issue rather hypocritical. Some have even protested against our national anthem being translated into and sung in Spanish, which is ridiculous. No one is forced to sing it in Spanish, and that some people have done so in no way threatens or replaces the English version.
To continue on the language issue, the United States of America has no official language, and there is a reason for this; after our Revolutionary War against England, there were various movements in favor of one language or another being our "official" language, and a significant number of people felt that it should not be English specifically because of the anti-England sentiment of the time. We could well have ended up a German or French speaking country. We are a nation of immigrants, and although English was the de facto language of the the new nation, our government at the time decided that imposing an official language would be inconsiderate of the various ethnic groups our nation comprised and still comprises.
Admittedly, times have changed since 1776, but I think that looking at our history can give some perspective on both the immigration and language controversies.
As for those who don't want any "damn foreigners" here at all, as I said, we are a nation of immigrants, so unless the anti-foreigner people are Lokota, Cherokee, or some other NA tribe, if they're going to practice what they preach, they need to go back to Europe or Asia or wherever they came from in the first place.
As I stated at the beginning of this essay, I don't pretend to have answers to these problems, but I do tend to support the smarter side of the debates--the side that has bothered to look up the definition of amnesty. Obviously, these are complex issues, and there may not be one simple and fair solution (in fact, I think it's kind of stupid to try to come up with one single bill to cover everything), but to call the currently proposed solution amnesty is ludicrous, and displays the willful ignorance of those doing so.
I won't pretend that I have the answer to the illegal immigration problem, nor do I deny that a problem exists, but those who claim that the proposed illegal immigration bill offers amnesty for illegal aliens are way off base.
Here is the definition of amnesty according to The New Oxford American Dictionary:
amnesty |ˈamnistē| noun ( pl. -ties) an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses : an amnesty for political prisoners | the new law granted amnesty to those who illegally left the country. • an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period : a month-long weapons amnesty. verb ( -ties, -tied) [ trans. ] grant an official pardon to : the guerrillas would be amnestied and allowed to return to civilian life. ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek amnēstia ‘forgetfulness.’
The bill that certain members of congress have proposed would require illegal aliens to pay fines, learn English, go back to their country of origin for a year, then apply for a visa. This does not constitute amnesty, and that many of those against the bill who are calling it amnesty either do not know the definition of the word, or are using it to twist truth, inclines me toward the conclusion that the opponents of the bill are not as smart as its supporters, and/or that they are less concerned with facts than with inflammatory rhetoric and soundbites. This, in turn, inclines me toward supporting the bill, as I would assume smart people are more likely to have good answers than, well, stupid ones.
If I get, say, a traffic ticket and am required to either pay a fine or face suspension of my driver's license, is that amnesty? According to the logic of many opponents of the current bill, the answer is yes.
Now, of course, the bill also depends in large part on illegals reprting themselves, but how is that amnesty to those who don't? They're still subject to arrest and deportation if we find them on our own. All reporting themselves does is give them a less severe consequence. This resembles a plea bargain for those who do report themselves more than it does amnesty. You voluntarily admit that you're here illegally, as opposed to waiting to be found out--That is much like getting a lighter sentence if you plead guilty, sometimes to a lesser charge than the initial one. This saves the cost of a trial, etcetera.
I doubt that illegals will be lining up to turn themselves in under the provisions of the bill under discussion, but as I said, I don't necessarily have the solution.
I do, however, know a few things that aren't viable solutions.
On the whole border fence idea--Come on, man. These people have already made a dangerous journey, many of them from countries south of Mexico. A lot of them have dealt with gangs or individuals who specifically prey on those trying to get to the U.S., traveled in some cases thousands of miles, swum or forded rivers, etcetera. But a fence? "Oh, wow... They've got a FENCE! Oh, well... we'll just turn around and go back, then."
There are considerations we should take into account when deciding how to deal with the illegal immigrants already in the U.S. One is that for quite some time we have not been diligent about enforcing existing laws.
To put this into perspective, let's look at another set of laws we have been lax in enforcing--The laws requiring drivers to use their turn signals starting at least one hundred feet before making a turn or changing lanes. These laws have seldom, if ever, been enforced. If we suddenly decided we should begin giving tickets, not just to future offenders, but everyone who committed an infraction against it during the period during which we were not enforcing it, most would consider it unfair. This is, on a smaller scale, what we would be doing by heavily penalizing illegal aliens who entered this country during the period when we were not enforcing immigration law. I'm not saying that we should do nothing about the problem, but in all fairness, there should be some path to citizenship for these people, whether the one currently being debated, or some other path as yet undefined.
There are those who want all illegals rounded up and either put in jail or deported, or both. Let's see... I don't know how much tracking down the estimated twelve million illegals and deporting them would cost, but I've got a pretty good idea that it would be expensive. And imprisonment? We pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for every federal prisoner, and we already have a higher percentage of our population in prisons than any other developed nation (which is an issue unto itself). That's a lot of moolah, and thanks to Dubya's policies, we've already gone from virtually no national debt to the highest level of national debt in our history.
As far as gripes about illegal aliens, some of them are just not well-thought out.
There is an argument that illegal immigrants are taking American jobs. Frankly, illegal immigrants are locked out of most jobs, as they are unable to provide proof of United States citizenship. Instead, they are often severely underpaid day laborers, migrant farm workers, or workers in other fields that pay cash or in some other way pay "under the table." Employers who knowingly hire them are just as guilty, and perhaps more so, than the illegal aliens themselves. They often treat these illegals unfairly, too, knowing that these they dare not appeal to any authority lest they expose themselves to the possibility of deportation.
I do sympathize with all those U.S. citizens whose life's ambition is to be a day-laborer or a migrant farm worker, etcetera, and who feel shut out of these fields. I can't imagine that there are many of these people, though.
There are, of course, those who have stolen identities to gain employment here, but identity theft is already a crime, so sure--Prosecute 'em! Put them in jail and after their sentences are served, deport them and never let them back in again. Do the same with any other illegal guilty of crimes above and beyond coming here illegally.
There are those who protest against even legal immigrants who keep their native language and culture, sometimes only learning the most rudimentary English. Now, I'm all about cultural relativity, and I believe that when living in any country, one should learn the native, official, or dominant language and culture. This can take some time, though.
I practice what I preach here. When I was stationed in Germany, I learned German. Admittedly, my German was not the best in the world, but I did make the effort. Most of my fellow soldiers, though, made no attempt at all to learn either the German language or culture, and this seems to exemplify the predominant attitude of United States citizens in general. While most of those in the developed world speak at least two languages, most Americans speak only English, and expect the rest of the world to learn English in addition to their native tongues, making the "English only" stance on the language issue rather hypocritical. Some have even protested against our national anthem being translated into and sung in Spanish, which is ridiculous. No one is forced to sing it in Spanish, and that some people have done so in no way threatens or replaces the English version.
To continue on the language issue, the United States of America has no official language, and there is a reason for this; after our Revolutionary War against England, there were various movements in favor of one language or another being our "official" language, and a significant number of people felt that it should not be English specifically because of the anti-England sentiment of the time. We could well have ended up a German or French speaking country. We are a nation of immigrants, and although English was the de facto language of the the new nation, our government at the time decided that imposing an official language would be inconsiderate of the various ethnic groups our nation comprised and still comprises.
Admittedly, times have changed since 1776, but I think that looking at our history can give some perspective on both the immigration and language controversies.
As for those who don't want any "damn foreigners" here at all, as I said, we are a nation of immigrants, so unless the anti-foreigner people are Lokota, Cherokee, or some other NA tribe, if they're going to practice what they preach, they need to go back to Europe or Asia or wherever they came from in the first place.
As I stated at the beginning of this essay, I don't pretend to have answers to these problems, but I do tend to support the smarter side of the debates--the side that has bothered to look up the definition of amnesty. Obviously, these are complex issues, and there may not be one simple and fair solution (in fact, I think it's kind of stupid to try to come up with one single bill to cover everything), but to call the currently proposed solution amnesty is ludicrous, and displays the willful ignorance of those doing so.