Amnesty? What amnesty? Critics substitute fear for facts

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Opponents of the immigration compromise being hotly debated in the Senate wield the word "amnesty" like a club, as if repeating it over and over constitutes rational argument.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., displays the word prominently on his presidential campaign website and describes amnesty variously as a "travesty" and a "catastrophe." CNN's Lou Dobbs invokes the word so often (six times in the introduction of his Wednesday broadcast alone) you'd think his anchor seat was under imminent threat from border-jumping TV hosts.

Such is the politics of fear, and if it is deplorable, it is also effective.

Although polls show that most Americans support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, the bipartisan immigration bill was in trouble Thursday evening. Never mind that what it offers is not amnesty at all. Never mind either that defeating it - thereby retaining the current system - means that the 12 million illegal entrants already here will stay. It's fear that counts, not reason.

This is what the critics call amnesty:

Over time, illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and fees of more than $9,000 (plus thousands more for each family member). They'd have to prove they're working and have no significant criminal record. They'd have to learn English and American civics. And, if they want legal permanent residence, they'd have to return to their home country to apply for it there. Getting a green card would take at least eight years, citizenship at least 13.

Some amnesty.

In a perfect world, it might be reasonable to say that everyone here illegally should be deported. Law breaking, obviously, cannot be ignored. But if that were possible at all - which is very dubious - the cost would run far into the billions.

And for what?

Most immigrants work hard. They came to make better futures for themselves and their families. They have put down roots and are vital to the American economy. Even small crackdowns produce wails from employers who can't find replacement workers.

Ask detractors to stop braying "amnesty" for a minute and offer an alternative, and the response is too often the sort of non-answer Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave during Tuesday's GOP debate on CNN. Romney proposed "to enforce the law … that was passed in 1986."

Alas, that ship has sailed. It's simply not feasible to go back to start over - or to suddenly make it so difficult for illegals to work here that 12 million people magically self-deport, leaving restaurants, hotels and millions of small businesses with a crippling labor shortage.

And, oh yes, the 1986 legislation included an amnesty - a real one.

The critics should instead focus their efforts on a more legitimate goal: Making sure this reform includes both the means and the funding to keep millions more illegal immigrants from coming. If the federal government follows through aggressively - a big if, given the abject failure of the 1986 bill's enforcement provisions - the nation could get control over its borders and its workplaces.

The time to keep 12 million illegals who are here now out of the country was long ago. Maintaining the status quo is, as Sen. John McCain and others have said, simply a matter of "silent amnesty."

This is the third in an occasional series of editorials about this year's immigration debate. View the previous editorials at blogs.usatoday.com/oped/immigration_editorial.

[Robor007 0]

I have a hard time believing that illegals are going to pay $9K in fines or go back to their country to to get permanent resident status. Also, if they're not going to deport illegals what is to stop them from just continuing with the status quo?

[dalegg 143]

amnesty!

[Dan J 277]

I have a hard time believing that illegals are going to pay $9K in fines or go back to their country to to get permanent resident status. Also, if they're not going to deport illegals what is to stop them from just continuing with the status quo?

Some might be capble of affording that, but most, wont. And they will just keep the status quo.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have a hard time believing that illegals are going to pay $9K in fines or go back to their country to to get permanent resident status. Also, if they're not going to deport illegals what is to stop them from just continuing with the status quo?

Do you know of any reasonable solution? (Deporting them isn't even an option)

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Although polls show that most Americans support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, the bipartisan immigration bill was in trouble Thursday evening. Never mind that what it offers is not amnesty at all. Never mind either that defeating it - thereby retaining the current system - means that the 12 million illegal entrants already here will stay. It's fear that counts, not reason.

most americans? i'd like to know where this report draws that gem from!

Over time, illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and fees of more than $9,000 (plus thousands more for each family member). They'd have to prove they're working and have no significant criminal record. They'd have to learn English and American civics. And, if they want legal permanent residence, they'd have to return to their home country to apply for it there. Getting a green card would take at least eight years, citizenship at least 13.

define significant criminal activity.

Most immigrants work hard. They came to make better futures for themselves and their families. They have put down roots and are vital to the American economy. Even small crackdowns produce wails from employers who can't find replacement workers.

ah yes, that tired phrase. they work hard. a better future. pass the tissue.....

not my problem

Alas, that ship has sailed. It's simply not feasible to go back to start over - or to suddenly make it so difficult for illegals to work here that 12 million people magically self-deport, leaving restaurants, hotels and millions of small businesses with a crippling labor shortage.

it's not that difficult, steven. jack up the fines for employing them. and need i add "hazelton" to this?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

it's not that difficult, steven. jack up the fines for employing them. and need i add "hazelton" to this?

So what do you want us to do with the ones that are here now (as in a realistic solution)?

[natty bumppo 297]

it's not that difficult, steven. jack up the fines for employing them. and need i add "hazelton" to this?

So what do you want us to do with the ones that are here now (as in a realistic solution)?

invite them to cash out and leave.

(take their money and run)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What does "no significant criminal record" even mean when it's just going to be overlooked that many of the illegals have and are committing ID theft, for example? Any American that has comitted the same crime will be held to account for that. And the punishment will be far above that 9K mark, we're discussing here. So, what does "no significant criminal record" really mean under those circumstances? It means nothing. Well, nothing other than the illegals being afforded an amnesty.

We're not even looking to deport those that have already been ordered deported and have since evaded that deportation order. Any American fugitive will be arrested as soon as law enforcement gets a hold of him. But not those fugitives. hey will instead be rewarded with papers and the opportunity to remain here. How that is not an amnesty is way beyond me.

it's not that difficult, steven. jack up the fines for employing them. and need i add "hazelton" to this?

So what do you want us to do with the ones that are here now (as in a realistic solution)?

Enforce labor laws, fine and jail employers of illegals, deport those that you catch in illegal activities and watch the rest leave.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What does "no significant criminal record" even mean when it's just going to be overlooked that many of the illegals have and are committing ID theft, for example? Any American that has comitted the same crime will be held to account for that. And the punishment will be far above that 9K mark, we're discussing here. So, what does "no significant criminal record" really mean under those circumstances? It means nothing. Well, nothing other than the illegals being afforded an amnesty.

We're not even looking to deport those that have already been ordered deported and have since evaded that deportation order. Any American fugitive will be arrested as soon as law enforcement gets a hold of him. But not those fugitives. hey will instead be rewarded with papers and the opportunity to remain here. How that is not an amnesty is way beyond me.

Solutions? Anyone here got a reasonable solution? I'm all ears.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What does "no significant criminal record" even mean when it's just going to be overlooked that many of the illegals have and are committing ID theft, for example? Any American that has comitted the same crime will be held to account for that. And the punishment will be far above that 9K mark, we're discussing here. So, what does "no significant criminal record" really mean under those circumstances? It means nothing. Well, nothing other than the illegals being afforded an amnesty.

We're not even looking to deport those that have already been ordered deported and have since evaded that deportation order. Any American fugitive will be arrested as soon as law enforcement gets a hold of him. But not those fugitives. hey will instead be rewarded with papers and the opportunity to remain here. How that is not an amnesty is way beyond me.

Solutions? Anyone here got a reasonable solution? I'm all ears.

So, you're in agreement that what's proposed is an amnesty?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What does "no significant criminal record" even mean when it's just going to be overlooked that many of the illegals have and are committing ID theft, for example? Any American that has comitted the same crime will be held to account for that. And the punishment will be far above that 9K mark, we're discussing here. So, what does "no significant criminal record" really mean under those circumstances? It means nothing. Well, nothing other than the illegals being afforded an amnesty.

We're not even looking to deport those that have already been ordered deported and have since evaded that deportation order. Any American fugitive will be arrested as soon as law enforcement gets a hold of him. But not those fugitives. hey will instead be rewarded with papers and the opportunity to remain here. How that is not an amnesty is way beyond me.

Solutions? Anyone here got a reasonable solution? I'm all ears.

So, you're in agreement that what's proposed is an amnesty?

I agree with the notion that anything short of letting them stay here is not rational.

Do you think it's rational to be seriously talking about deporting 11 million people?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

What does "no significant criminal record" even mean when it's just going to be overlooked that many of the illegals have and are committing ID theft, for example? Any American that has comitted the same crime will be held to account for that. And the punishment will be far above that 9K mark, we're discussing here. So, what does "no significant criminal record" really mean under those circumstances? It means nothing. Well, nothing other than the illegals being afforded an amnesty.

We're not even looking to deport those that have already been ordered deported and have since evaded that deportation order. Any American fugitive will be arrested as soon as law enforcement gets a hold of him. But not those fugitives. hey will instead be rewarded with papers and the opportunity to remain here. How that is not an amnesty is way beyond me.

Solutions? Anyone here got a reasonable solution? I'm all ears.

So, you're in agreement that what's proposed is an amnesty?

I agree with the notion that anything short of letting them stay here is not rational.

Do you think it's rational to be seriously talking about deporting 11 million people?

steven, if the usa raises the fines on employers to where it's not worth the risk, and also imposes fines are who rent to illegals, this will cut off their money supply. they will self-deport.

eta: i see you lowballed the number here.......not surprising.

Edited June 8, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[natty bumppo 297]

What does "no significant criminal record" even mean when it's just going to be overlooked that many of the illegals have and are committing ID theft, for example? Any American that has comitted the same crime will be held to account for that. And the punishment will be far above that 9K mark, we're discussing here. So, what does "no significant criminal record" really mean under those circumstances? It means nothing. Well, nothing other than the illegals being afforded an amnesty.

We're not even looking to deport those that have already been ordered deported and have since evaded that deportation order. Any American fugitive will be arrested as soon as law enforcement gets a hold of him. But not those fugitives. hey will instead be rewarded with papers and the opportunity to remain here. How that is not an amnesty is way beyond me.

Solutions? Anyone here got a reasonable solution? I'm all ears.

So, you're in agreement that what's proposed is an amnesty?

I agree with the notion that anything short of letting them stay here is not rational.

Do you think it's rational to be seriously talking about deporting 11 million people?

steven, if the usa raises the fines on employers to where it's not worth the risk, and also imposes fines are who rent to illegals, this will cut off their money supply. they will self-deport.

eta: i see you lowballed the number here.......not surprising.

basically make it extremely unattractive to:

hire and illegal

rent to an illegal

sell to an illegal

do business with an illegal

provide medical care (stabilize and send to country of origin for further care)

support in any way an illegal

harbor … etc.

why should the USA … or people like us … support an invader of USA soil.

[homesick_american 1]