So, we've established a baseline for calling something "amnesty." Good. Now, how is the 1986 amnesty different from the recent proposals? Let's start with what you just mentioned. You mentioned paying fines or fees as something that would not qualify as an amnesty. In fact, the 1986 amnesty required a fee to be paid. So, I guess a proposal that requires a fine or fee to be paid is still an amnesty if you go by the 1986 standard.
What other common factors of the current proposals (that you want to pretend aren't amnesty) would be different from the Amnesty of 1986?
Uhh, the fact that they have to pay back taxes, have to learn English, an then are still not granted automatic citizenship?
Anyhow, I actually take it back if they did have to pay a fine, if you are right about that, I haven't seen that. Technically, that's not an amnesty, although I could see the case being made that it's little different. In this case, you have to warp the word beyond recognition to call Martinez's proposal amnesty, but that's no challenge for Tancrediacs.
But EVEN THAT, I MIGHT be willing to go along with, for the sake of arguement. They lose me when they start calling proposals for more legal immigration Amnesty.