The definition of the word "amnesty" is critical to any discussion of these bills. Poll after poll show that the American people are against amnesty. Hence, it is the reason that McCain claimed in 2007 that his bill was not an amnesty and now Rubio and Paul Ryan are claiming that their bill is not amnesty. Words have meanings and the other side understands that if they can fool the public, they will win the battle.
I don't believe the word "amnesty" by itself has the precision other terms do.
The only reason it lacks precision is due to the other side trying to change its meaning. They are stealing the lexicon used to discuss the issue, e.g., illegal aliens are undocumented workers.
That's what they claimed, but you and I know their claim was pure sophistry. Indeed,the 2007 bill conformed to the definition of "amnesty" I proposed, because it created an explicit special path-to-citizenship for illegals.
The 1986 bill, the 2006 Hagel-Martinez bill (which passed the Senate,) the 2007 MecCain-Kennedy bill, and the 2013 McRubio-Schumer bill are all amnesty bills.
Definition: Amnesty, from the same Greek root as "amnesia," forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien's illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.
I do not see any point on which I disagree with you about policy goals, but I am not confident the US public has the will to do the right thing. Please learn to stop insisting on arguing with people who agree with you.
You miss my point. If we are going to get public support behind us, we must educate them on the impact of this bill and call it what it is--amnesty. The other side is using Orwellian tactics to change the meanings of words. And even you, a strong opponent of this bill, seem to believe that amnesty is not a precise term. Do you believe that mere legalization is amnesty? I do.
In 2007, the word "Amnesty" was also a kind of political buzzword we used as a weapon against the bill. I would have no objection to using it to describe plans without an explicit path-to-citizenship, although in my judgment, an immigration bill with such a direct, explicit citizenship provision is more dangerous than one without one.
And sadly, such is the evolution of such thinking even among ourselves. The word amnesty was indeed used as a "weapon" against the McCain-Kennedy bill because that is exactly what it was. If you recall McCain claimed that it was not an amnesty because you had to pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line. The McRubio-Schumer bill is just old wine in new bottles. If you read both bills, you will discover remarkable similarities and wording.
The McCain "Z" visa becomes the McRubio "RPI" visa, which essentially gives everyone amnesty. Under the "Z" visa, they were going to take two years to process the application with background checks, etc. and put the lawbreakers on a path to citizenship. McRubio uses the RPI visa, which is renewable, as the same kind of vehicle. But it even goes further in that someone could choose to stay here indefinitely under the RPI visa. They would be given work permits, allowed to travel freely to and from this country, and sponsor their dependents and relatives to join them. This is amnesty.
Obama has said he will not approve any bill that does not allow for a path to citizenship. It remains to be seen if he will hold to that if Congress approves an amnesty bill that does not include that provision. Either way the Dems win. If fact, they have already won with the passage in the Senate. It puts pressure on the GOP House and gives them an issue for the 2014 midterms--win or lose. The Reps are throwing a life preserver to the beleaguered Obama. And if Congress passes "comprehensive immigration reform," Obama will have truly transformed America coupled with Obamacare. And with or without amnesty, the Dems will be the permanent majority party if we continue to our current immigration policies. Amnesty just hastens the process.
You miss my point. If we are going to get public support behind us, we must educate them on the impact of this bill and call it what it is--amnesty. The other side is using Orwellian tactics to change the meanings of words. And even you, a strong opponent of this bill, seem to believe that amnesty is not a precise term. Do you believe that mere legalization is amnesty? I do.
Although I offered a definition which fits all these treasonous "comprehensive immigration" bills up to now, including the 2013 senate "Chuck Schumer Republican" immigration whopper, by the general meaning of the term "amnesty," that term certainly can be used to describe legalization without any specific written path-to-citizenship in the text of a bill/law. And we do need to think carefully about how we write about whatever immigration bills that are going to materialize in the House.
Let's say that the House brings up a "legalization-only" bill for "Dreamer" children under 18. Although that would be different from all previous major "general amnesty" bills (1986,2006,2007, the current senate bill), which essentially legalized all of the illegals present at the time, we could still call such a bill "amnesty." But if I use that term, I would always add a description of exactly what kind of "amnesty" it is.
And make no mistake, I do not want to see such a bill become law. Yes, I have some compassion, but there are all kinds of unintended, disastrous consequences (e.g. it would announce to 7 billion people that we are going to pass a Dream Act every few years).
Some GOP House members may secretly plan to pass such a bill, assuming it will never become law, getting some credit with the media. Playing with fire.