Replies

By defintion, Amnesty is the non-enforcement of a law without changing the law. For example, in a tax amnesty people who are violating tax law are not penalized for late payment if they finally pay within the next 30 days. But the tax law is never changed.

In contrast, if a law is changed so that what was illegal is no longer unlawful, then by definition, that is not amnesty.

For example, it used to be illegal for slaves to runaway. Many abolitionists refused to obey the law and harbored the runaway slaves. Then the law was changed so that there was no slavery. The runaway slaves were no longer in violation of the law even though they had broken the law. The abolitionists who had broken the law by harboring runaway slaves were no longer in violation even though they had broken the law. That was not amnesty. That was a change in law.

What Bush and other immigration sympathizers propose is by definition not amnesty. It is a change in the law that would make, be definition, illegals legal.

One inherent illogical and unsupportable argument of some (but not all) immigration critics is the whole thing about "illegal". A law can be passed to make it legal and voila, the illegal argument evaporates. That leaves those immigration critics stammering in embarrassment and rage because they had a bogus foundation for their argument.

Some (but not all) of those immigration critics who base their argument on "illegal" don't want to admit it. But they are really anti-Hispanic. I've worked in offices where there are illegal Indian immigrant IT workers and illegal Mexican cleaning crew. There is always more antagonism to the cleaning crew than to the IT workers. The terrorists came accross the Canadian border. Fact. My Canadian (non-terrorist) relatives illegally cross into the US all the time without even thinking about it. But the Minutemen are on the Mexican border.

There definitely are some immigration problems. Bush is not properly addressing some of those problems. But the current anti-immigrant rhetoric is dominated, not by the legitimate issues, but by illogic and non-facts that lose the immigration critics credibility.

Good post Let me make some additions

When Bush entered office, immigration reform was on his agenda. Congress agreed to work on it.

Because of 9-11, they took it off the table.

As they got the pressing issues of terrorism and the war squared away, work on immigration reform began.

In late 2003, Agjobs was introduced. In Jan and Feb of 04 much more happened. McCains bill was introduced, Then Cornyns, then the Bush Plan, then Daschle-Hagel, and finally Kennedy-Gutierrez.

Now, over a year later, that is where we still set.

There are two problems. The republicans are split and no one has enough votes to pass anything. Second, the immigration crowd is stirring up dust and many Congressmen are worried about getting re-elected.

Some (but not all) of those immigration critics who base their argument on "illegal" don't want to admit it. But they are really anti-Hispanic.

Maybe they are not anti-Hispanic, per se.

Maybe they are just anti wave-after-wave-after-wave of Hispanics whose first inclination is to ignore the laws of this country.

Maybe they hear the rhetoric of the Reconquista Klan, and they see Hispanic politicians talking about "the last gasp of white America" and the hear other Hispanic politicians standing by their 'El Plan de Aztlan' and their comments about the "brutal gringo invasion", and they know that if any white politician had utter anything similar they would have been hounded perpetually (and rightfully) as a racist, but the Hispanic politicians get a pass.

Maybe they recognize "Brown Supremacists" as being as dangerous as any skinhead, and they see the millions of illegals as, if not a direct part of that plan of Reconquista, certainly as an enabler of it.

RE: "What Bush and other immigration sympathizers propose is by definition not amnesty. It is a change in the law that would make, be definition, illegals legal."

What about the bogus and stolen documents used by them when they were ILLEGAL? Shouldn't citizens' felony document fraud also be dismissed? The 14th Amendment equal protection thingy.

I note that you've reached for the "race" card in another part of your reply. Why is being against ILLEGAL immigration "racist?" There are many Irish ILLEGAL immigrants as exposed by New York state's crack down on drivers licenses. Many went home. Their government attempted to intervene to save the licenses of those ILLEGALs who remain. We take umbrage at that also.

Perhaps the Mexican clearners v. Indian professionals is just a matter of "caste."

One day you will wake up and will be living in an area that is full of illegals overcrowding your schools, not paying income taxes, and receiving government benefits.

Your kids will not be getting a quality education because most of the school is focused on bilingual education and your district has made it clear that bilingual will be the main focus of the district.

When you drive to the store you see businesses flying the Mexican flag out front, or alternating US and Mexican flags.

When your kids want to get summer jobs but have a hard time getting hired since they do not speak Spanish OR there are no jobs available since they are filled with illegals.

I could go on but you can't really get it from a post, you will have to experience it. And you will, it is only a matter of time.