We’ve covered the meaning of the word amnesty before, so this isn’t exactly news:

Amnesty(n): An official pardon for people who have been conviced of crimes; an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.

Is reducing the penalty then amnesty? Of course not.

You are right on this:

Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.

This is completely fucked up, and yes is amnesty.

Only requiring them to work three out of five years is amnesty.

Check the word definition again. How does this fit in?

Having no plan to do anything about the people in this country that don’t take the amnesty plan is also amnesty.

No, that’s just incompetence.

Why don’t you quit quibbling on the term used and explain why we should reward those that break our laws with exactly what they broke the laws to achieve. While you’re at it you should explain how that won’t encourage more illegal immigration.

Because word choice really does matter. Amnesty has become a loaded word, and is used inappropriately in order to get a desired “gut punch” reaction.

The words you use affect how the debate gets framed. Or in some cases, word choice can be used to stop any debate, “chickenhawk” is a good choice of that, “amnesty” is quickly becoming another.

I’ve been harping over the misuse of the word “amnesty” because it has become such a loaded word, that it prevents any further dialog. Stopping dialog is not in your interest, unless your views represent those of the overwhelming majority.

As to the rest…I happen to have grave reservations with reducing penalties (technically “clemency,” but that sounds so damned boring doesn’t it?) because of exactly the same problem that you mentioned with encouraging more aliens.

I’ve laid out “my plan” before which is:

1) deny the borders using a defense in depth strategy
2) deny employment to illegals by improving the verification process, eliminate loop holes in existing law that makes it easy for them to work without valid social security numbers,
3) enforce existing laws regarding employers who are blatantly violating the law, while making it easier to catch illegals.

My prediction for the plan that will be settled on:

1) do nothing.
2) see #1.

Carrick: The authorities are taking action; the tax cheats still have to pay, but with a lower interest rate. Some amnesty!

“Throughout this special Amnesty period, which began in October and ends January 31, individuals and businesses have been paying overdue taxes at a reduced interest rate.”

Good title. Your choice of the unfair and politically loaded word “amnesty” makes it completely clear you have absolutely no interest in compromising.

Nor any interest in any real back-and-forth on this issue.

Why then, bother with the posts on this subject?

Carrick: You are technically right, but the “do nothing” part of what I wrote is the reality. That is my point. While we dither about semantics, the illegals are pouring across the border, while the authorities do nothing. We already have immigration laws; we just have to enforce them. It’s an enforcement problem, not a legislative or semantic one. The illegals, not being very proficient in English, can’t appreciate your nuanced approach, and just come in anyway, even though they are not technically getting amnesty. They come here, they get welfare, jobs, medical care, education, so why should they care about shades of meaning?

Under Bush the borders are wide open. He wants them open. They will remain as open as ever.

The little hillbillies will build their fence by volunteer labor and carry their toy guns and puff out their chests; I wouldn’t doubt if they actually shoot someone (God forbid) and there’d be a big public trial, etc., etc.

Bottomline little Repubs:

There are open borders, there will be open borders.

Bush is a Tier One Globalist of the first degree, his Daddy’s Boy, New World Order, thousand points of light.

Get used to it.

No apologies are necessary. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

While business can complain that they can’t check falsified documents, they have no inclination to try very hard

From the Link:

“The system is broken because, from the moment the employers begin the paperwork process, the law places them between a rock and a hard place. That is while one provision punishes them with heavy fines if they fail to sufficiently inspect the documents, another provision makes thtem liable for discrimination if they too vigoursly inspect the documents.”

“The employer may not refuse to “honor documents tendered by the employee that on their face reasonably appears to be genuine….that section of law also prohibits employer retaliation…against an employee….such as dismissing the employee, even if he suspects him to be and illegal alien, and such retaliation…is considered discrimination per se under the law.

They have no inclination to try very hard unless they want to defend themselves against an EEOC lawsuit.

Blaming the employers is merely window dressing when you look at the facts.

Why is it the employer is subject to a huge fine, and not the illegal alien?

Fines like that should be enforced when egregious conduct on the part of the employer is present.

So even-technically I can call the Senate bill Amnesty.

Well, that portion of the legislation, anyway. What a friggin’ crock.

I wouldn’t argue against the word use, even wrong, if it hadn’t become so loaded. It’s not like I argue over FICA versus FICO or any other inconsequential thing like that… 8-/

I would like to see an honest debate, because that is to everybody’s benefit.

Ed Meese on the 1986 Amnesty Plan.

Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.

That would be considered discrimination? So under the law you can be in trouble if you don’t check for illegal alliens? AND, you can get in trouble if you do check?

Escorting a person to the border, also known as “deportation”, is a form of penalty.

allowing them to stay is amnesty.

TW: If the bill passes it doesn’t really matter does it?

Carrick: So much for a principled stand.

Of course my quote was over you quibbling about whether or not we should debate the bill. You seem to want to confuse the issue.

Carrick:

You’re conflating now whether the bill is well written, with whether the quoted provision makes any sense.

Those really are two issues, not one and the same.

I consider the one Senate Bill one issue. If it passes it doesn’t matter about being two issues.

How many people have you hired?

Quite likely more than you have. I’m not making anything up.

If the Dems backed locking down the border and deporting the illegals, they would win in ’06 and ’08 in a walk.

Absolutely correct. This issue can make or break the political parties. Neither side wants to pick it up.

It just seems too easy. Someone could go State to State ripping the American people off it sounds like.

I live in a border town. All of the migrants live across the river in Minnesota. Around here most of the jobs are on the North Dakota side…..

Robert108, the shades of meaning, the stifling of debate, etc. have to do with how we US citizens converse about what is a very important issue. It has a bit to do with what an illegal immigrant perceives it as, but only so far as it may encourage them to cross now.

But my comments have more to do with encouraging you guys to frame your comments in a way which increases their persuasiveness, rather than to start it off with what are de facto shock words.

Fines like that should be enforced when egregious conduct on the part of the employer is present.

It’s not egregious to take a job from a legal resident?

Frankly you don’t know how things work. The bureaucrats that come around don’t care whether or not you hire illegals. They care about whether or not you have done your paperwork right. It won’t matter one little bit whether or not you ever gave a job to someone that wasn’t eligible.

I wouldn’t argue against the word use, even wrong,

Are you mad when they talk about tax amnesty?

TW:

So application fee under the new plan is a “stiff penalty” application fee in 1986 was amnesty. I get it.

You have to pay an application fee if you are a legal immigrant. They were just requiring that the illegal immigrant also pay this application fee.

The $2000 fine is so light in lieu of the fact that they can pay it with US earned money as a permanent resident. In fact their earning ability is going to skyrocket once they sign up that they will be much better off even while paying off the fine.

Well, I’m glad you’re made out of that kind of money.

Carrick: I agree with you that the present conditions of wholesale illegal immigration and looting of our tax money and public institutions is shocking. The language, if it be truthful, will reflect that reality.
I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention “stifling of debate”. What is debatable about the illegal immigrant situation?

Carrick then we’ve misused the word amnesty in nearly every other instance when it’s been used. Most specifically the 1986 “Amnesty” plan.

Every tax “amnesty” plan is mislabeled because you have to pay the tax.

Even Jimmy Carter’s Draft Dodger amnesty had conditions on it if my memory serves correctly.

You can get nitpicky about the word, but I’m using it as it’s be used in the past.

Employer enforcement is part of the solution, but it’s hardly a fix. We’re going to still have a problem with the underground economy, illegals living on welfare. Illegals making a living on crime. Illegals picking up day labor. Off-the-books contractors (lawn maintainence is likely to become illegal-haven).

By the way I don’t know this, but if an employer finds an illegal applying for work under the new law is the government going to remove the illegal? Why is it the employer is subject to a huge fine, and not the illegal alien?

We have to require government employees to do their part. I know that’s tough on them, but it’s got to be done. Didn’t President Bush call it vigilantism when private citizens attempted to enforce our immigration law.

By the way, what are we going to do with illegal aliens that are here but don’t sign up for the bill. How about those that have been here four years and don’t go home. (I’ll bet the Senate Bill Accomplishes nothing.)

One more thing on Amnesty:

Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.

This is completely ****** up, and yes is amnesty.

So even-technically I can call the Senate bill Amnesty.

President Bush is not running in Nov.
HE can afford to be “wrong”.

I’m with you on this one, Whistler.
Why should illegals from Mexico get all the breaks. Increasing legal immigration is the best way to keep the US the great melting pot that it is. Enforcement of our border and our laws should go without saying.

Surrendering to Mexico and giving Mexicans preferential status just because they walked here would be a big mistake. We need engineers from India and China more than we need greenskeepers from Mexico. Who do you think pays more taxes? Who do you think is a bigger burden on government services?

BUT THEY CALLED IT AMNESTY!!!!

I think you’d be hard pressed to find an amnesty law that doesn’t have conditions. I’m only using the word the way it’s used. I think the other side doesn’t want anything to remember the 1986 amnesty debacle as they try to fool us again.

So application fee under the new plan is a “stiff penalty” application fee in 1986 was amnesty. I get it.

Carrick:

after paying at least $3,250 in fines, fees and back taxes and learning English.

The $2000 fine is so light in lieu of the fact that they can pay it with US earned money as a permanent resident. In fact their earning ability is going to skyrocket once they sign up that they will be much better off even while paying off the fine.

TW: Are the tax cheats no streaming across the border into ND? Inquiring minds want to know.

Woof: Still can’t take a personal stand on illegal immigration, eh? You want to make businessmen into unpaid border enforcement agents? How about making the paid border enforcement agents do their jobs? Why don’t you support that?

Lock down the border.
Dry up the welfare.
Dry up the jobs.
Deport the illegals as they are found out.
Encourage as much legal immigration as is beneficial to the US.

See, it’s not hard to stand up for your principles, if you have principles, that is.

Carrick: By your own definition: “…an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.”
That is about the most accurate description of the Senate bill anyone can give. Why do you have a problem with calling it amnesty? Passing a bill without an enforcement provision is what “…take no action…” means, isn’t it? Since they do not now enforce the existing law, why should we believe they will enforce anything? If you want to be nuanced, call it “virtual amnesty” then, but the outcome is the same. We have been living with this in the border states for as least a generation, now, and it’s getting really old.

when you borrow money from people, you generally have to expect to pay interest fees.

Not paying your taxes is not the same as borrowing from a bank.

Actually Carrick it is very much amnesty. Giving the illegals exactly what they want is amnesty.

A small fine that they can pay with money that they earn here is amnesty.

Letting them off the hook for felony identity theft and letting them receive Social Security benefits besides is amnesty.

Letting them pay 3 out of 5 years of back taxes is amnesty.

Only requiring them to work three out of five years is amnesty.

Having no plan to do anything about the people in this country that don’t take the amnesty plan is also amnesty.

I do have a compromise amnesty plan I would support. If they turn themselves in we won’t hold it against them when they try to come here legally.

I wouldn’t call it a compromise if the President is forced to sign a bill the way I would like it. Why does the AP call it a compromise to give the President and the Senate Cabal what they want?

Why don’t you quit quibbling on the term used and explain why we should reward those that break our laws with exactly what they broke the laws to achieve. While you’re at it you should explain how that won’t encourage more illegal immigration.

You’re conflating now whether the bill is well written, with whether the quoted provision makes any sense.

Those really are two issues, not one and the same.

If the bill passes it doesn’t really matter does it?

Under the law if the employee’s documents (drivers license and Social Security card usually) look reasonable you cannot question them.

It’s easier, cheaper and faster to get fake ID than real ID from what I’ve heard.

I think 99% of employers are more than willing to do the right thing. However they cannot enforce our immigration laws the way the governments interpreted it.

Frankly I doubt that if we cracked down on illegals getting legitimate jobs we’d see much improvement. I think illegals would stay here for the welfare benefits and pick up jobs totally off of the books. That’s why we need internal enforcement of our immigration laws.

Check out Malkins latest Hot Air vent on how Dunking Donuts is doing exactly that.

She didn’t post a link to the US Government page.

Here it is. Apparently this trial version has only recently been rolled out with next to know employer notification.

The message that needs to be sent is to vote for those Republicans who promise to enforce laws against illegal immigration.

TW: Are the tax cheats no streaming across the border into ND? Inquiring minds want to know.

We send them to Minnesota, they’re a bit slower over there.

Well, I’m glad you’re made out of that kind of money.

Come to America, promise to pay $2000 and we’ll take you in, no waiting. You can earn your fee while you’re here. While you’re here you get free American health care, welfare and lots of other benefits.

I can’t imagine we’d get much more than a billion people taking us up on that one.

Gotta go meet the family. Catch you all later.

ote that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service.

This is also amnesty, by the way. You would have to pay an application fee in any case.

TW, I think you’re losing it. You’re talking to yourself.

Escorting a person to the border, also known as “deportation”, is a form of penalty.

Try again.

By the way, Bush could take the leadership position, and get congress to split the bill into separate acts.

A Border Security Act.
A Legal Employment Act.

and finally,

An Illegal Immigrant Remediation Act.

And promise to sign them only in that order. Trying to do all three at once probably will produce my Plan B from above.