Replies

I think the most common meaning is a NEW-DIRECT- SPECIAL-FOR-ILLEGALS "pathway to citizenship."

The "most common meaning" is the wrong one put forth by those who try to disguise what amnesty really means. Once you legalize the status of the lawbreakers and allow them to stay and work here, it is an amnesty. You don't need a path to citizenship nor do those who receive permanent legal status have to apply for citizenship. We have 10 to 15 million green card holders in this country who don't want to be citizens.

I posted above, unless you specifically exclude citizenship in the text of a law, simply giving to right to stay and work without mdentioning citizenship may not be sufficient. That sort of "reform," although not defined as "amnesty," may produce the same result eventually. See Goodlatte's last sentence above.

You are falling for this Orwellian use of language by the left and the RINOs. Of course this is an amnesty. The RPI visa under McRubio-Schumer is the same as the McCain- Kennedy Z visa. These people will be given work permits, allowed to travel freely in and out of the country, and bring in their wives and children, etc. Don't be so easily fooled any more than Rubio claiming that their plan is not an amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship by paying a fine, getting to the back of the line, learning English etc.

Ed Meese, Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, commenting upon the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill as compared to the 1986 amnesty in a New York Times op-ed entitled, “An Amnesty by Any Other Name…” said,

“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.

The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."

I don't know who your Congressman is, but I would be very wary about his statement. If he were truly on our side, he would say that he is against legalization of the lawbreakers period. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.

You are too eager to argue over the meaning of the word "amnesty," which I did not use in the post you originally replied to (although I probably should stop using the word altogether). The reason I did not use that word in that post (#9) is that I don't believe the word "amnesty" by itself has the precision other terms do. I commented on what the word might mean to answer your question. I understand that my suggestion for a definition would not be shared by everyone in the world. A path-to citizenship certainly would be one example of the use of the word, but clearly not the only one.

We have 10 to 15 million green card holders in this country who don't want to be citizens.

Not all of them, but Obama and Schumer do, and that would be a tragedy. And just wait until they join leftist unions and Dem operatives tell them they need to vote to protect collrctive bargaining.

Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees,....

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.

Don't be so easily fooled any more than Rubio claiming that their plan is not an amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship by paying a fine, getting to the back of the line, learning English etc.

Fooled like Rubio??? Please! I have been denouncing him since this immigration push got started in the senate. I understand that you feel passionate about this (so do I), but you should not try to put words in my mouth, nor imagine that you can read my mind, especially since you seem unaware that I have been publicly bashed him. Now he seems to have disappeared.

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.

Note my post That sort of "reform," although not defined as "amnesty," may produce the same result eventually. See Goodlatte's last sentence above.

So plans which legalize only in the text of a law can produce the same result as plans that directly create a path-to-citizenship. By the general meaning of the term, such a plan can be called "amnesty," although some of us are in the habit of associating that word with such things as the current senate bill, the 2007 GWB immigration bill, and the 1986 disaster. 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.