Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Letter to National Review: Wherefore Art Thou WFB? 9

Journal by pudge

In a recent editorial, The Editors note, "Anyone who wants to argue for this [immigration] policy should not insult our intelligence by pretending that it is not an amnesty."

I expect this sort of thing out of The Weekly Standard or The American Conservative or some other journal that isn't steeped in the grand tradition of the Buckley attention to careful language. But not National Review.

The word "amnesty" means -- in this context -- a pardon, the removal of all charge and penalty for an offense. However, under the Senate bill and Bush's proposal, there remains both charge and penalty. There is no amnesty here -- clearly -- but, rather, a commutation. The two concepts are not interchangable.

The NR view appears to be simply that because illegal aliens get to stay here, therefore it is amnesty, but the word "amnesty" regards no such thing. By NR's logic, because we do not force people to return back across the street if convicted for jaywalking, we grant them amnesty.

In fact, it is the other proposals that result in more amnesty: encouraging people to go home of their own free will by reducing opportunity for employment, or by making that the only way to get legal employment (such as the Cornyn-Kyl plan), is like telling the jaywalker: go back across the street and we'll forget the whole thing. It is, by the proper definition of the word, amnesty.

If you really want to avoid amnesty, as you say, then the passed Senate bill will result in less of it than any other plan on the table, because it would enact penalties for the crime (even if you think those penalties are insufficient).

You don't really want to avoid amnesty, though, you want to get these people out of the country, and want to discourage more of them from coming. That's fine, but the concept of "amnesty" is orthogonal to that: you can discourage people while having amnesty, and encourage them without it.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Letter to National Review: Wherefore Art Thou WFB? More

Letter to National Review: Wherefore Art Thou WFB?

Comments Filter:
  • I heard a Minutemen Project (shame on them for besmirching a great historic name, but then again we have the missiles [nps.gov] as well) guy talk on NPR yesterday after the speech. No lie, he wants to kick everyone out who's not documented, and thinks that the way to do it is by seizing the assets of any illegal immigrant who doesn't leave voluntarily.

    Putting aside that this is a terrible idea, do these guys have the faintest clue how difficult the crackdown they want would be? Or how expensive it would be to buil

    • Of course, the immigrant side is completely nuts too. They want complete amnesty, not just the faux "amnesty" the President is pushing. They want open borders, with no restrictions. They want complete rights of citizenship, just for showing up, and they do not think we, as citizens and taxpayers, have any right to protect our investment in our nation.
      • Actually, if you look carefully at what some of the want, it is a Chicano state of Aztlan. [wikipedia.org] Which is nuts.
        • You racist!

          Seriously though, a lot of people in this country -- mostly liberals -- seem to have no real problem with this. As left-winger Eleanor Clift [mclaughlin.com] said on Friday:

          Losing the country -- it's like, you know, if you lose your son because they get married, you're gaining a daughter-in- law.

          Don't look at it as losing a country, look at it as gaining a neighbor! She added:

          I look at this as progress in this country that we are able to welcome and digest lots of different [people].

          Of course, we are not "dig

  • FYI, the author of the House bill describes the Senate bill as amnesty.

    Sensenbrenner takes a hard line on immigration reform [mercurynews.com]

    "I would like to see a bill passed and signed into law. However, I'm a realist," the Wisconsin Republican said. "And given the fact the Senate and the House started miles apart, and as a result of some amendments that were offered in the Senate miles have become moons apart or oceans apart, this has made a difficult task even more so."

    Sensenbrenner was the lead architect of the s

    • FYI, the author of the House bill describes the Senate bill as amnesty.

      Yep. I am well aware of that. Many people do, including Sensenbrenner, Tancredo, and so on. Some Senators do, too. They are all incorrect.

      • They are all incorrect.\

        While technically it isn't amnesty, for all intent and purposes it really is.

        They will do what under the senate bill?

        Pay $2000 in fines? Payable over 8 years.

        Force people to leave the contry who have been here less than 2 years? How is that proven? By someone vouching for you. And for those who cant get someone to sign something saything they have been here over 2 years, there's the hardship exception...

        Build a fence? Only of Mexico approves... Hell, if Fox is happy with it --

        • While technically it isn't amnesty, for all intent and purposes it really is.

          No, it really isn't. You're misdefining "amnesty." What you mean to say is that this bill is too easy on illegal immigrants, perhaps even rewards them, encouraging more illegal immigration, and so on. But none of those things is part of the definition of "amnesty."

          What you mean to say, therefore, is that some of the effects of amnesty are similar to some of the effects of this program, but that just means we should focus more on

Slashdot Top Deals

Opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people don't recognize them.

Close