pudge's Journal: Word of the Day: Amnesty (again!)

So a deal was reached today regarding immigration. Surely, this will bring claims of "amnesty" and counterclaims of "no, it's not." This is a very simple question to answer, theoretically: you just look at the definition of the word and see if it applies.

The problem is, of course, people use different definitions for the word. Some people say it means any time when, for a group of people, the government removes the possibility of penalty being applied.

Black's Law Dictionary (first edition, 1891, as well as the second, 1910*) says that amnesty is a "sovereign act of pardon and oblivion for past acts ... ." That is, not just a pardon, which is the act of not producing a penalty, but oblivion. That's what the Greek root of the word amnestia (which also produces our word amnesia) means. To forget, not merely to forgive. Indeed, forgiveness is not even necessary, because it is though the act never happened. Black's continues:

"Amnesty" and "pardon" are very different. The former is an act of the sovereign power, the object of which is to efface and to cause to be forgotten a crime or misdemeanor; the latter is an act of the same authority, which exempts this individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.

(It may also be worthy of note that the mere fact of being an illegal immigrant is neither a crime nor a misdemeanor, but that's beside the point here, as it still is an offense that carries a penalty.)

According to that traditional definition, then, an act which merely forgives, but still remembers the offense, is not amnesty. As this bill requires a $5,000 fine for being here illegally, in order to remain legally, it is not, according to that definition, amnesty, because there is no oblivion. It is forgiveness, not forgetfulness.

I know, English is pliable, and definitions can change. There is modern evidence that the definition of amnesty has changed somewhat over the years. However, why use the word amnesty at all? If the point is to inform, then why keep shouting "amnesty! amnesty!" which will often end up being misleading, to any of the many Americans who (for good reason) might believe "amnesty" means something different?

If you think they should be deported, just say, you think they should be deported. If you think the fines or penalties should be higher or different, then say that. Saying it is amnesty is at best confusing because your definition is contradictory with many others. Tell me specifically what is wrong with it, and what you would rather the bill do.

As best I see it, there's two viable options. This one, which involves legalizing millions of currently illegal aliens, and the one favored by many others, which would keep everyone just as illegal as they are now, but crack down on both employers who hire them, and deport some of the illegal aliens too.

I come down in the middle. I do not like unfettered immigration -- I think it causes serious social and economic problems when left unchecked, as it has been in the American Southwest for decades -- but I do think we should be allowing a lot more legal aliens into this country to live and work, and that part of the cause of the problem for where we are now is inefficiency in our immigration system and quotas that are way too low.

I don't know what I think about the new bill. But I want whatever opinion I come up with to be based on a careful examination of the facts of the bill, not a characterization based on scarewords.

* I downloaded Black's Law Dictionary editions 1 and 2 via BitTorrent. It's a lame set of JPEGs and HTML pages. But it's free. And it's in the public domain. And the index works. You can't grep it, so it's not much better than a dead tree, but still.

Now Playing: Phil Keaggy - When the Wild Winds Blow

the dictionaries

[nocomment]

are the jpeg versions something that a text-based ocr scanner could easily parse and turn into something not only grep-able but easily put into a DB of some sort? Sounds like an interesting project. Got links?

Re:

[pudge]

Here's the torrent [mininova.org] I used. Here's the page from the first edition [mac.com] and the page from the second edition [mac.com].

much sound and fury, signifying nothing

[ces]

The idiocy of the debate on immigration in the media just makes my head hurt.

I believe you and I agree more than disagree on this issue. I do find it interesting that the Democratic Congress passed a bill very similar to the one the President supported (and the Senate passed) in the last Congress.

The effects

[Jhon]

The problem is, of course, people use different definitions for the word. Some people say it means any time when, for a group of people, the government removes the possibility of penalty being applied

Most people who claim "amnesty" is being applied are referring to the EFFECT of the action -- not the action itself. I would say when this term is used, it would be more appropriate to call it DE FACTO Amnesty.

(It may also be worthy of note that the mere fact of being an illegal immigrant is neither a crime

Re:

[pudge]

Most people who claim "amnesty" is being applied are referring to the EFFECT of the action -- not the action itself. I would say when this term is used, it would be more appropriate to call it DE FACTO Amnesty.

But there is no difference: a de facto amnesty is, by definition, practically indistinguishable from amnesty. But because we do have practical distinctions -- e.g., the fine you have to pay to get legal residency -- it is therefore not de facto amnesty. It is a pardon, not amnesty.

• Everyone who's here, stays here. POOF. Green card+work permits and get them on track to becoming US citizens. I just can't see any practical way to get rid of some 10-15 million people.
• Any employer who hires an immigrant without work authorization pays a HEAVY fine + jail time for the CEO
• Any illegal immigrant who reports his employer gets INSTANT green-card+fast track to US citizinship

Fine, but to many people, letting them stay here is "de facto amnesty" and therefore wrong. I don't agree, but they are stuck in this mindrut, where anything with a specific label is anathema, even if that label is improperly

Re:

[Jhon]

Fine, but to many people, letting them stay here is "de facto amnesty" and therefore wrong.

I agree with this. It *IS* de facto amnesty and I think it *IS* wrong.

I don't agree, but they are stuck in this mindrut, where anything with a specific label is anathema, even if that label is improperly applied.

If it is "right" or "wrong" or amnesty of any kind is irrelevant in my opinion. If the "fine" is anything like the Kennedy-McCain "fine", which they can get out of paying, for example... it *IS* de fact

Re:

[pudge]

It *IS* de facto amnesty and I think it *IS* wrong.

You are quite clearly incorrect. The offense is not forgotten -- as it is used in determining penalties later -- so therefore it is not amnesty. If it were "de facto" amnesty, then there would be no practical remembrance of the offense. But there is. So it is not.

If the "fine" is anything like the Kennedy-McCain "fine", which they can get out of paying, for example... it *IS* de facto amnesty.

If it is a factor in anything else, it is not de facto amnesty. It is up to you to show that it is not a factor in anything else. I've already described a way in which it is a factor, so you have to show that it is not.