During the Thursday debate by the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, a key word will be amnesty. So, what is “amnesty” and why is it important?
“Amnesty” is defined by the dictionary as “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” The word implies the removal of all punishment for all the offenses committed by this group of people. The term is being used erroneously to describe the proposals of some of the candidates for the Republican nomination.
For example, on Sunday’s “Meet the Press Ben Carson was asked why his approach to the immigrant status issue was not amnesty. He gave a very common sense answer. His first point was that people clamoring for the current illegals to be “packed up and sent back where they came from don’t know what they are talking about. That is not a practical solution to the problem.”
He’s right. Aside from the logistical challenges of finding and detaining 11 million or more people, providing accommodations, food and water, emergency medical assistance, and finally transportation to some unknown country which would accept 11 million refugees, the cost of such a policy would be prohibitive. Many illegals have been here long enough that they have no other home. The children have never even lived anywhere else.
This solution is impractical and unacceptable.
But, after all, illegal immigrants did break U.S. law. So, they must be penalized — but appropriately. Jean Valjean in “Les Miserables” was subject to life imprisonment for stealing a loaf of bread. That was not an appropriate punishment. Americans have no wish to imitate the French monarchy by a similar sentence of life banishment. Nor do we want a Nazi-like pogrom rounding up millions of people based on racial profiling.
Like Jeb Bush among many others, Mr. Carson does not propose amnesty. Nor does he connect his treatment of illegals to a “path to citizenship.” He proposes that a system be initiated by the government whereby illegal residents register with the government, pay a fine equal to all unpaid back taxes on income earned in America, and then be granted a worker visa. In order to proceed to citizenhood, these individuals must go to the back of the line and pass the same process to citizenship as anyone else.
Many others, including Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, add an assortment of important details to this process, such as a requirement that the registrant prove residency for some period of time prior to application, periodic renewal of the permit, a clean arrest record, a commitment to learn English and other conditions. Another high priority is the reform of the citizen application process itself, with a view toward streamlining it and differentiating the selection process in favor of highly skilled and educated applicants. It makes no sense for us to educate foreign students and then kick them out of the country. Besides, the present system doesn’t work anyway in most cases.
The political fact, however, is that the past two presidents have tried to get so-called comprehensive immigration bills passed through Congress and failed. What does “comprehensive immigration” now mean in Washington jargon?
“Comprehensive” here means fashioning legislation which accommodates all the rival demands for legitimation. Basically, there are three constituencies who seek validation in a new immigration policy. One group wants to create an immediate block of citizens whom they expect would vote for their party. This group consists mostly of Democrats. The other group wants to close the borders first – before the issues concerning the undocumented people already here are even considered. This group is mostly conservative Republicans. The third group sincerely wants to fix the problem, but it is not big enough to prevail without the support of the other groups. A “comprehensive solution” to the problem therefore is one which seeks to accommodate all sides – unsuccessfully so far.
The underlying reason why Democrats favor this position in the debate is that Barack Obama swept the Hispanic vote in both his presidential elections, and that vote constituted a significant part of his electoral victory. Thus the Democrats don’t want to upset the Hispanics; they want them so stay Democrats.
The Democratic position is also a convenient club with which to beat up the conservatives by claiming that all Hispanics want illegals to have citizenship now and not after a lengthy border security effort is completed. What the Democrats really want is to turn all illegals into Democrat voters immediately. California, under an aggressive Democratic regime, is already on the way to doing this very thing, using a state driver’s license as voter ID. Obviously, if there is no difference between votes of illegals and those of legal citizens, who needs a border anyway?
The Republicans’ mantra is that the U.S. southern border must first be closed before any other measures are even considered, mainly for national security reasons but also because they do not trust any administration to enforce the border security requirements of any “comprehensive solution.” On the face of it, this is a reasonable request, namely, stop the flow of new illegals first, and then we will address the ones already here. It is hard to dispute the logic of this demand. But logic and politics seldom meet.
The political realities are, as usual, rather more complicated. For example, there is little reason to believe that all Hispanic voters are properly understood as a monolithic voting bloc. After all, George W. Bush received nearly half the Hispanic vote in both his elections. Clearly, the conservative Republicans do not and will never trust the current president to close the border. Even if they were, by some miracle, to pass a law to this effect, Obama would simply refuse to enforce it, as he has so many others he disagrees with. Therefore, the only hope is that the Republicans retain control of the Congress and elect a Republican president in 2016.
Which brings us back to the beginning. It is imperative for the Republican Party to win back a significant number of Hispanic voters, not only for electoral purposes, but also to inherit the moral credibility to proceed with a series of solutions to the “immigration problem.” In order to achieve this victory, Republican candidates like Messrs. Carson, Bush, Trump, Kasich and Rubio, and all the rest must put forth a clear and practical solution to this issue. And then, this solution has to be sold to a skeptical Republican base to give the candidates credibility with the Hispanic electorate.
The time for treating “amnesty” as Republican heresy is over. We will see a reality check on Thursday: whether common sense and common humanity have won the day in the Republican ranks. Stand by.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.