Did You Know...


The definition of amnesty

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 6, 2006 03:38 PM

Remind me again which party has the majority in the U.S. Senate? Via Reuters:

Senate leaders on Thursday announced a bipartisan compromise on an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws, giving some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and creating a temporary worker program.

“I think we’re looking like we may be able to dance this afternoon,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, appeared with Reid and said “We have a great opportunity to deliver to the American people what they expect, what they deserve,” a comprehensive border security and immigration reform bill.

Can you spell c-a-v-e-i-n?

President Bush, the GOP elite, and the open borders lobby can deny it until they’re all blue in the face, but the Senate “compromise” on immigration and border security is the dictionary definition of “amnesty.”

Amnesty is a general pardon from the government for law-breaking. It’s against the law to cross our borders or overstay visas without permission. It’s against the law to avoid deportation once you’ve been ordered to leave. It’s against the law to re-enter if you’ve ever been deported. And it’s against the law to recruit, hire, harbor or encourage those lawbreakers.

What else do you call a bill that grants any illegal immigrant who has been in the U.S. for five or more years an immediate path to American citizenship?

This is amnesty and it does not depend on what the meaning of “is” is.

John O’Sullivan notes more:

Illegal immigrants here between two and five years get to “leave the country” by visiting a U.S. international airport, walking through the immigration line (“How many days have you been out of the country?” “Er, fifteen minutues.”), and then embarking on their own path to citizenship. Illegal immigrants here for two year or less have to go home and come back really–something many of them do now for vacations.

But we are assured that these things are not amnesties since getting to full citizenship will require some effort–learning English etc. I am reminded of Malcolm Bradbury’s remark about a poor state university: “You have to pass an intelligence test to go there–you have to be able to find out where it is.”

The apparent principle underlying these proposals are that the longer and more comprehensively you have broken the law, the better deal you will get from the federal government. But everyone illegal has won and all shall have prizes.

Bryanna Bevens reports:

Here’s a breakdown:

* Those who have lived in the country at least five years would be put on a path toward guaranteed citizenship, provided that they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English. According to Senator Frist, 60 percent of the illegal aliens fall into this category.

* Those who have lived here for two to five years would have to leave the country before reporting to an American port of entry, where they would be classified as temporary workers. There are roughly three million in this category. They are allowed to apply for citizenship but if they are denied, they must leave after six years.

* The remaining one million (roughly), those who have lived in the country less than two years, would be required to leave although they are eligible to apply for a temporary work Visa.

I have a question: Where are the ones who will be leaving and where are the bill provisions they state how and when they will be deported?

The dictionary also informs us of the origin of the term “amnesty.” It comes from the Greek word “amnestia,” which means “to forget.”

And that is exactly what Washington seems to be suffering from these days: amnesty amnesia.

Border security brain freeze.

The open borders lobby says the “immigration reform” compromise sellout won’t encourage law-breaking. But the OBL conveniently forgets that the historical record provides absolutely no evidence in support of this claim. There have been seven illegal alien amnesties passed into law since 1986:

·The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens

·1994: The “Section 245(i)” temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

·1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty

·1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America

·1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

·2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act

·2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

Guess what? None –not one—of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.

And as I’ve noted before, there is no such thing as a “temporary” amnesty.

If this is what Sen. Frist thinks Americans “expect” and “deserve,” the GOP is in for a very rude awakening in November.


This graphic is getting lots of circulation among disgruntled, grass-roots conservatives (hat tip: Bryan Preston):


Via Human Events Online, Tom Tancredo unloads on Frist (hat tip: Allah):

The Democrats have once again used parliamentary tactics to obstruct the Senate from pursuing its priorities. The only difference this time is that Senator Frist let them. By surrendering to the amnesty demands of Democrats and squishy Republicans, Frist squandered a great opportunity to secure our borders and gain control of our broken immigration system.

“The Senate amnesty deal is miserable public policy that will be rejected by the House of Representatives and has already been rejected by the American people. It continues the running joke that is our immigration system by treating the same crimes differently. In a perverse rendition of hide-and-seek, it grants a reward to those who evaded law enforcement for the longest time. And, as we did in 1986, it will encourage more illegal aliens to come into this country in the hope of yet another amnesty.

“The Senate’s amnesty authors don’t dispute that their deal will offer blanket amnesty to at least 10 million illegal aliens — everyone who entered the country illegally through 2004. But they wouldn’t be dealing honestly with the American people if they failed to state what will happen with the additional two million or more illegal aliens who came here more recently. No illegal alien with half a brain would admit that they came here after 2004. And how could law enforcement tell? The Senate deal asks people who have broken the law for years — often using fraudulent documents — to provide proof that they’ve lived here. I can guarantee that many of those fraudulent documents – which law enforcement hasn’t been able to detect yet — will be used to obtain legal status.

“Handing out legal identification to millions of illegal aliens will expose our nation’s Achilles’ heal more quickly than almost any single action this Congress could take. Just this morning, the International Relations Committee heard from a whistleblower at USCIS — the agency that would be charged with screening the 10 million illegal aliens — who documented the massive fraud and mismanagement in that agency. USCIS has a security backlog in the millions and, in order to reduce the backlog, is encouraging adjudicators to approve visas in fewer than four minutes. It is no secret that two-thirds of foreign-born terrorists operating in the U.S. committed immigration fraud prior to or in conjunction with their terrorist activities. Piling 10 million more applications on USCIS is suicidal in terms of national security.”

Power Line is running a poll. Go vote.

“Dreamers” vs. demons

January 31, 2018 07:32 AM by Michelle Malkin

Shock poll: Vast majority of Americans think local politicians should have to comply with the law

February 22, 2017 07:22 AM by Doug Powers

Selective law (un)enforcement not popular

Defining political child abuse: A tale of two Cruz families

December 30, 2015 07:43 AM by Michelle Malkin

Open-borders money backs Marco Rubio

December 17, 2015 07:35 PM by Michelle Malkin

Categories: Amnesty, Feature Story, Open Borders Lobby