Yes, this is amnesty
Amnesty supporters will tell you it can’t be amnesty because illegal immigrants will say there are “tough but fair” penalties for illegal immigrants such as paying a fine of some sort, have to pay back taxes and “go to the back of the line” behind those waiting to come here legally for permanent residency and citizenship.
The last bit is particularly deceitful. The “back of the line” language is designed to make it sound like a real penalty is being imposed on illegals. …
In short…illegals will gain immediate legal status upon enactment of the law with no penalty until some unidentified time far off in the future. How is that not amnesty? Until we see the actual legislation, we don’t even know if illegals will have to apply for a green card or citizenship. It’s very possible whatever category of visa they get upon passage of the scheme will entitle them to stay for as long as they want.
Who is really punished by this system? People waiting to come here legally. The legal immigration system is already a mess but now we’ll be dumping upwards of 11 million new people into the system. They will all have to be processed and have background checks done to claim their new status.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Will they be able to vote – this is crucial?
OldEnglish on January 29, 2013 at 8:29 AM
You notice the lsm is NOT talking to folks who are waiting legally
Talk about outrage but no we need to make dems and dear leader look good
cmsinaz on January 29, 2013 at 8:30 AM
No right to vote or welfare…problem goes away.
trs on January 29, 2013 at 8:31 AM
In all fairness amnesty was tried by President Reagan. It was a massive failure in every way possible.
HotAirian on January 29, 2013 at 8:31 AM
America 21st century – Where law abiding Americans pay exorbitant taxes, give up their guns and their property, have no voice in government and be mandated on what they must purchase.
Where illegal-Americans get free healthcare, don’t pay taxes, can have all the guns they want and can’t be mandated to buy stuff (nor are they expected to)… in effect, have more liberties than those of us trying to prop up the system.
Yeah… I’ll become a hyphenated American…. an illegal-American.
Skywise on January 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM
How do you pay back taxes on undeclared income…?
What does “back of the line” mean when politicians speak of expediting the process. They will simply be put in a new program to fast track them to citizenship.
Here is an idea.
Why don’t we first start enforcing existing laws like E-verify and crack down on phony SS#’s.
Then we offer them a travel visa that allows them to go home and return for six months a year in return for forfeiture of any future govt. benefits.
We might find that if they can legally come and go they might go home a lot more often and stay there.
NeoKong on January 29, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Why don’t we wait six months, and see how Venezuela plays out? We can go to all this trouble, only to find that the illegals in question could have been spending their time leaving town for better job opportunities back home?
Sekhmet on January 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM
We’ve got RUBIO! What the f**k else y’all want?
HerneTheHunter on January 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Powerline.
One thing I recall from the 2007 shamnesty was that there would be a whole new host of immigration hearing officers to hear the illegals’ cases.
The requirements for such an officer limited the possible applicants only to those lawyers who had represented illegal aliens. So much for an unbiased “judiciary.”
Wethal on January 29, 2013 at 8:58 AM
Can Hugo Chavez get citizenship?
Chavez in ’16!
Ward Cleaver on January 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM
I want my money back.
I want my money back for the fees I paid to bring my Western European, Universtiy educated, (Masters Degree) tri-lingual wife into this country.
The hours wasted on lines, the humiliating interviews and the promise and bond not to be a public charge.
I want my money back.
Wander on January 29, 2013 at 9:37 AM
I’m sure somewhere buried in the pending legislation will be a requirement for all Americans to be able to speak Spanish. Why should the illegals have to adapt?
trs on January 29, 2013 at 9:43 AM
Me and my wife cannot petition any of her many aunts to come here and be a live in nanny because, well who knows why. But if we just simply got her to Canada and then had her cross into the nation, she could do the exact same thing, and she could collect free healthcare, food stamps, maybe housing allowance to pay for a place to stay, some money on the side… Then she could be in line to become a citizen, something she otherwise has no hope of ever being granted if she stayed in her home nation.
astonerii on January 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM
Whatever they say is off limits to the illegals is just a dodge.
Thats how incrementalism works. They are lying, and we “the people” are paying them to lie.
Mimzey on January 29, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Drew nails it here:
Bingo (emphasis mine). They are held to a totally different standard, and worse, the proposal doesn’t require disclosure of the identity theft so victims can, at very least, be informed. The victims (often children) are left to bear the consequences while the illegal immigrants reap the rewards.
batter on January 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Since most of them are low income earners, they probably have no taxable income to begin with. Even worse? They’ll probably qualify for Earned Income Tax Credits, which means not only will they not be paying back taxes, they will in fact be getting money.
xblade on January 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM
No plan should be considered that doesn’t eliminate the “anchor baby” issue.
gregbert on January 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM
No plan should be considered that doesn’t eliminate the “future Dem voter” issue. FIFY:)
Clink on January 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM
This is exactly the wrong approach to take. We either are all equal under the law, or we’re not. If using a fake ID is no longer a crime, I know a lot of kids who got charged with felonies in college for carrying their frat brothers ID to get in to bars who deserve to have their records cleaned and money reimbursed.
If ignoring soverign borders, working illegally, driving without a license, driving without insurance, using ‘straw purchasers’ to register their cars, houses, etc., is no longer illegal, there are a lot of people who need to be let out of jail.
If failing to pay taxes for years and years is suddenly legal, a lot of people deserve a letter of apology from the IRS.
Otherwise, maybe we should incorporate jail time (or even suspended sentences) into the amnesty deal.
Also, why do we assume that these “hard working” illegals are rushing to sign up to be citizens? How many of them come here to work illegally just to send their tax free money back to their home country? How many cross the border at their leisure and whim in both directions?
How many have committed felonies in the US that would send the rest of us to jail, but since they used a fake name and fake ID when arrested, and were never jailed, they will slip through the cracks?
I agree that our current system is screwed up, and that part of blame lies with the US government for setting up such an incentive to come here illegally, and such a disincentive to come here legally. But this amnesty plan is absolutely not going to solve the problem, and will make things worse.
Two other quick things: When did the number change to 11 million? I guarantee the real number will be at least twice that. And do Republicans care that legalizing tens of millions of democrat voters will turn TX blue and end any future chance republicans have of winning a nationwide election?
Timin203 on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Same thing happen to my brother and his Japanese wife. On top of all of that she had to go back to Japan and stay there for 3 months before she was allowed back in. I use to know a guy that married a woman from Chile and they went through all of that and she had to stay in Chile 6 months before being allowed in. I’ve also known people that have said they wished they had gone the illegal route because the gov benefits were better, costs less and they didn’t have to deal with the hassle that legal methods had.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM
“… such as paying a fine of some sort, have to pay back taxes ….”
LMAO. What back taxes? Back taxes on unreported earnings? How is that to be done? Back taxes on earnings reported by their employer having used a stolen name and SS#? Didn’t they file their income tax forms regularly? If they did why aren’t they up-to-date on taxes. If not, who is going to determine what was earned and who will calculate it?
Just words that mean nothing more than ‘Look at us! We’re being
compassionate, firm, impartial and fair, please vote for amnesty so we can be seen as doing something. Oh, and re-elect us!’Dusty on January 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM
What is just as bad is the number of relatives who are denied visitor’s visas because of the determination “You might not go back!”
After my wife was here for three years we twice tried to have her mom visit. Her mom, 74, was fairly well off and had no reason whatsoever for staying here, yet both times it was determined that she didn’t sufficient reason to go back, financially, etc, which INS deemed necessary to allow her to visit. I heard that from others at her posh gated community back home from people who had good retirement incomes letting them live like top 25%-ers in their home country, though she’d never be able to live like that here.
‘In-sufficient ties to home country’ really means ‘Sorry, we don’t enforce our laws’.
Dusty on January 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM
[Dusty on January 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM]
Oh, and it cost us a grand and dozens of hours to get that answer each time. But we’re grateful, because our government reminded us they had already implemented the Paperwork Reduction Act when we did it.
Dusty on January 29, 2013 at 11:44 AM