Congress in Sync with us? - Page 8

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-03-2007, 03:42 PM

@Cingular

That is exactly my point. The dead bill would simply have changed the law to allow those that entered illegally to apply for legal status. Doing that is not amnesty. It just isn't. There is no forgiveness of anything. There is no looking past of anything. It changes a technicality and that is all. It changes the rights afforded to those people that entered illegally through a change in law.

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) is not a punishment or a deceleration of what is an offense, it is a rule/law about who is ineligible for visas or admission to the US.

The guilt of those people is never questioned or altered. The offense that they committed is not absolved. They could still be fined for entering the US illegally.

But it is NOT amnesty. Maybe I am being overly technical.

Quote:

From wikipedia

Amnesty (from the Greek amnestia, oblivion) is an act of justice by which the supreme power in a state restores those who may have been guilty of any offence against it to the position of innocent persons. It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offence.

Where in the dead bill did "all legal remembrance of the offence" take place? In fact those that would have benefited from the dead bill would have been documented as being, at a point in time, in violation of US immigration law.

I basically agree that these people are going to be treated specially. And I understand that many are very unhappy about this special treatment. I can empathize with that and even agree to a certain extent that this treatment is bad. It is bad that it has gotten to the point it now is.

Bolded below is the relevant passage.

Quote:

(6) Illegal entrants and immigration violators.-

(A) 8/ ALIENS PRESENT WITHOUT admission or parole.-

(i) In general.-An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for certain battered women and children.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who demonstrates that-

(I) the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner; 6aa/

(II)(a) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent, or by a member of the spouse's or parent's family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, or (b) the alien's child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent of the alien (without the active participation of the alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a member of the spouse's or parent's family resi ding in the same household as the alien when the spouse or parent consented to or acquiesced in such battery or cruelty and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty, and

(III) there was a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty described in subclause (I) or (II) and the alien's unlawful entry into the United States.

Kerostasis · 08-03-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Maybe I am being overly technical.

Yes, you're being way overly technical, because the whole issue with "amnesty" is a purely emotional argument anyway. There's no inherent reason why we couldn't pass a bill that was full fledged amnesty, except that the word "amnesty" brings up bad memories of the last time we passed a similar immigration bill--because that one failed miserably at its stated purpose! (Whether or not that was its intended purpose is a totally separate question.)

The bill was a bad bill. It was a bad bill for reasons that have nothing to do with whether its technically Amnesty or not. It is, however, worthwhile to compare the bill to the last similar immigration bill passed in the 80s, which was described as an Amnesty bill. That bill promised to stop the future flow of illegal immigrants, but told us that in order to do so, we had to accept all the current immigrants and legalize them. Rather than stopping the flow, the promise of similar future legalizations has increased the flow of illegal immigrants ten-fold.

**CingularDuality** · 08-04-2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But it is NOT amnesty. Maybe I am being overly technical.

No, you're simply not grasping the multi-faceted wording of the law.

It's against the law to enter the United States illegally. It's a federal crime for which you can be imprisoned. It's also an administrative violation for which you can be removed from the country.

Allowing people that have broken this law but not been prosecuted for the criminal offense, or deported for the administrative offense to stay here with a brand new "Z" visa is not an amnesty? Please explain this to me.

And you're going to wikipedia for a definition? Wouldn't a dictionary be a better choice? You seem to not understand what the word means...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webster

Main Entry:
am·nes·ty
Pronunciation:
\ˈam-nə-stē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural am·nes·ties
Etymology:
Greek amnēstia forgetfulness, from amnēstos forgotten, from a- + mnasthai to remember — more at mind
Date:
1580

: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
— amnesty transitive verb

Or how about a legal dictionary:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law.com

amnesty
n. a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out. Examples: a) the amnesty given to Confederate officials and soldiers after the Civil War, or b) President Jimmy Carter's granting amnesty (under certain conditions) to those who violated the Selective Service Act in evading the draft during the Vietnam War. The basis for amnesty is generally because the war or other conditions that made the acts criminal no longer exist or have faded in importance. Amnesty is not a pardon as some believe, since a pardon implies forgiveness, and amnesty indicates a reason to overlook or forget the offenses.
See also: pardon

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-05-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

No, you're simply not grasping the multi-faceted wording of the law.

It's against the law to enter the United States illegally. It's a federal crime for which you can be imprisoned. It's also an administrative violation for which you can be removed from the country.

Allowing people that have broken this law but not been prosecuted for the criminal offense, or deported for the administrative offense to stay here with a brand new "Z" visa is not an amnesty? Please explain this to me.

And you're going to wikipedia for a definition? Wouldn't a dictionary be a better choice? You seem to not understand what the word means...

Or how about a legal dictionary:

I may see at least one problem.

Being deported is not a legal punishment.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

*Edit: Notice the two quotes, they disagree with each other. The dictionary says it is a " pardon is granted to a large group of individuals" and the law.com explicitly says it is not a pardon. No wonder we disagree. Nobody can agree on the definition!

**CingularDuality** · 08-06-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I may see at least one problem.

Being deported is not a legal punishment.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

That's kind of a gray area. There are several ways that an alien can be denied admission and/or removed from our country. Almost all of them come with a statutory bar from applying for admission for a certain amount of time, say, 5 years or 10 years.

I suppose I would say that the actual removal from our country is not a punishment, but it is the result of being charged with an offense.

Is taking driving school instead of paying a fine for a speeding ticket a punishment? You wouldn't be taking it if you hadn't been caught committing a crime...

FatCobra · 08-06-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

It seems pretty clear, then, that the best solution is to both grant amnesty AND make it easier for others to enter.

How is that the best solution? Please explain.

Kerostasis · 08-07-2007, 12:43 AM

How many pages back is that from? Just curious, as the discussion seems to have moved on.

I'm disappointed that no one liked my answer to the "definition of Amnesty" question though =/

xTYBALTx · 08-07-2007, 01:33 AM

I agree Kero, it's clear that what they're talking about is amnesty. AND I WANT MORE OF IT! :]

FatCobra · 08-07-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

How many pages back is that from? Just curious, as the discussion seems to have moved on.

I'm disappointed that no one liked my answer to the "definition of Amnesty" question though =/

No one flamed you, so I guess they either liked it or didn't really hate it

I asked Tybalt since he usually says things that perhaps makes sense to him, but doesn't tell the rest of the forum community how it is so.

xTYBALTx · 08-07-2007, 11:54 AM

Oh, sorry, I thought I had spelled it out elsewhere. In fact, I'm quite certain that I have.

Many people want to move across borders.

The number of migration visas issued by the US gov't are far below the number which people want.

People are circumventing the visa system altogether and simply moving across the border.

The government has no control over who can and can not immigrate here if people are doing so illegally.

If the government has no control over who comes here, then criminals and terrorists will find it easier to move here.

If the government were to massively increase the number of visas issued, far fewer people would immigrate illegally. And more people would immigrate legally.

If fewer immigrate illegally and more immigrate legally, then the we have more control over who comes in and who doesn't.

There's all that, plus of course:

More ability to move across borders = more personal freedom.

**CingularDuality** · 08-07-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Oh, sorry, I thought I had spelled it out elsewhere. In fact, I'm quite certain that I have.

Many people want to move across borders.

The number of migration visas issued by the US gov't are far below the number which people want.

People are circumventing the visa system altogether and simply moving across the border.

The government has no control over who can and can not immigrate here if people are doing so illegally.

If the government has no control over who comes here, then criminals and terrorists will find it easier to move here.

If the government were to massively increase the number of visas issued, far fewer people would immigrate illegally. And more people would immigrate legally.

If fewer immigrate illegally and more immigrate legally, then the we have more control over who comes in and who doesn't.

There's all that, plus of course:

More ability to move across borders = more personal freedom.

Issuing more visas is completely different from granting amnesty to people that have already entered illegally. I completely support issuing more visas!

xTYBALTx · 08-07-2007, 04:09 PM

But Cing, amnesty is nice.

Give 'em a break!

dfg872 · 08-08-2007, 11:03 PM

Hmm... immigration debate...sounds like fun. On this one, I don't have a good idea... I mean, there are millions of illegals here now.. Even if we wanted to send them back, that would be logistically impossible...not to mention, it would punch our economy in the gut something fierce. Say hello to 20 bucks for a bunch of arugala... They comprise a good portion of a farm working population now, and there isn't really a substitute for them... Yup, they broke the law...but is it much of a law if it isn't enforced? Nope, just like jaywalking in NY, it's on the books, but good luck enforcing it...

Amnesty won't work either...it's a mess... let's just invade mexico and make it a territory, then we can get some taxes from there.

08-07-2007, 01:33 AM	#113 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,851	Re: Congress in Sync with us? I agree Kero, it's clear that what they're talking about is amnesty. AND I WANT MORE OF IT! :] __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

08-07-2007, 11:54 AM	#115 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,851	Re: Congress in Sync with us? Oh, sorry, I thought I had spelled it out elsewhere. In fact, I'm quite certain that I have. Many people want to move across borders. The number of migration visas issued by the US gov't are far below the number which people want. People are circumventing the visa system altogether and simply moving across the border. The government has no control over who can and can not immigrate here if people are doing so illegally. If the government has no control over who comes here, then criminals and terrorists will find it easier to move here. If the government were to massively increase the number of visas issued, far fewer people would immigrate illegally. And more people would immigrate legally. If fewer immigrate illegally and more immigrate legally, then the we have more control over who comes in and who doesn't. There's all that, plus of course: More ability to move across borders = more personal freedom. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

08-07-2007, 04:09 PM	#117 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,851	Re: Congress in Sync with us? But Cing, amnesty is nice. Give 'em a break! __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

08-08-2007, 11:03 PM	#118 (permalink)
dfg872 Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 119	Re: Congress in Sync with us? Hmm... immigration debate...sounds like fun. On this one, I don't have a good idea... I mean, there are millions of illegals here now.. Even if we wanted to send them back, that would be logistically impossible...not to mention, it would punch our economy in the gut something fierce. Say hello to 20 bucks for a bunch of arugala... They comprise a good portion of a farm working population now, and there isn't really a substitute for them... Yup, they broke the law...but is it much of a law if it isn't enforced? Nope, just like jaywalking in NY, it's on the books, but good luck enforcing it... Amnesty won't work either...it's a mess... let's just invade mexico and make it a territory, then we can get some taxes from there. __________________ \|TG-Irr\| Dfg872

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links