[ web version ]
[ print version ]

AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION

LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION

"Earned Legalization Is Not an Amnesty!"

 

Amnesty, by definition, is an automatic pardon, or free pass, granted to a group of individuals without any consideration in return for the amnesty.

Actually, no legal dictionary in the world includes the qualifier "without any consideration in return for" in the definition of amnesty. In fact, amnesties very often include conditions. A government may grant an amnesty to rebels, for example, with the condition the rebels surrender their weapons. But AILA's main argument is built on this falsehood. AILA tries to claim that because the amnesty bills they are pushing require amnestied illegal aliens to pay some sort of fee, or to do 20 push-ups, or something, it isn't an amnesty. AILA's claim is false. In reality, this is a bald-faced attempt to dupe both the public and members of Congress.

Earned adjustment, often referred to as earned legalization, is neither an amnesty nor an automatic fix; it requires undocumented immigrants to earn legal status.

A restatement of the same bogus argument. Imagine it like this:

Suppose the governor of a state pardoned all violent criminals. The people of the state, in an uproar, demand he rescind the blanket pardon. Suppose he answered their demand by saying the pardon wasn't a pardon. It's an "earned waiver," he might tell them, because, to receive the earned waiver, each criminal has to pay a $2000 fee to the state, and promise to smile at his neighbors for a year straight. The governor would never get away with it, but this is precisely the argument AILA is trying to get us to swallow.

Unlike President Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which could plausibly be described as providing “amnesty,” the earned legalization provisions in the McCain/Kennedy Secure America Act only provide undocumented immigrants an opportunity to earn permanent legal status by satisfying significant prospective requirements.

More of the same. Note the use of the word "prospective" to soften the word "requirements." Even AILA doesn't expect these requirements to be seriously enforced. And it wouldn't matter anyway. There is only one requirement that matters, and Congress should consider it non-negotiable: the requirement now a part of law that any person in the country illegally must leave for a set period. Simple as that. But you won't see AILA endorsing that requirement as a way for an illegal alien to "earn" the right to live in the United States. You see, to leave the country it's not necessary to hire a lawyer.

To earn legalization under the Secure America Act, an undocumented immigrant must demonstrate past work history, pay significant fines, work prospectively for a six-year period, undergo rigorous security and background checks, learn English and American civics, make good on any back taxes, and satisfy additional criteria. It is disingenuous to paint such stringent requirements with the “amnesty” brush.

More of the same. Even if any of the above were absolutely true and sure to be enforced, it's still an amnesty if a class of lawbreakers is permitted to avoid whatever the penalty was for breaking the law at the time they broke. That means, in the case of illegal aliens, if they are allowed by law to remain in the country, it's an amnesty. To demonstrate just how disingenuous AILA really is, to take one example from above: the "significant fines" AILA mentions are a fraction of what a bona fide green card sells for illegally on the street in some countries.

Moreover, undocumented immigrants who successfully jump through all of the hoops are not moved to the head of the line and do not gain preferential treatment over others who have been waiting for their green cards; they have simply earned the opportunity to apply for permanent residence and to get in line with everyone else.

Finally, though still misleading, something different. Amnestied illegal aliens jump ahead of those trying to play by the rules under AILA's scheme by virtue of the fact they get to get in line in the first place. Then there is a wait, and a process to go through (for which—and this is totally unrelated, we're sure —they'll need to hire the services of an immigration lawyer).

Earned legalization cannot be equated with other government-run programs such as tax amnesty. Tax amnesty does not need to be earned; it is simply granted to those who failed to meet their previous tax liabilities. It encourages individuals to come forward and satisfy those prior tax obligations by waiving all penalties and interest associated with the prior noncompliance. In direct contrast, the earned legalization proposed by the Secure America Act requires individuals who previously failed to comply with the immigration laws to pay hefty fines, in addition to meeting other non-monetary requirements.

More of the same.

A categorical requirement that undocumented immigrants return to their home countries is unworkable and would undermine any attempt to fix our broken immigration system. We want people to come forward, register with the government, pay fines, and assimilate into our society not because we want to confer a special benefit on them, but because we want to reform our immigration system so that it serves our national and economic security goals. Requiring all undocumented immigrants to return home would be a strong disincentive for them to come forward.

Does this even need comment? Here's the translation: Since our laws are unworkable, it is certain that we can't enforce them, though we haven't even tried, at least not since the last time we tried, when it worked. If we require foreign nationals in the country illegally to leave, just like every other country does, they'll refuse to cooperate. So we have to give up and grant them amnesties, except that it's not an amnesty because we're going to require some really really harsh penalties, but not so harsh that the illegal aliens refuse to cooperate with that, too, but harsh enough that the amnesty isn't an amnesty.

Earned legalization is a practical solution that balances the need to punish law violators with the recognition that our current immigration laws are unrealistic and inhumane because they fail to accommodate U.S. labor demand and impose unacceptable wait times on family reunification.

So when will the demand for cheap labor finally be met? How many of the five billion people in the world living in countries poorer than Mexico will need to move to the United States before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the immigration lawyers are satisfied that "the economic needs of the country" have been met?

And how is it humane to reward an illegal alien for breaking the law by giving him the right to bring the wife and kids (and even extended family)? Is it humane to teach children that crime pays? If AILA is so concerned about "family reunification," why don't they advocate the family reunify in the home country, where they'd all be legal and—oh, that's right, people leaving the country don't pay attorneys' fees.

Earned legalization is also the most realistic and humane response to the plight of the more than 1.6 million undocumented children and the additional 3.1 million U.S. citizen children with at least one undocumented parent. These kids should not be punished for their parents’ decision to pursue a better life.

In the first place, this is an argument that could be used to pardon any criminal, but it is simply immoral to use children to shield criminal behavior. One of AILA's most despicable qualities is its frequent use of children to justify policies that line its members' pockets.

In the second place, while an illegal alien and family who return home may experience a drop in consumption levels, it's not like they're returning to the ninth circle of Dante's inferno. Who knows? Maybe the kids won't end up in a street gang. The point is, America is not such a vastly superior country to all other countries. With this argument, AILA adds ugly Americanism to lack of candor, hypocrisy, greed, duplicity, and self-interest.

---

---