Immigration Critics Paint Themselves in a Corner with Cries of “Amnesty”

The President’s Executive Order deferring deportation for millions of unauthorized immigrants who may qualify for his plan is loudly derided by critics as “amnesty” or “executive amnesty” (I love Colbert’s take that the President wasn’t just satisfied with giving them “amnesty” he had to offer them “executive amnesty” – which must mean some special perks.)   

Critics have learned that if they can label something as “amnesty,” it will lose public support.  But when some of those same critics are asked what they would do – take, for example Cong. Tim Huelskamp’s recent awkward and painful squirming when asked that question on Bloomberg News – they have no answer.  They say they don’t support gestapo style mass deportations, but what can they support?  Well, they don’t know yet.  They just know they don’t support amnesty (defined in the broadest way imaginable) and they don’t support mass deportation, so what is left?  Apparently, the status quo, which means about 400,000 deportations a year, including thousands of non-criminal parents of U.S. citizens, immigrant children fleeing persecution and gang recruitment, and untold human suffering and family disintegration.

It isn’t as if critics haven’t been given a chance to do something.  A comprehensive bi-partisan Senate bill was passed over 500 days ago and sent to the House.  The President would have signed it.  The House refused even to allow a vote on the bill (and it had a good chance of passage).  And yet those same people are now saying that the President’s plan fails constitutionally because he won’t work cooperatively with Congress.

Something needed to be done and, frankly, it should have been done long before now.  A bandage was applied by executive action, but it’s Congress that needs to perform the surgery, if only they will. Instead, their plan seems to be to declare the President’s action unconstitutional, while offering nothing positive in return.

Rest assured, the executive order by the President is constitutional.  Without a doubt.   It was also constitutional two years ago when he, by executive order, granted deferred action to childhood arrivals (the “Dreamers”) to stay their deportations.  About 500,000 deserving immigrants benefitted from this.  Two times the constitutionality was challenged in the courts (in Texas and Florida).  Both times, courts found it constitutional, and the program continued.

If lawsuits are filed again, they will fail again.  Fox News commentator, Geraldo Rivera, stated on Fox News that he would stake “his mortgage” on the constitutionality of the executive action.  While I can’t afford that kind of wager, I feel the same.  By the way, there is a good 33 page legal opinion from legal counsel for the White House explaining the constitutionality of the action, and why they didn’t go as far as we might have wanted in the action.

So apart from lawsuits challenging constitutionality, what can critics do?  If everything short of deportation is “amnesty,” what to do?  That’s the problem.  They have said paying fines and staying is amnesty, long paths to legalization (17 years in the Senate bill) is amnesty, etc.  Anything except immediate removal from the country, regardless of how much social and economic damage that may do, is amnesty.   

In 2010, the Center for American Progress studied the effects and costs of mass deportation verses a comprehensive immigration strategy that provided a path to legalization.  The direct costs of deportation were about $285 billion (if it could even be done).  There would be a resulting economic impact in reducing our gross domestic product by $2.5 trillion over a ten year period.  In contrast, a program of legalization could increase GDP by a cumulative total of $1.5 trillion over that same ten year period.  Other studies have confirmed this impact as well.

That’s the economic impact of a “no amnesty” stance.  The social impact is much worse as families are torn apart and exploited.  Neither our economy nor our national character can take a hit of this magnitude.

Yet we all know that amnesty is unacceptable, or is it?

A wonderful friend from church told me once that he loved immigrants, but could never accept amnesty.  And I said, “why not?” “What is your problem with forgiveness?”  I’m still wondering that.  Christians believe in forgiveness (and if we don’t, then we don’t have much to offer the world).  “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  “Trespass” is an appropriate word to use in the Lord’s Prayer in this context.  Apparently, we have a really hard time forgiving those who trespass over that which we have trespassed before them.

Whatever flaws there are in the executive action (and it’s certainly no complete or lasting solution to the immigration issues), Congress can supersede the President’s action by enacting positive legislation in the area. 

Congress, it’s time to grow up and work on a solution that recognizes the dignity of the good people that work among us, marry our children, and worship with us, while setting future policy that meets the needs of families, workers, and employers in the U.S.

Response to Star Reader

My friendly response to a KC Star reader (who will remain anonymous) that took offense at Andrea's editorial on immigration reform, and took the time to email us directly.
--------------

Thanks for your email. It’s refreshing to see an actual name rather than the usual anonymous hate mail we too often receive. As you know, I didn’t write the article you refer to, but I do support its conclusions. But since you copied me on your email, I’ll take the liberty to respond.

An “amnesty” program, although not the term I would use, is not a hare brained idea, but one that has been a fixture in American immigration policy from its earliest days, including the most recent amnesty of 1986, signed by none other than President Reagan. That amnesty was followed by an unprecedented period of prosperity in the country and not a few economists have credited that prosperity, at least in part, to the legalization program. Similarly, as Andrea indicates, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated significant economic benefits from a legalization program, especially when contrasted with the status quo or an enforcement only program, which you seem to prefer. This economic effect has been confirmed by numerous other studies and economists. I can point to several if you want.

The point is, there are serious economic arguments in favor of legalization.

As for the moral arguments, I think you make too much of the supposed criminality of immigration lawbreakers. It may seem like semantics, but only a little over ½ of the undocumented immigrants here entered without inspection (EWI). Those people can be charged with a crime, but rarely are. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Usually (in probably 99% of the cases or more), they are charged simply with being here without permission (a civil violation – like driving without a license), and are deported on that basis.

Even for the ones that can be charged with a crime for EWI, the result is a “misdemeanor” crime. A second EWI can be a felony. It’s hard for me to compare these “crimes” with truly serious crimes against our society such as murder, rape, theft, etc. In fact, one aspect of the seriousness of these “crimes” in the context of our immigration history is that illegal entries were not even treated as crimes in our law until about 15 years ago (I believe), with an unduly harsh law referred to as IIRAIRA. The penalty for illegal entry has historically been deportation (or amnesty), not incarceration.

But the possibility of being named “criminal” under our law only applies to about ½ of the people here illegally (maybe as much as 60%). The rest entered legally, and then either failed to maintain the conditions of their status or overstayed their approved period of stay. They can’t accurately be referred to as “criminals.”

But perhaps the label isn’t that important. They are still lawbreakers of some sort, right? But why do you assume that a path to legalization is not a valid option? To my thinking, the fact of “illegality” is just one factor in deciding what is best for the U.S., not the only factor. We permit other lawbreakers to “bargain” their punishment to something less than the full application of the law would allow. Why is permanent banishment from the U.S. the only option? What about a fine, or waiting period, or payment of back taxes, or learning English, before receiving legal status? Only 10 years ago, the law was such that persons who had violated status, even EWIs, but who had otherwise the necessary relationships to immigrate, were allowed to still immigrate legally by paying a fine. That option vanished as a casualty of the fears of 911, but we have inherited in its place a weaker, more unjust system because of it.

I know many families that were recipients of the benefits of the 1986 amnesty. They, and their children, are lawyers, doctors, soldiers, and other professionals. Even this week, a Texas state representative indicated that she (Ana Hernandez Luna) had once been “illegal” and had benefitted from the 1986 amnesty program. These amnesty folks are a true credit to their adopted nation, and the same would happen today with some kind of legalization program.

On the other hand, a simple enforcement only program would be devastating economically, as well as to the moral fiber of the country. Did you know that about 1 in 10 of all of the children in the U.S. are in families of mixed status – that is at least one of the parents is here illegally? What would be the effect of mass deportation of those parents without papers? As the President said recently, we should not be in the business of separating families.

Couple this with the fact that about ½ of the undocumented people here have been here at least 10 years, and you realize that a lot of the people here have families, jobs, and long standing ties here, but don’t have, under our present law, the ability to become legal. Our ancestors had that opportunity. Comparing their supposed legality with the “illegality” of today’s immigrants is like comparing apples to oranges. The only real difference between our ancestors and today’s immigrants is that there existed for our ancestors a system to assimilate virtually everyone who arrived in the U.S. legally into the U.S. Even people that slipped in undetected were allowed to become legal simply by registering after proving they had been here for a period of time, such as five years. That’s a far cry from the immensely complicated and restrictive system we have today.

I’m not suggesting that our borders be open or that we return to the Ellis Island days of almost 100% admission, but there are very good reasons for trying to give a path to legalization to many of the people here without papers who have already become de facto members of our society – and their “illegal” or undocumented status should only be one of the factors to consider in drafting a more just law to deal with the situation.

This isn’t an outrageous position. In addition to President Reagan, it was supported by former President Bush, as well as (at one time, at least) such conservatives as John McCain, Sam Brownback, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Michael Bloomberg, as well as most leading economists.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I went into more detail than I ordinarily would have because of your courtesy in writing directly to us. I don’t expect you will agree with most (or perhaps any) of my conclusions, but I hope you have a better idea of where we are coming from, and trust that we both care about doing the right thing for our country. Thanks.



Andrea, Hi.

I see that you are in the press again with another hair-brained scheme to justify amnesty for illegal immigrants. Streamlining deportation procedures and curtailing meritless legal objections would significantly reduce costs. We could also vigorously help Mexico straighten out/speed up its legal visa application process.

Also, deported illegal immigrants who "soon return to the United States" should face mandatory jail time. Splitting hairs over criminal and non-criminal immigrant behavior is spurious, since illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. And, yes our ancestors all immigrated to America, but they did so legally.

Lobby Day in DC

Example of what it is like to lobby for immigration reform in Missouri and Kansas. This is an approximation of an actual dialogue on lobby day with a congressional office in Washington, DC. The rep’s office will remain nameless (although there are no innocents being protected here).

We enter the office and are greeted lukewarmly by a young staffer probably in his late 20’s. I will be the Q. and the staffer will be the A.

Q. We are here to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama mentioned the need for it very forcefully in his Town Hall speech last night in California. Also, Speaker Pelosi and majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, have indicated that immigration reform is at the top of their legislative agendas. Some are saying we may see specific proposals on this by this Fall. What do you think?

A. The Congresswoman does not support amnesty for those who have broken our immigration laws.

Q. O.K. What do you mean by amnesty? President Obama said that he would require persons seeking a path to legalization to pay back taxes, learn English, pay a fine, and get in the back of the line. Is that amnesty?

A. Yes. If someone has broken the immigration laws of our country and is here illegally, they should have to leave.

Q. For how long? Can they come back?

A. No, we do not support amnesty.

Q. What if a person is here illegally, but has married a U.S. citizen and has five U.S. citizen children? And what if that spouse and those children, all U.S. citizens, will have to go on welfare if their sole breadwinner is deported, never to return?

A. We do not support amnesty.

Q. So is any return to the U.S. considered amnesty by you, no matter how much of a fine or penalty they pay?

A. We do not support amnesty. Yes, if they are allowed to stay after breaking our immigration laws, that is amnesty.

Q. So under your definition of amnesty, anything short of permanent banishment from the U.S. is amnesty. Have you ever received a speeding ticket?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever exceeded the speeding limit, but not caught – even one mile over the speeding limit?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Then aren’t you a criminal driver? Do you think an appropriate punishment should be permanent revocation of your driver’s license? Or perhaps permanent banishment from this country and your family? Does that make sense?

A. That’s not the same thing.

Q. Well, do you know what the criminal penalty is for entering this country without authorization? It’s a $250 fine – about the same as a speeding ticket. Does that sound like the kind of “crime” that warrants permanent banishment from family and country?

A. We do not support amnesty.

Q. Although I don’t think this qualifies as amnesty, let me suggest an example. A few years ago, Rush Limbaugh was caught in a federal drug felony. Do you remember that?

(I could tell he did. He started getting red in the face and obviously irritated. I should explain that at this point I had abandoned any idea of persuading him to change his mind. It was obvious that he couldn’t really go beyond his talking point of “no amnesty” and I shifted to my "make him feel guilty and/or foolish” mode. And by the way, Rush Limbaugh was from his district, Cape Girardeau.)

Q. Rush was caught in this felony drug crime. He’s a drug criminal and could have gone to prison. But instead, he reached a plea agreement, paid a large fine and was on probation for a long time. It was a win/win situation. The prosecutors could avoid the expense and delay of a trial and Rush got to avoid jail. This is something, by the way, that happens every single day in our justice system.

So Rush didn’t have to go to jail – the punishment that our federal laws required. The question is, did Rush get amnesty for his drug crime?

A. No, that’s not the same thing.

Q. Why not?

A. We don’t support amnesty?

Q. So you support amnesty for Rush but not for some poor migrant worker who crosses a border to find a job and has U.S. citizen children and a U.S. citizen spouse that will be irreparably harmed if he is deported from the U.S.?

A. We don’t support amnesty.

Q. My impression of your representative was that she was pro family.

A. Yes, we are very pro family.

Q. Really? Did you know that in the past ten years we have deported from the U.S. over 100,000 parents who left behind U.S. citizen children and U.S. citizen spouses? What do you think that did to those families? Did you know that according to the Urban Institute, one out of every ten children in the U.S. is in a mixed status family? That is, they have one or more parents that are not documented in the U.S. So, if their parents are deported, that will destroy a lot of families. Do you think this is a good result?

A. We are very pro family.

(At this point, it was painfully clear that the cognitive dissonance of maintaining in one breath “no amnesty” and in the next that he is “pro family” simply did not register for him. In reality, the primary principal was “no amnesty” regardless of what human damage it does.)

Q. So exactly whose families are your supporting? Not these poor families. You take this “no amnesty” position despite the fact that what we are talking about with immigration reform is not amnesty at all, and the only alternatives involve either an unacceptable status quo, or incredible human misery and huge expense to the government in trying to deport these poor people. Do you know that it has been estimated to cost over $200 billion to try to deport about 10 million undocumented people in the U.S. And what do you get in the end? Destroyed families, messed up economy and no appreciable benefit to anyone -- the U.S. or the alien. Do you think that is a good result and a good expenditure of taxpayer money?
javascript:void(0)
A. We don’t support amnesty.

Q. Then you don’t really care to act in the national interest, do you?

A. (standing up) Thank you for coming.

Illegal Driver Essay

I was an illegal driver today. Yes, I was going at least 4-5 miles over the speeding limit all the way. Why did I flaunt the law so shamelessly?
Pat Buchanan talks about “rampant criminality” in his rages about the current immigration system, but if we want to see real rampant criminality, we don’t have to look any further than our roads. We all do it. Why? Because we don’t think the law enforcement officials care and we don’t think it is any big deal.

We probably should. Statistics show that about 1/3 of all traffic fatalities are related to speeding. But we’ve come to expect a certain kind of tolerance for this illegal behavior. A highway patrolman once told me that he doesn’t usually stop someone unless they are at least 10 mph over the limit. I wish he was around when I got a ticket in Texas for going 76 in a 70 mph zone.

Until recent years, the same kind of tolerance was imagined in the enforcement of our immigration laws. They aren’t criminal offences for the most part – just civil. For the most part, persons wanting to immigrate to the U.S. have to have some kind of relationship sponsoring them to live here – either through an offer of employment or through family sponsorship. Until just a few years ago – 2001 – someone who established that relationship could still stay and get their green cards by paying a fine. We reasoned that the relationship was more valuable to preserve than the minor civil violation.

But in 2001, that changed. 911 happened and nativist voices started screaming (and still are) that any forgiveness of this civil violation in favor of a fine (like I would pay to a zealous policeman who caught me driving “illegally”) was an unthinkable “amnesty.” When Rush Limbaugh was charged with a federal drug crime for which he could have gone to jail, but was instead given probation and a fine and community service, was that amnesty? He paid for his crime. He avoided a trial, conviction, and jail, by paying a fine and promising to not do it again. I would say justice was served. As much as I dislike what he stands for, I thought that was a typical and reasonable solution. The government didn’t have to have the expense of a trial, but still got something paid for the crime. Why isn’t that an acceptable solution to undocumented immigrants? If they have the necessary relationships to immigrate to the U.S., but can’t because the law is so unforgiving, why can’t we fix that with a giant plea bargain that gives them status, but requires them to pay a fine, wait in line, learn English, pay back taxes?