Amnesty

From dictionary.com

amÂ·nesÂ·ty [am-nuh-stee] â€“noun
1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
â€“verb (used with object)
4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.

Amnesty seems to be the important buzzword in regard to the immigration bill that is finding new life in the Senate after stalling last week. The talk radio guys are using the word like it means evil incarnate. On the other hand, I’m not hearing any of the Senators who are pushing the bill refer to any amnesty.

The bill allows illegal immigrants who were in the country as of Jan. 1, 2007, to come forward, pay fees and fines, pass a background check and receive an indefinitely renewable four-year Z visa to live and work legally in the U.S.

Ultimately, holders of Z visas could qualify for citizenship if they learn English and hold down jobs. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries, whether or not they sought a green card bestowing permanent legal resident status.

It’s kind of funny that a couple of years ago the I.R.S. was offering tax “amnesty” to people who hadn’t filed in exchange for a one time settlement (or, fees and fines). The I.R.S. even used the word “amnesty” on all of those creepy radio and T.V. ads.

With any possible immigration reform, the problem of millions of people here illegally arises. What are you going to do with them? The only way to adress the issue without any form of amnesty would be to imprison every one. Even if you deported all of them, without punishment, that would be a form of amnesty.

Calling it the “amnesty bill” or saying that the bill doesn’t offer amnesty are both disingenuous. The heart of the issue is; “What degree of amnesty is required for the solution?”

All of that aside, I was a little surprised to find this in the New York Times.

Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: â€œTalk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.â€

It is no secret that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative and more and more, to my ears, Libertarian in nature. So, Lott saying we have to deal with “that problem” comes as a bit of a surprise. I would like to hear Lott go a little further with this line of reasoning. Is he possibly talking about the Fairness Doctrine, or does he have some other proposal to regulate ideas?

It seems that the “problem” is that people are making it a point to have their opinions heard. So, when Lott is saying that, “Talk radio is running America”, he is devaluing the voices of those who did speak up by implying that they are doing so because of a talk radio host.