With the announcement that the President and "key" U. S. Senators would attempt to resuscitate the fatally flawed immigration bill, it became clear that there is a clear disconnect between the President, "key" Senators and the American people.
In an effort to address public outrage and sway public opinion, the latest political gimmick by Washington, D.C. politicians involves the President dangling a $4 billion dollar promise to secure the borders immediately if the Congress passes the immigration bill. Of course, this offer begs the question of why not immediately use the $4 billion to secure America's borders? Securing our borders is the right thing to do and will make America safer without the political quid pro quo from Americans and politicians of support for something that they do not believe in. The President's latest move misses the point.
As highlighted by the many proposed amendments, the President's immigration bill has a number of flaws. Some can be addressed by changes to the bill after thorough debate and careful consideration. Others cannot.
While the amendments can make the bad bill into a better bad bill, they cannot change the fundament flaw with the immigration proposal. The core problem with the proposed immigration legislation centers on one simple issue: amnesty for those who have entered the United States illegally.
Many in the administration argue that since the proposed legislation would impose penalties, it does not grant amnesty. This is where the disconnect occurs. Penalties are important. Remedies are critical. Amnesty means permitting people to retain ill-gotten gain. Basically, it is the core principle that a robber or burglar cannot keep the property they took, an embezzler cannot kept the money they took, and a trespasser cannot stay on the property pending payment of a fine or completion of service requirements.
Here is one of the metaphors that is often cited by opponents to the President's immigration proposal to illustrate the point. Assume a homeowner discovers someone in their house that has entered illegally. The unauthorized person has vacuumed the carpet, cleaned the bathrooms, cooked a good meal, and mowed the lawn. The homeowner notifies law enforcement authorities. The intruder admits to entering the house illegally but insists that he or she has done all of the jobs that the homeowner does not like to do. Now, if the prosecutor proposes a plea bargain that says the intruder must pay a fine, but can stay in the home, what would the homeowner say? Would it make a difference if the prosecutor proposed that the intruder could stay permanently in the home if the trespasser agreed to do the household jobs for ten years in addition to paying a fine and completing the requisite paperwork?
Well, America is our home. It is now clear that over ten million people have entered our home illegally. The question is whether there are circumstances where they can stay in our home -- permanently? Some think that it sounds too harsh to say that they cannot stay in our home because they entered our home illegally. Yet, in a country where the rule of law protecting our homes is central, can there be any other option? Good works cannot earn the right to stay in a home that you illegally enter.
Of course, the President's plan goes much further. The plan grants to those entering the country illegally not just the right to stay, but also the right of ownership to the house they illegally entered after paying the fine, staying the requisite number of years and completing the requisite paperwork.
Amnesty in the immigration context means getting to keep what was illegally gotten. Fines and penalties punish but they do not right the wrong. Amnesty means giving up on righting the wrong.