Thursday, May 18, 2006

They're right. It's not amnesty !

Amnesty – the formal act of liberating someone. Ok – they’re free to go – must not be that one. Amnesty - a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment. Ok – that implies a finite period of time – not that one. Amnesty - A warrant granting release from punishment from an offense – I guess it could be that one except there’s been no proven offense, this group is not under punishment.

Amnesty, probation, parole, pardon… all of these require a crime. Parole, pardon, and probation to some degree and for the most part involve at least some time served. If each these people were lined up against the wall, with their hands up, explaining individually to the INS how they happened to be on the wrong side of the border – and then the INS agents looked at each other and said “Ya know, these people are deserving of mercy and it’s within our power and our authority to just let them go. They’ll do the right thing and live legal lives from here on out in appreciation of our mercy” THEN: it would be truly and literally amnesty.

It’s come down to sloppy semantics again. Remember not too many years ago; hordes of illegals were forgiven without having to even identify themselves and say “sorry”. What happened then was only amnesty in some figurative sense. That term was used because it emphasized our largess and was handy for the media. It was presented as welcoming forgiveness with the vagueness of a grandmother covering up a little white lie. Even though it was actually only a few years ago; it was decades away from the sentiment prevalent today. Today, in our more “enlightened” age, there is no presumption of a crime having been committed so there is no need for forgiveness – just the welcome. It’s presented as JUSTICE. It’s called “abandoning the hypocrisy of an elitist attitude and recognizing the value of these disenfranchised brothers and sisters”. Well – that’s not what I call it. I’m not calling it amnesty any more either. I’m calling it “the great give-away” or the “first come, first served – oops, you’re already here – citizenship”.

Let me quote a good friend who happens to be a bit more liberal than conservative but is a patriotic daughter of a legal immigrant. “I usually don't take a critical view of the media, but, in this case, they definitely aren't showing the other side of the picture – that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of this country was completely unaffected by the boycott. If someone's tractor doesn't run or a nail doesn't get pounded - well, these are things that may be inconvenient for a teeny tiny minority, but have no impact on me. At least none that I can see. The media makes it sound like huge areas of the country were completely disabled by the boycott. One thing that LA and NY and Denver and Phoenix and Dallas and Chicago need to realize is that only the people in those cities care about them. The rest of the country holds them in disdain. What part of ILLEGAL do they not understand...................maybe we should say it in Spanish.......................”

I’m taking Spanish classes.
|

1 Comments:

Blogger Spank That Donkey said...

Yup, the only sympathy with the illegals are those making $$$ of them... or those who wish to get votes from them....

and what of Mexican Government... Do they not want their people??? Bush should be demanding free oil in compensation for the costs, of our border enforcement....

I am all for legal immigration, somehow we are not getting all the story....

May 20, 2006 11:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home