Reply #11: very well stated [View All]

"Amnesties" (an unpopular word) are never fair. They are reconciliation efforts to solve practical problems and heal practical divisions.

And applicable to a wide variety of situations.

One that comes to mind is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa -- people who had done despicable things that cried out for punishment, in the normal course of human affairs, "got off" with admissions of guilt, because to pursue their crimes farther would have been devastating to the country's chances of establishing a peaceful and prosperous society.

If a whole country can set aside its absolutely natural and justified desire for fairness and justice in its own best interests when the crimes involved are as horrific as those committed under apartheid, why could the people of the US not show as much good sense?

The idea that somebody might be getting something that they're not entitled to is just such anathema to people in the US that the row to be hoed is a mighty hard one. And of course, unlike South Africa, nobody is particularly eager to explain to people in the US how it is in their own best interests to solve this issue in the most practical and effective way and just get on with it.

I'd add that most of those basing their opposition to amnesty on concern for those waiting in line are shedding pure crocodile tears. They're entitled to what they've got by being born in the US, and that's what really matters to them, they're just willing to share a few crumbs of it with a few other people who can slip through the tight bars they erect around it. US immigration policy is still based on national-oriign quotas, by the way, for anyone who doesn't know. (And obviously no one thinks that removing barriers to people crossing borders, as they have been removed for goods and services, is going to be practicable any time soon, so of course I'm not saying that regulating immigration is itself racist.)

I practised immigration law in Canada during several amnesties. Obviously, the situation was entirely different here, with a non-status population proportionately much smaller than in the US, and the problems largely caused in some instances by an overwhelmed bureaucracy (refugee claimants piling up in backlogs). All the same arguments were made here, though, by all the same usual suspects.

Somehow, people in the US seem uniquely able to cut off their noses to spite their faces and congratulate themselves on how handsome they are, as long as they can assure themselves that nobody's putting one over on them or getting something for nothing. What good it does anyone to have these numbers of people present in a country without status and all of the public benefits that such status confers, or to throw massive amounts of public money at attempting to get rid of them, I don't know.

I don't actually take a position on what the US should do in this situation, but I'm struck by the tunnel vision of people who can't see that measures that enable at least some people to regularize their status is a solution in their own best interests.