Inside AGC CEO's Message
July/August 2007

The Amnesty Myth

Leadership was lacking in immigration reform

By AGC CEO Steve Sandherr

If you listen to conservative talk radio, you have been inundated this summer with cries of "amnesty" in describing the immigration reform bill that Congress recently abandoned. Critics and opponents of the legislation–a rare bipartisan compromise–have labeled the bill such to the point that a majority of Americans use that one word description to define an extremely complex 400-page bill that accomplished many of the goals expressed even by its opponents.

The bill would have secured the borders and required everyone in the country to have tamper-proof identification. Employers would have been required to verify the status of all employees or face significant fines and potential criminal penalties. These new requirements would have stepped up enforcement and made it easier to document both compliance and noncompliance.

It is apparent that an even larger majority of Americans have not read the bill, or at least taken the trouble to learn about its contents. (Based on what I heard our elected officials saying about the bill, it was evident that few of them had taken the time even to consider the legislation.)

Had they availed themselves of the opportunity to read the bill, they may have reached a different conclusion. Veterans of the 1986 immigration legislative battle (I am one of them) know full well that that bill, supported by the Reagan Administration, contained pure amnesty. Illegal aliens in the country at the time of the enactment of the legislation were absolved of any legal liability for crossing our borders illegally–no fine, no probation, no problem. It is fair to conclude that the granting of outright amnesty at that time led many citizens of our neighboring countries to assume that amnesty could be granted to them at some point in the future if they overstayed their welcome.

A cursory reading of the legislation that died in the Senate unveiled a much different treatment of those who break our law by crossing our border illegally. The compromise bill would have bestowed temporary, conditional and probationary legal status to illegal aliens under a "Z visa." The bill would have required illegal aliens to come forward within 18 months of enactment, plead guilty to unlawful entry and pay a civil penalty and processing charges that cumulatively total $5,000. Failure to do so would result in deportation.

Immigrants would have had to prove employment, undergo a criminal background check and return to their home country to apply for the Z visa. Applicants would also have had to demonstrate proficiency in English in order to renew the visa. Holders of Z visas would have been susceptible to deportation for criminal violations, would not have been eligible for Social Security benefits and would not have been able to sponsor relatives for entry into the U.S. I may live inside the Beltway, but that doesn't look like amnesty to me, and I would prefer it to the status quo which the Congress recently endorsed with their inaction.

Passing controversial legislation that stirs passions is tough. It is rare to see politicians do what they think is right, particularly when it offends anyone, let alone their "base." In this case, those few who did may take solace from the fact that what was in the bill was far different than what was described by its opponents. As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying: "You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts." If Congress takes up this important issue again, let's hope they stick to the facts.