![]() |
| "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally." - Ronald Reagan. |
Latinos are religious, morally
conservative and tend disproportionately to join the military. They also tend
to be hard working and entrepreneurial. Do we really have too many of them?
Do we really want to pack them
up, forcibly, by the millions in the greatest forced migration in human
history? How many are there, 15, maybe 20 million? No one has ever moved 15
million people against their will. No one has ever moved half that many without
concentration camps, forced marches of one form or another and mass death
through plague.
If there’s another way to do
it, please tell me what it is. But I haven’t heard one. What I hear is slogans
like ‘what part of illegal don’t you understand’ and attacks on ‘amnesty.’
Slogans move callers to dial in to talk radio, but they don’t move 20 million
people voluntarily back into poverty and squalor. Soldiers do that (unhappy
ones); box cars full of people do that. Camps surrounded by barbed wire do
that. In the end you either let them stay or you herd them out. If you want to
call it amnesty, go ahead.
After all, what’s wrong with
amnesty? The idea has a well-worn legal tradition, one strongly associated with
the Christian faith. It means forgiveness. After the Civil War, Lincoln offered
amnesty to rebel soldiers. Was he wrong to do so? They had taken up arms
against their own government; they had killed hundreds of thousands. But
Lincoln (as opposed to the radical republicans) had the wisdom to offer
forgiveness. What about runaway slaves after emancipation? They had broken the
law, shouldn’t they have had to pay the price even after the laws were changed?
Of course not. Why should immigration laws be any different? If we liberalize
them, which seems well overdue, should we still punish the people who violated
the law which we later deemed too harsh?




















.jpg)