amnesty require

"Require" illegal aliens to be amnestied (rather than "offer" them amnesty)

In February 2008, two Democratic Party-linked groups created a subtle talking point that politicians such as Barack Obama and other groups have used since then. In brief, they called to replace "offering illegal aliens a path to citizenship" (or a euphemized version thereof) with "requiring illegal aliens to get on a path to citizenship". They proposed this in the hopes that their tough talk would fool opponents.

To illustrate the change, here's a poll question from June, 2007:

One proposal would allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship...

Compare this April 2008 Obama editorial:

Second, we must require the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, including more than 300,000 in North Carolina, to step out of the shadows and onto a path that includes the ability to earn citizenship...

Last modified Jun 3, 2009
Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

Greg Orman misleads on immigration using cookie cutter talking points - 09/28/14

[UPDATE: Orman supports the 2013 Senate amnesty bill, see below]

Greg Orman is the independent candidate for Senate from Kansas. His thoughts on immigration are completely unoriginal and just as deceptive.

Questions for Kelly Ayotte about comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty, New Hampshire) - 06/09/13

New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte comes out for comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty) in an OpEd entitled "Why I'm backing legislation to fix our broken immigration system" [1].

How is Gene Sperling misleading on economics and immigration reform? - 03/13/13

At the White House blog, Obama economic advisor Gene Sperling offers the highly misleading post "The Economic Case for Commonsense Immigration Reform" [1].

Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick mislead, promote bad immigration policy - 01/25/13

In the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick offer "Solving the Immigration Puzzle" (link).

I'll provide excerpts followed by a discussion of how they're misleading and promoting bad policy.

Democratic Party 2012 platform on immigration: why it's wrong - 09/04/12

The section about immigration in the Democratic Party 2012 platform is below. It only has broad outlines and countless Democratic leaders have repeated these same things many times before.

They were wrong then, and the platform is wrong now (see each link for the details):

10 things Obama's "Blueprint for an America Built to Last" doesn't tell you (immigration) - 02/01/12

After the State of the Union speech, the Barack Obama administration released a "Blueprint for an America Built to Last" [1]. I'll briefly describe what the section about immigration doesn't tell you. Here's the section of the Blueprint that deals with immigration:

Misleading Lake Research, America's Voice immigration poll (DailyKos) - 05/25/10

Another day, another misleading immigration poll. This one is from Lake Research for Frank Sharry's America's Voice. It's promoted by Kos of DailyKos at [1]. And, one wonders what the game is: why promote misleading polls when all they do is give a false sense that something's popular when it isn't? Since many of the consumers of the poll will be on Kos' side, why is he trying to mislead them? Or, is it just that he can't figure out how the poll is misleading?

The only question we need to look at is this, which got a whopping 78% of support:

Now I'd like to read you a description of comprehensive immigration reform: Under this proposal, the federal government would strengthen border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship. Do you support or oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?

1. That question doesn't clearly tell respondents that any illegal alien who passed their background check and the rest would be able to eventually get U.S. citizenship; it's ambiguous. If they'd said "Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government... and then would be able to go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship" it might be a bit clearer, but they're still front-loading the punitive steps and hiding the pay-off for corrupt politicians and businesses at the end. Would they have asked something like, "In order to get U.S. citizenship, illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line"? Maybe they should try an A/B test; most likely the second wouldn't fare as well since they would then be front-loading something most people probably don't want.

2. As with all the other immigration polls, they don't outline the downsides of comprehensive immigration reform, some of which are listed at that link. Can anyone imagine them asking whether someone would support "reform" despite the fact that - among many other negative consequences - it would give even more power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government? Or, consider this: "Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government... and then would be able to go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship. And, all of this would occur despite the fact that it would give a pass to decades of politicians supporting, enabling, or ignoring massive illegal immigration and decades of businesses knowingly profiting from illegal activity." What percentages would Kos get for that?

[1] dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/25/869838/
-Immigration-reform-is-still-hugely-popular

Schumer, Senate Democrats discuss their immigration plans, including a national ID card - 06/24/09

Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post discusses a press conference Senate Democrats held earlier today to discuss their plans for comprehensive immigration reform (link). As previously discussed, Charles Schumer supports a national ID:

"I'm sure the civil libertarians will object to some kind of biometric card -- although . . . there'll be all kinds of protections -- but we're going to have to do it. It's the only way," Schumer said. "The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration."

It's quite difficult to believe the government is committed to following their own laws since most political leaders support or enable illegal activity, with some even outright promoting it such as Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schumer said legislation should secure control of the nation's borders within a year and require that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants register with the government and "submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status" or face immediate deportation. Rejecting the euphemism "undocumented workers," he said: "Illegal immigration is wrong -- plain and simple."

See secure the border and amnesty require. And, if he wants to immediately deport those who won't take part in the program, why can't he do that now? Regarding the last sentence, that's just posturing. However, if you get a chance, it would be a good thing to bring up when discussing this issue with him or other leaders.

Barack Obama immigration editorial misleads - 04/15/08

But, you already knew that. Barack Obama offers an editorial entitled "Enforce tighter border, employer verifications" (link):

While I understand the passions -- and legitimate differences -- on both sides of this difficult issue, we must restore civility and reason to the conversation.

Translation: "my opponents are gun-toting anti-immigrant racists". And, "as irrational as it seems, what I propose is the rational approach."

First, we must reinforce our borders to deter the more than 2,000 immigrants who cross them illegally each day. Most of these aspiring laborers risk death in the desert to come here illegally, and they are diverting our attention from those trying to enter to do us harm.

That's the same thing Bush and Chertoff have said at least a few times. The use of "aspiring laborers" is a minor variation of the Busboys Canard as used by Tamar Jacoby, David Brooks, the WSJ, and on down the line.

We also have to ensure that employers are hiring only legal workers. That's why I've worked with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Democratic Sen. Max Baucus to make it significantly more difficult -- if not impossible -- for employers to hire workers who are here illegally, including the more than 40 percent who came legally and overstayed their visa... This will require a mandatory electronic system that enables employers to verify the legal status of their employees within days of hiring them.

If that just uses SSNs, that might be acceptable. If however it involves a biometric national ID card, that probably wouldn't be. More on that later...

Second, we must require the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, including more than 300,000 in North Carolina, to step out of the shadows and onto a path that includes the ability to earn citizenship by demonstrating a sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.

Bolding added; see Possible Democratic Party immigration "reform" charade: "offer legalization" to become "require". At least he's got his talking points in order!

While it's unrealistic to deport them, illegal entry cannot go unpunished. That's why we must require them to pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line for citizenship behind those who came here legally.

Unfortunately, there's no "back of the line", since the line is constantly being replenished. Not only would granting amnesty greatly impact those now in the line or who want to get in the line in the normal fashion, it would either take five to ten years to do all the background checks or they'd be extremely sloppily done.

We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and we must reconcile those traditions. It's time to move beyond our broken politics and achieve real progress on immigration reform, not just for the sake of passing a bill, and not as a favor to immigrants, but so that we can finally address the concerns of the American people, and make real the hopes of all those who want nothing more than a chance at the American Dream.

Certainly, many want the "American Dream". Others just want to earn money. And, their leaders have shown time and again that they have other goals in mind.

Possible Democratic Party immigration "reform" charade: "offer legalization" to become "require" - 02/29/08

A new "confidential" study called "Winning The Immigration Debate" has been released by two groups linked to the Democratic Party: the Center for American Progress (linked to Hillary Clinton and indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (member groups also have indirect links to the Mexican government) [1].

I haven't seen the study, but while some might be fooled, it's clear that it's just a new attempt to get the same old amnesty. And, their recommendations boil down to simply a rhetorical change, from "offering" a "path to citizenship" to "requiring" illegal aliens to become legalized. That more stern language will, the authors hope, immediately cause millions of U.S. citizens to be more amenable to amnesty. I'm sure they'll be able to fool many people that way, but in the end it's not going to work.

And, wrap your mind around this from the study:

This message places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.

Who knew? Of course, this is yet another rhetorical device. Why else include the bit about what voters want? Shouldn't those pushing amnesty want what's best for the U.S. as well? Obviously they don't: their actions have repeatedly shown that they're not thinking of what's best for the U.S. but simply what's best for them and their companies, or their ethnic groups, or their political party.

[1] CCIR is headed by Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza. They've suggesting going easy on illegal aliens suspected of identity theft, they gave an award to a virulent racist, they fund extremists, and more. At least two members of the CCIR have indirect links to the Mexican government (ICIRR and MALDEF) and one has allegedly collaborated with that government (CHIRLA). And, one of their member groups (ILIR) has received funding from the Irish government.

In other words, no matter what you hear, it's the same old same old.A new "confidential" study called "Winning The Immigration Debate" has been released by two groups linked to the Democratic Party: the Center for American Progress (linked to Hillary Clinton and indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (member groups also have indirect links to the Mexican government) [1].

I haven't seen the study, but while some might be fooled, it's clear that it's just a new attempt to get the same old amnesty. And, their recommendations boil down to simply a rhetorical change, from "offering" a "path to citizenship" to "requiring" illegal aliens to become legalized. That more stern language will, the authors hope, immediately cause millions of U.S. citizens to be more amenable to amnesty. I'm sure they'll be able to fool many people that way, but in the end it's not going to work.

And, wrap your mind around this from the study:

This message places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.

Who knew? Of course, this is yet another rhetorical device. Why else include the bit about what voters want? Shouldn't those pushing amnesty want what's best for the U.S. as well? Obviously they don't: their actions have repeatedly shown that they're not thinking of what's best for the U.S. but simply what's best for them and their companies, or their ethnic groups, or their political party.

[1] CCIR is headed by Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza. They've suggesting going easy on illegal aliens suspected of identity theft, they gave an award to a virulent racist, they fund extremists, and more. At least two members of the CCIR have indirect links to the Mexican government (ICIRR and MALDEF) and one has allegedly collaborated with that government (CHIRLA). And, one of their member groups (ILIR) has received funding from the Irish government.

In other words, no matter what you hear, it's the same old same old.