Before venturing into the immigration debate, you should probably select your rhetorical weapons. Are we dealing with “undocumented immigrants” or “illegal aliens”? Does the McCain-Kennedy bill recently approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee allow for “earned citizenship” or “amnesty”? Is the issue one of “fairness” or one of “law and order”?

Anti-immigration forces, especially House Republicans, have chosen the latter set of words, framing the immigration debate as a question of proper equality. They claim they are motivated by nothing but respect for the law, then state their opposition to “amnesty.” Illegal immigrants have broken the law, they argue, and should face the consequences—deportation or, at least, criminalization to induce them to leave. “Amnesty” is deemed unfair to the millions who wait patiently to enter the country legally. If illegal immigrants are granted “amnesty,” House Republicans maintain, we encourage law breaking, with chaos as the predictable result.

The use of “amnesty” is undeniably polemical. It is traditionally granted to criminals—who should be punished but are exculpated for pragmatic reasons, particularly in times of

national reconciliation. It was granted to low-level Argentine military officers who committed human rights abuses during the country’s “Dirty War.” Augusto Pinochet declared amnesty for all Chilean military officers prior to handing over power to a democratic government. Amnesty, we are told, is an affront to the legitimacy of our legal system.

The not-so-subtle claim underlying “amnesty” is that the 11 million, mostly Hispanic immigrants are in fact criminals.

Currently, crossing the border illegally is a civil offense—lower in severity than a misdemeanor—the same as a foreign student at Harvard overstaying his visa. If you are caught, you are understandably sent back. But what happens if your original offense happened 3, 6, 10 years ago? House Republicans have not differentiated between someone caught on the U.S.-Mexican border this morning and someone who has been raising a family, working, and (in many cases) paying taxes for the past 10 years. Under current law, there is no statute of limitations (although in practice, immigration courts only rarely deport individuals who have lived in the U.S. for a long time).

The proposed McCain-Kennedy bill recognizes that a certain statute of limitations should apply to immigrants who entered the country illegally more than five years ago. The purpose is to prevent the past from interfering with people’s current lives. House Republicans counter that such a provision will encourage more law breaking and send a message to millions of potential illegal immigrants that they only have to evade authorities for a few years.

But the McCain-Kennedy bill provides only temporary visas for those immigrants who have been here for two to five years and a guest worker program for hopeful immigrants, which reduces the need for them to enter the country illegally. Unfortunately, though, House Republicans are on the road to getting their own way. Despite being approved 12-6 by the SenateJudiciary Committee, the McCain-Kennedy bill has not mustered the 60 votes needed to bring it to a vote in its current form.

In the midst of all this legislative wrangling, an obvious point is often neglected: the law is not untouchable, a fragile house in which we dare not play. We are often reminded that judges are the ones who must strictly interpret the law, but legislatures can change it. House Republicans are trying to make illegal immigration a criminal offense, while at the same time invoking the law as an unbending deity whose dictates must be dutifully obeyed.

In doing so, they strategically sidestep the most salient dimension of illegal immigration—that millions of immigrant families have already settled down as Americans. The law is effective only in so far as it can be applied practically and humanely. It would be a shame to let a rhetorical ruse convince us otherwise.



William E. Johnston ’08, a Crimson editorial comper, is a social studies concentrator in Adams House.