President Bush’s trip to Mexico must be judged a rousing success. It was refreshing to see him and the new Mexican president, Vicente Fox, enmeshed in such a mature cross-border relationship. But there is one philosophical and practical snare in this pairing of leaders.
That snare is the Mexican administration’s persistent pushing of another amnesty program for the 4 million to 7 million Mexicans now living illegally in the United States. Indeed, President Fox has consistently said that immigration is at the top of his list.
But what does this word “amnesty,” which sounds so generous, really mean to the United States? More important to President Bush, what would it mean to the responsible new social programs that he is trying to put in place across the country? In truth, the word spells danger.
Haven’t we, first of all, heard that word somewhere before? As a matter of fact, the United States extended a first amnesty 15 years ago. About 2.7 million people, the largest percentage coming from Mexico, received lawful permanent residence, or automatic and magical “green cards,” in the late 1980s and early ’90s, as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
But that action was to be a singular one. It was meant not to ameliorate, but to solve, the entire problem. All it really did was provide for the entire world an illustration of how willingly America rewards this type of law-breaking.
Only last October, a comprehensive report by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) came to a gloomy conclusion that highlighted the profound and unintended consequences of illegal immigrant amnesties.
Those amnestied immigrants have been replaced by new ones–from 5 million undocumented workers in 1986 to 5 million 15 years later. The increase after the amnesty was the direct result of relatives coming illegally to join their amnestied family members.
In short, the 1986 amnesty turned out, by the government’s own findings, to have been simply a giveaway of American legitimacy.
Meanwhile, the message clearly went out across the world, but particularly to the close-knit communities of Mexico: All you need to do is to get to America, stay there long enough, and another amnesty will come along and reward you.
Today the hopes of some of the more extreme members of the Fox team, in particular Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda, reach far beyond simple amnesty. In his notable 1995 book, “The Mexican Shock: Its Meaning for the U.S.,” the left-leaning political scientist called on the United States to give illegal immigrants the right to vote in California elections.
California, he argued, was going through a process of “de-democratization” because such a large proportion of California’s Mexican residents, not being citizens, cannot vote. This was not only “de-democratizing,” it was “electoral apartheid.” In the end, the “logic” is: Impose yourself illegally upon another country, demoralize and even destroy parts of that society, and finally demand more privileges in order to remedy the problems that you yourself have caused!
The linguistic roots for the word “amnesty” (literally, the overlooking of an offense) have to do with amnesia, and thus with forgetting and forgiving. Before the 1986 amnesty for immigrants, the United States had had only three official amnesties: in 1865 and 1868 after the Civil War for supporters of the Confederacy, and in 1977 for draft-resisters who skipped the country.
The 1986 measure, on the other hand, was the first wholly politicized amnesty, which was intended not to heal internal conflicts but essentially to excuse American officials who for years had neglected their duty to protect our borders and citizenship. (The philosophical and theological aspect of how you can forgive someone you don’t even know never seems to be a factor.)
On the other side of the coin, President Bush has been inspiring in his words on citizenship. In his inauguration address, he said eloquently that we must be “citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects.”
These political amnesties run contrary to everything that George W. Bush says he believes in: personal responsibility, ethical behavior and honorable and earned citizenship.
Let’s hope that, soon enough, he will realize this.
———-
Georgie Anne Geyer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. E-mail: gigi-geyer@juno.com
