By Any Other Name

Today, I am inclined to once again turn your attention to a story that is told about Abraham Lincoln during his administration’s struggles with how to deal with the issue of slavery.

As the discussions among his cabinet proceeded over whether or not blacks should be afforded the same rights and privileges that the nation’s founding documents declared to be the God-given birthright of all men, President Lincoln posed the question, “How many legs does a sheep have?” Of course, all agreed that a sheep has four legs.

Mr. Lincoln then asked, “Suppose we call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have then?” When someone answered “Five,” Mr. Lincoln corrected him: “No, he still only has four legs, calling his tail a leg doesn’t change what it is.”

Folks who have talked politics with me very much know how I like to use that story to make a point about abortion and the nature of the unborn child. But there is also a broader message in this story about the unchanging nature of what anything is, no matter what we might choose to call it.

“Amnesty” is a term that leaders in Washington have been going out of their way to distance themselves from in the debate over what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States. But before we go any further, we should note why that is. It is not because the government doesn’t have the authority to grant amnesty to whomever it pleases. It most definitely does have that authority.

Rather, the reason so many elected officials want to avoid using that term to describe any “immigration reform” bill that comes out of Congress is the simple fact that the notion of amnesty is hugely unpopular with the American people. There are laws currently on the books regarding the crime of entering this nation illegally, and what is to be done with those who have done so. Americans expect those laws to be enforced – at least as well as the nation’s tax laws, or laws against driving a car too fast are enforced.

The Washingtonian crowd, on the other hand, has something different in mind. Various national leaders, including the President, are advocating variations on legislation to “reform” the nation’s immigration laws – in what, by the way, to these eyes, looks very much like an ex post facto kind of way. But what they all feature is some kind of provision by which those who are already here illegally will not face the penalties required by the law as it currently stands.

Granted, they will have to pay fines and meet certain other new requirements to stay in the country, but they will not be subject to the punishments prescribed in the law as it was written at the time they violated it – and as it is currently written. And it is true, that may not be a “blanket pardon” releasing them from any obligations to face any music because of their illegal activity. But does that mean it is not some form of amnesty?

President Bush certainly thinks so, at least based on what he says. In his address to the nation last night, the President said, “Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant and that any proposal short of that amounts to amnesty.” Of course, his position is that any position short of that cannot be considered amnesty.

But if he, as well as other Washington leaders, is advocating changing the rules so that a large group of people don’t have to play by the rules that were in place at the time they made the choice to cross our border in violation of our laws, by definition it must be regarded as a form of amnesty.

And, again, it’s not that the authority doesn’t exist for our government to grant it, it’s that the (voting) public is unambiguously opposed to it. So the assumption in Washington is that this “reform” must be called something other than what it is in order to try to convince the public that there is no disconnect between the voters and their elected leaders. Of course, there is another way to convince the public of this – actually listen to what the public is saying.

And it wouldn’t hurt to cast a passing glance at the Constitution as well. For the question of the popularity of amnesty is a purely political one. But the question of passing an ex post facto law is a constitutional one. One that I haven’t heard discussed much in the debate over this issue. (Side Note: This makes me wonder if the only way to allow the current illegal immigrants to remain is to grant amnesty, based on the Constitution’s ex post facto provision. But that’s a subject for a separate post. And I would welcome other thoughts on that matter.)

But apart from the constitutional questions that can be raised, it is distressing to see that so many, both Democrats and Republicans, are willing to blind themselves to the facts, and hope that they can blind us at the same time. It may be that many of them may be forced to face a harsh reality come November – the reality that Americans prefer that their leaders deal openly and honestly with them.