Library officials, that is.
As announced by the Chicago Tribune (paywall) and eNews Park Forest (non-paywall), the Chicago Public Libarary is offering a fine amnesty. For a two-week period, borrowers may return their overdue items with no fines, and library staff hope that, as a side benefit, people who’d stayed away from the library will renew their library cards and become regular users.
You’ll note that no one is proposing that an amnesty means that people simply get to keep their library materials, with or without paying their fines.
In other everyday uses of the word “amnesty,” the issue is likewise a matter of cancelling fines, not granting new benefits. A “parking fine amnesty” for scofflaws who have been parking in prohibited places doesn’t grant them the right to access those parking spots — it just takes away the fines.
An amnesty for pot smokers? It would take away fines, but certainly wouldn’t be equivalent to the legalization of pot.
What about “amnesty” in its usage when a civil war is ended, say, somewhere in Africa, for instance, with South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission? I would assume that, even then, if an individual were guilty of property theft (as opposed to crimes of murder, torture, etc.), he would be required to return the stolen property to the victim.
All of which means that, when we speak of a mass legalization program for individuals who crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas, and who worked under the table or with false identification, we are not really speaking of amnesty. And, yes, I know that the terminology is a legacy from the 1986 “amnesty.” But I was in high school then, and not in a position to object to calling it “amnesty.”
A true amnesty program would actually be a just and right action to take, and would be limited in scope: it would offer certain groups of people who came illegally but now, for various reasons would be eligible for legal residency but for the penalties that apply to them from their initial illegal actions. This would include spouses of Americans, in s0-called “mixed status” marriages, as well as students eligible for student visas, and educated workers who would be able to find employment as H1-B applicants. And from what I learned when I last wrote about this, legislation to remove existing penalties has in the past been held hostage to wider legalization programs, which is not just.
So (in the category of “wishful thinking”) I’d like to see a few politicians, or pundits at least, change the conversation by saying, “yes, I support amnesty. I would back a bill that would waive penalties for people who came illegally but now have grounds to apply for legal status, as spouses, students, or skilled workers. What I don’t support is a mass legalization program.” Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Why? Because our discussion around the topic of illegal immigration has turned Orwellian, with politicians swearing up and down, “I don’t support amnesty,” then later on admitting that’s because (in the political variation of lying with fingers crossed) they’ve defined “amnesty” to mean “granting of legal residency without preconditions” and they’re willing to attach a precondition, such a promise to attend an English class, to their legalization program.
Stay in touch! Like Jane the Actuary on Facebook:
I share blog posts there, as well as other worthwhile articles I come across that don’t necessarily make it into blog posts.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In