BernieHund: The Political Watchdog

This is “not amnesty”.  That is what some of the House Democrats are saying about the FISA bill they are about to “compromise” our rights away on. 

It is “not amnesty” to allow those persons who entered the country illegally, who work and raise their families as Americans, to stay in this country by paying a fine and learning English.

Well, according to what I have learned “amnesty” is a forgiving or overlooking of past offenses, a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

Amnesty, for some reason, has become as nasty a term as liberal.  Quite honestly, I can’t explain the negative connotation that has been assigned to either word.  In fact, it seems that we spend more time arguing semantics than handling the issues. 

We have heard those who support the idea of allowing the “illegal aliens” to stay in the country by paying a fine say repeatedly that doing so is not amnesty.  And, my question is so what if it is?  What does it matter what we call it if it meets the needs of a nation?  Let’s face a little reality.  It has been said that there are approximately twelve million “illegals” in the country.  Some say we should round them up and send them home, wherever that may be.  Now, any reasonable person would know that the concept is about as delusional as it gets.

We all know that the Titanic sunk in 1912.  We suppose that we have 12 million illegal aliens in the country.  But, that’s where the rub comes.  Our government has about as much chance of naming and locating the undocumented immigrants as I have of naming the passengers on the Titanic.  So, let’s stop the mental masturbation.  We couldn’t round up the 12 million people if we wanted to, especially since no one knows who is legal and who isn’t.  And, God forbid, if we could round them up, what would we do with them?  Send them home?  And, how would we do that?

So, why not start from where we are, call it amnesty if you like, and get on with securing the borders? 

And, now we are saying that letting the telecom companies off the hook is not amnesty.  Please refer back to the definition.  Well, what is it then?  We are told what it is not.  So, will someone please say what it is. 

Personally, I believe the House is selling out just as the Senate did.  Both are afraid of not looking tough enough on terror.  And, for some reason, it has become of greater importance to look tough than to be tough.  In this case, demanding that our spies get a warrant from the FISA court to do their job doesn’t seem like it would be asking too much.  There have been very, very few instances when the court didn’t immediately issue a warrant.  So, what’s the problem?

There was a reason for FISA… and there still is a reason for FISA.  Of course, there are those who believe we should trust our government to do what is right and best for us.  But, we must remember that government is not always right.  Dare I remind anyone of the War in Iraq?  But whatever your views on FISA, “not amnesty” needs a name and an explanation. 

Or, maybe “not amnesty” for the undocumented immigrants or for the telecom companies is just another “glitch” in the system.  Let’s stop arguing semantics.  Let’s stop flexing our biceps and talking tough.  Let’s just handle the business at hand and do it without any more “glitches”.