Las Vegas Sun

April 26, 2015

Currently: 70° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


War of words under way in immigration reform debate

As the immigration debate gets fully under way in Congress, Nevada lawmakers are bracing for tough policy battles.

They also are looking for ways to avoid a war of words.

Compiling an immigration bill is a complex task, one that in past attempts has been stymied by disagreement over simple definitions of key words, such as “amnesty” and “border security,” and the adjective options “undocumented” vs. “illegal.”

“Everybody has a different idea, or a different understanding of what some of these terms mean,” said Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller. “That’s what makes it so difficult.”

Six years ago, when Congress last tried — and failed — to reach an immigration compromise, a vocal opposition rallied around a single word: amnesty, which is what they complained an immigration bill that contemplated awarding eventual citizenship to people who had entered the country illegal was.

But then and now, it is challenging to find two lawmakers who agree on exactly where the line rests between what is absolute “amnesty” and what incorporates enough fair punishment to avoid that designation.

“To some people, it means round everybody up and send 'em back, and short of that is amnesty,” said Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei. “Other people say you should be able do anything, and nothing is amnesty.

“The phrase has become meaningless. There is no definition. So, fine — let’s move on to the issues.”

But other lawmakers say it’s impossible to separate the terms of the immigration debate from its terminology.

“Language is important ... terms matter in this debate,” said Nevada Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford, who believes there is “no ambiguity” that terms like “amnesty” and “illegal” are misapplied in the immigration debate.

“Sometimes you have to look at the motivation behind why certain people want to use emotionally charged language. This is an emotional issue,” Horsford said. “To add emotionally charged language, as members of the other side have, doesn’t make the process any easier.”

Some Republican lawmakers, such as House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith, are still using terms like “amnesty” to describe comprehensive reform efforts in a manner indistinguishable from 2007: He last used the term in late January in a statement that threw water on a bipartisan group of senators’ effort to present a draft immigration framework they are currently drafting into a bill.

But others, like Heller, have taken pains to remove such words from their vocabulary.

“There are harsh words, and it doesn’t necessarily aid the discussion to use harsh words,” he said.

But Heller, Amodei and many others, including Democrats, still rely heavily on other phrases that they acknowledge are just as ill-defined, such as “border security.”

“You know on 80 percent of this we can agree — strong border security, something for the Dreamers — and it looks like we’re coming together,” Heller said.

But when asked whether lawmakers actually agree on what “strong border security” is, Heller paused.

“No,” he said. “Everybody has a different definition. It’s a real uphill battle on the message.”

There are specific factors in play behind each of these terms. Determining what constitutes a “secure border” must rely on benchmarks. It’s just not clear whether lawmakers will choose the number of border patrol units on the ground, the number of cross-border apprehensions, the number of miles of fencing or some other indicator as their security measure.

Similarly defining amnesty may depend on how many penalties, fines and delays are established as preliminary clearances for would-be citizen immigrants not presently authorized to be in the United States. Already, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the Republican Party’s unofficial voice on immigration reform, has deemed “dead on arrival” President Barack Obama’s first specific proposal — a draft bill that would make such immigrants wait eight years for a green card.

Even in cases where the factors are clear, the descriptors might not be. For several years, the immigrant community has been making the case to politicians and publications to use “undocumented” over “illegal” when describing foreign immigrants present in the United States who are not authorized to be in the country.

But as a short survey of Nevada lawmakers reveals, many still do not feel comfortable applying either term to the group.

When some members of the delegation were presented with “undocumented” vs. “illegal” last week, Horsford was the only one to choose. (He picked “undocumented”).

Amodei dismissed the choice and went instead with “one in four people in Nevada” — a figure that accurately describes the size of the state’s Hispanic population but not necessarily the size of the population here without authorization.

A recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that about 7.2 percent of Nevada’s population and about 10 percent of its labor force is made up of immigrants without authorization to be in the U.S. Those percentages are the highest estimates Pew reported for any state in the nation. According to the U.S. Census, about 20 percent of Nevada’s population is foreign-born.

“Good community members?” Heller suggested as an alternative, with a weak grin, when asked whether he preferred using the term “undocumented” or “illegal.”

Some lawmakers argue that dwelling on the terminology is diverting the focus of the debate away from where it is actually needed if Congress is to produce a comprehensive immigration bill in 2013.

“I started out going, 'Well, (the debate) is about border security; it’s status and it’s guest workers.' Well, no it’s not,” Amodei said. “Those are three things, but then there’s jobs for tech workers, visa quotas ... there’s also spousal issues. There’s tons.

“I’ve found so far that my safe haven is I will endeavor to find the facts; I will talk to you about the nuts and bolts and why I have decided what I have decided after I do that. Because trying to talk about this politically is idiotic. No matter what you say, you’ll be wrong.”

While both sides seem clear that the only way to complete a comprehensive bill on immigration is to make a bipartisan deal, it is highly unlikely that Washington lawmakers will table politics for the several months’ duration it will take to work legislation through the House and Senate.

Though some lawmakers find it unsettling that their syntactical nuance will be vetted as closely as their substantive proposals, others see no problem with putting lawmakers’ verbiage under the spotlight.

“I don’t know, maybe I use terminology that’s not inflammatory,” said Nevada Democratic Rep. Dina Titus, shrugging off any idea that she would have to worry about keeping tabs on her preferred terms. “But in politics, small words can mean big things.”

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 4 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. We need no immigration "reform." We need foreign government "reform." Countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, Guatamala, etc. should be told to clean up their corruption and discrimination against their own people and let them have opportunity to succeed. Then those folks will not have to flee their miserable lives at home for "greener" pastures and our troubles with lawbreakers coming over the border will virtually disappear. In the meantime, enforce our border security and our existing immigration laws to the fullest extent.

  2. What we have now is de facto amnesty. The illegal immigrants are here. They're living and working in the shadows and as long as they steer clear of law enforcement contact they have little risk of bringing unwanted attention to themselves.

  3. Taking the simple step of making E-Verify mandatory with substantial penalties for employers who fail to comply would make a large dent in the population of illegal immigrants. We have had empirical proof here in Nevada that if there is no work available the numbers decrease.

    Take away birthright citizenship too and I would wager the number of new illegal immigrants would be reduced by 75% or more.

    And by the way, there is no need at all to change the Fourteenth Amendment to take away birthright citizenship. Congress can do it with simple legislation.

  4. juliette1954,

    What you imply with your comment "it's a land of immigrants and everybody should have a right to live here" is 'open border' thinking which would result in lowering the standard of living for the majority of citizens.

    The US would eventually become like many of the countries people flee from. That isn't a real world solution, especially in a capitalist economy.

    There must be limitations that reduce competition for jobs. Workers benefit when there are more jobs than workers to fill them. That is our problem now, and not solely due to undocumented worker's, who are often taxpayers, regardless of status.

    Realistic and humane reforms are necessary. Political games must stop.

    At the same time, we must do everything possible to create and return jobs to the US for our economy to grow and the standard of living increase for all workers.