Say the Word: Amnesty

When a progressive opens an immigration conversation by promising “stronger borders,” workers have already been pushed to the back of the room. Of course a country can administer its borders. But if that is the first and loudest promise, where is the promise to the people who harvest, build, clean, care, and raise families here? Say the word: amnesty.

I mean a broad, workable path to lawful status and citizenship for our long-settled neighbors, paired with family unity, fair labor enforcement, and humane rules for people arriving now. A slogan alone cannot write the law. Congress must define eligibility, background checks, processing, and the treatment of future arrivals. But it should start by naming the goal.

Amnesty International USA’s September 24 letter to Congress calls for abolishing ICE and ending detention contracts. Its list of immediate demands does not include legalization. I have pressed Amnesty International on the word amnesty for years. That omission deserves a question, not a false accusation: why leave a path to status off this letter? Amnesty International has supported legalization and a path to citizenship in other statements. I want its current campaign to put that demand on the front page too. [1][2]

The same challenge goes to my side of politics. Democrats have advanced legalization before, and Catholic bishops have advocated a path to citizenship. In 2013, though, the bishops’ talking points insisted their proposal was “not an amnesty.” For decades, that word has been treated as something to run from. I think the retreat has cost us moral clarity. [3]

We need accountability without pretending everyone cast the same vote. On the final House vote for the Laken Riley Act in January 2025, 46 Democrats voted yes, including Congressional Hispanic Caucus members Henry Cuellar, Jim Costa, Vicente Gonzalez, and Ritchie Torres. Many Democrats and caucus members voted no; the caucus has also backed due process and legalization. The enacted law requires detention in specified cases following an arrest or charge, without requiring a conviction. Each lawmaker should explain why that choice came before a serious legalization plan. A vote establishes a policy choice, not a secret motive. [4][5]

Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Its legalization programs eventually gave lawful status to roughly 2.7 million people. That law had limits and tradeoffs, including employer sanctions. Yet it proves Congress can choose status over permanent limbo. [6]

There is an economic argument as well as a human one. Undocumented immigrants already pay payroll taxes. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates they paid $25.7 billion into Social Security and $6.4 billion into Medicare in 2022. Work authorization and lawful status can bring more earnings into regular payroll systems and strengthen contributions. A Social Security actuary’s estimate of one earlier reform proposal found a modest improvement to the combined retirement-and-disability system. That is a reason to act, not a claim that legalization alone would repair SSDI finances. [7][8]

And there is a labor argument. Federal labor protections apply regardless of immigration status, but the Department of Labor warns that threats involving immigration authorities can be used to punish workers for asserting those rights. A worker afraid to speak up is easier to underpay. A boss who benefits from that fear gains an advantage over an honest small business. The answer is secure status and enforced standards for all workers, so nobody’s vulnerability becomes a business model. [9]

Follow the detention money too. ICE uses privately operated facilities. The GEO Group projected more than $60 million a year from its Delaney Hall contract in the first full year. CoreCivic projected nearly $200 million annually from two new contracts if fully activated. These are company projections, not proof of any politician’s intent. They show that public policy can create a revenue stream for detention. Both companies are publicly traded; calling every detention operator “private equity” would miss the actual corporate structure. [10]

To me, mass detention and the demonizing of outsiders resemble a strongman playbook seen around the world. That is my political judgment, not an assertion of coordination with Putin. The answer is democratic and specific: limit detention, uphold due process, enforce labor law, reunite families, and legislate a broad path to citizenship.

You cannot be for immigrant families while keeping them permanently deportable. You cannot be for poor workers while leaving a segment of the workforce exposed to retaliation. You cannot claim to stand for every small business while rewarding competitors who exploit fear. Abolish abusive enforcement. Build a fair system. Say the word: amnesty.

Sources

This op-ed expresses the author’s opinions. Figures and votes are attributed to the linked records; corporate revenue projections are estimates.