What is an Amnesty?

An Amnesty - Is That Legal?

by Charles Kuck

from ILW.com

I was driving to court recently down a highway in Atlanta when I drove past a toll booth with a HUGE sign on it. The sign read "AMNESTY." I thought: "wait a second! Amnesty" is a dirty word, literally unmentionable in polite company. How could there be an "Amnesty?"

On my way back to the office, I passed the toll booth again. Again, the sign was there. This time I slowed down (a little), and noticed it was a "Toll Amnesty." This toll "Amnesty" is apparently a regular event in Georgia. I explored a little more about this "Amnesty," trying to understand how a toll "Amnesty," turning illegal drivers into legal ones is permitted, but an "Amnesty" that would turn "illegal" people into legal people is not. I dug around a little on the Internet and found some information about the reason for and the goal of this toll "Amnesty:"

What is the toll violation amnesty program?

Normally, the State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) charges a $25 administrative fee, as provided by Georgia law, each time someone fails to pay the toll to travel on the tolled section of Georgia 400. During the limited time of this amnesty program, SRTA is willing to reduce a portion of the $25 administrative fee to $15 per violation. During amnesty, the Customer will be responsible for the $15 administrative fee plus the toll per violation.

Why is SRTA offering its customers an opportunity to compromise their violations?

SRTA's primary goal is to collect all tolls due. We believe one way we can accelerate the collection of unpaid tolls is to offer a temporary financial incentive to our customers - namely, a partial waiver of the normal $25 per violation administrative fee-if the tolls are voluntarily paid now.

So, the toll "Amnesty" is designed to FORGIVE people for breaking a law (a misdemeanor in Georgia), bring people out of the shadows of toll illegality, and, as an incentive to do so, have people pay LESS of a fine than if the agents of the state went out and rounded up everyone who is a toll violator. Does the State of Georgia know who these "illegals" are? Sure they do! If you fail to pay a toll, a photo of your car and license plate is taken, so the State of Georgia knows exactly who broke the law and where they live! (If only those Utah state employees lived here, they could have put their "hit" list out for the Georgia State Patrol to go out and arrest these illegal drivers.)

Let's compare a proposed national "Amnesty" (or for those of you with sensitive ears-legalization) with this Georgia "Amnesty." An immigration "Amnesty" would FORGIVE people for breaking the law (a misdemeanor if they came in illegally and a civil violation if they overstayed their visas), bring people out of the shadows and into our mainstream economy, and lessen the penalties currently in place (a 10 year bar in the home country) to encourage people to come forward right away and become "legal."

Wow, that is the same rationale for both programs. One run effectively by the State of Georgia and one denied a chance at being effective by national politicians. Why can we do one and not the other? Why can we give "amnesty" to illegal drivers but not to "illegal" people? Simple-A lack of leadership and a lack of political courage.

Once we can convince our national political leadership that immigration reform is GOOD for America (and it would be very good for America) and that the example set by the Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority is a good one to follow, we can end this divisive debate over immigration, calm racial tensions in America and get back to work fixing our economy. My only question is - which national politician has the courage to stand up and lead on this key issue?

---

About The Author

Charles Kuck is the Managing Partner of Kuck Immigration Partners LLC-The Immigration Law Firm, and oversees its nationwide immigration practice. His practice focuses on U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law and international migration matters. Mr. Kuck assists employers and employees with business and professional visas, labor certifications, immigrant visas, consular representation, and citizenship matters. Mr. Kuck also maintains an active Federal Court practice focusing on immigration issues.

Carlos Fuentes on Mexico

-Thoughts on Mexico’s Political System & Loss of Territory-
Jose Luis Sanchez

Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes illustrates an amazing picture of Mexico in his book “A New Time for Mexico.” His honesty in his writing is shocking to the reader because it is not expected, especially when he speaks of Mexico’s political system and its loss of territory during the Texas Revolution and Mexican-American War. On page sixty-two he names Mexicans as “The children of Caesar and Saint Thomas Aquinas,” which is a statement that I wondered about for a long time. After a while I began to see the meaning of the quote, it describes the connection the proud yet humble people of Mexico would have had if they did descend from the benevolent yet autocratic ruler and theologian. Mexicans are eternally searching in their quest for a savior, their hearts and minds scream for one to lead them out of poverty, shield them from corruption and violence and all the other ills the nation faces and or has faced; and that is the reason the people of Mexico invest God-like powers into the executive branch, regardless if the executive really will lead them as their promised savior.
The PRI ruled Mexico for about seventy years (1929-2000), and some commenter’s say they may return to power in the next presidential election. This is more than just a political party; it is an institution that stood in the way of democracy and justice in favor of security and economic growth. I would say that the PRI has always capitalized on Mexicans quest for a savior, promising every six years a new direction for the nation, a light at the end of the tunnel. Fuentes points out frequently that there are two Mexico’s, one a modern industrialized nation of 100 million people whose economy is ranked 13th largest in the world, and the other whose people live in a caste system in “prehistoric” conditions, where rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality rates even shock experts who study statistics on the “third world.” Fuentes makes the argument that Mexico must adopt democracy and respect for the law in order to unite these two Mexico’s. He mentions that Mexico should follow Spain’s example of Accords that were signed after General Franco’s death, that paved the way for a peaceful transfer of power, and from despot to democratic tendencies in that nation.
I agree with Fuentes in promoting democracy in Mexico, but I dare him to question why is there so much power centralized in the presidency. The presidents of Mexico have in the past exploited the nation and reaped the benefits, whether by owning stock in Telemex (A telecommunication conglomerate whose major shareholder and founder Carlos Slim is the world’s richest man) and resisting calls for that monopoly’s separation, or owing massive tracts of land that after a series of bill and initiatives would create another mega resort like Cancun or Baja, or sending the army to shoot University students and wage a “Vietnam” styled war in Chiapas and damning not only the army’s prestige but also the last rainforest in all of Mexico. These are actions that the presidents of Mexico have done with no oversight from the Mexican legislature and Supreme Court, the nation in my opinion is only a democracy when its time to look for a new savior every six years.
It is not with ineptitude that Mexicans face the corruption, violence, and just sheer depression of certain parts of their nation, it is with profound humility which stems from as Fuentes puts it, “mutilations of her territories.” Mexicans will never forget their great loss in the Mexican-American War. Not only was Mexico City the capital captured but the president Santa Anna was as well…it was during his imprisonment that he signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidelgo which gave the United States 40% of what was then Mexico. Even today speaking with my family I notice that while everyone is extremely proud of their “Mexicaness,” they always sort of bow their head in shame and eyes always lose contact when the subject of the past war comes up. It was and in many ways still is a shock that after fighting the Spaniards, French and Germans to preserve their nation, Mexico only ended up being shattered by the one nation it had hoped to emulate, the United States. It is a shock that still and most likely will always live on with Mexico’s peoples. My grandfather owned a landscaping business in California and it was truly remarkable to see him work the land. His sweat and often his blood went into the land, and he was always quick to tell me what could have been Mexico if she had kept her land intact. He says that “Mexico would be equal to or greater than the United States in terms of power, or that Mexico would have wiped out extreme poverty.” Funny enough I always respond that they will because as Fuentes points out, the character of Mexico is not to give in, described on page 81, “Mexico seems to be able to survive it all- earthquakes and hurricanes, wars and revolutions, territorial mutilation, crime, and corruption. A marvelous country of tender and hardworking people, intelligent, modest, hospitable, and secret people, prideful and resentful as well.” And that is why Mexicans regardless of their demi-God overlord and the rape of their lands, always are ready and able to proclaim loudly and with pride, “Qué Viva Mexico!”

book review by Jose Sanchez

To the Memory of Carlos Monsivais

June 21, 2010

Carlos Monsiváis, Mexican Who Wrote of the Great and the Humble, Dies at 72

By ANTHONY DePALMA

From the NYT

Carlos Monsiváis, Mexican Who Wrote of the Great and the Humble, Dies at 72

Carlos Monsiváis, the Mexican writer and cultural critic whose trenchant literary chronicles laid bare the foibles of political power brokers and gave everyday Mexican life a surreal majesty, died Saturday in Mexico City. He was 72.

Officials of the National Health Secretariat said he died of lung disease and had been hospitalized since April.

Mr. Monsiváis was not well known outside Mexico, and he never achieved the literary fame or commercial success of such contemporaries as Octavio Paz or Carlos Fuentes. But within Mexico, in newspapers, magazines and books, his five decades of observations about politics, popular culture, liberalism, and the highs and lows of the Mexican character made his voice more recognizable than that of Mexican presidents.

The current president, Felipe Calderón — with whom Mr. Monsiváis did not see eye to eye — paid tribute over the weekend. “His literary and journalistic work is a necessary reference for understanding the richness and cultural diversity of Mexico,” Mr. Calderón said in a statement. “He was a chronicler and witness for his era.”

Mr. Monsiváis’s writings helped shape Mexico’s contemporary political and cultural life. With Mr. Fuentes and others he was an exponent of the Latin American “boom” of the 1960s, a flowering of literary expression that brought Latin American writers to the attention of the wider world.

But while Mr. Fuentes and the others embraced universal themes, Mr. Monsiváis is best known for exploring the ordinary problems of common people to create extraordinarily moving sagas of the street.

His writing was often laced with irony and sarcasm. In “Mexican Postcards” (Verso, 1997), one of his few books to be translated into English, he wrote of his homeland: “A decent society with noble sentiments loves the home as if it were the nation, and venerates the nation as if it were a mother: there is no such thing as virtue outside of official engagements, no true love outside marriage, and no civic pride that is far removed from the respectful laying of bouquets and wreaths.”

Mr. Monsiváis wrote about some of the great social issues and political events of his time, often as a participant. He supported gay rights and embraced most leftist causes, starting with the 1968 student protests in Mexico City’s Tlatelolco Plaza. Shortly before the start of the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, scores of students were killed in a confrontation with security forces. The killings were a turning point for Mexico’s pro-democracy movement.

In 1999, Mr. Monsiváis, along with the crusading Mexican journalist Julio Scherer García, returned to the Tlatelolco episode and published a book called “War Report.” In the book they revealed documents showing that the snipers who killed the students were plainclothes members of an elite army unit assigned to the president’s office, directly implicating Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, Mexico’s president in 1968.

Mr. Monsiváis also supported the Zapatista guerrilla uprising in 1994 and the 2006 presidential campaign of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who narrowly lost to Mr. Calderón. He condemned the long rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which governed Mexico for more than seven decades. But when a member of the National Action Party finally won in 2000, Mr. Monsiváis criticized that party’s leaders and their conservative views.

Mr. Monsiváis was beloved as much for his curmudgeonly image as for his wrinkled Everyman appearance. He was often pictured holding one of the many household cats he kept in his overstuffed apartment in Mexico City.

He once referred to himself as a mix of Albert Camus and Ringo Starr, as a kind of fun-loving figure with the mind of a philosopher, and he was one of the few Mexican intellectuals who would be instantly recognized on the crowded streets of his city.

At a public viewing in Mexico City over the weekend, thousands passed by his coffin, which was draped in the national flag, the flag of his alma mater, the National Autonomous University, and the gay rights rainbow flag. In a public tribute, the writer Elena Poniatowska said, “What are we going to do without you, Monsi?” using the nickname by which Mr. Monsiváis was universally known.

Carlos Monsiváis (pronounced mohn-see-VICE) was born in Mexico City on May 4, 1938. After studying philosophy and literature at the national university, he began writing literary chronicles that have been compared to the novelistic New Journalism of the late 1960s practiced in the United States.

Those articles have been gathered into a series of books, including “Days to Remember” (1970), “Scenes of Modesty and Frivolity” (1981) and “The Rituals of Chaos” (1995), that were hugely popular in Mexico. He won many literary awards, including Mexico’s National Journalism Award. His column, “For My Mother Bohemians,” ran in the Mexico City newspaper La Jornada for many years.

Mr. Monsiváis had cousins but left no immediate survivors. His ashes will be kept in Mexico City at the Estanquillo Museum, which is devoted to popular culture and which Mr. Monsiváis helped create in 2006, drawing from his own collection of objects from everyday life.

Antonio Betancourt contributed reporting from Mexico City.

Strangly similar and previous review from the LA Times here.