Email this page

'Legalization' or 'Amnesty'?
Understanding the Debate

What’s the difference between comprehensive immigration reform, legalization, and amnesty?

Comprehensive immigration reform, legalization, amnesty, earned adjustment, regularization, normalization — all of these terms refer in some way to providing legal status to undocumented immigrants. They differ in their approach to how immigrants should obtain legal status or for how long this legal status should last. Depending on who is using the terms, they can refer to extremely different concepts.

Most people — immigrants, advocates, and policy makers — refer to the measures adopted in 1986 as an “amnesty.” The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) allowed undocumented immigrants who had been living in the United States since before January 1, 1982, to apply for permanent residency.

Immigrant activists and other immigrants’ rights advocates believe it is detrimental and unjust for a society to create an underclass of individuals with fewer rights or without the ability to exercise their human rights. Therefore, they believe that undocumented immigrants should be granted full legal status. Under current U.S. law, that is “lawful permanent resident” (LPR) status, which can later lead to the opportunity to apply for citizenship. According to the most basic definition above, what immigrants and advocates are pushing for is an amnesty.

In the years since the passage of IRCA, the word “amnesty” has become a political hot potato — tossed around by proponents and opponents of the concept in order to label the other side. Immigrants and advocates who support amnesty are of two minds about the term “amnesty.” Some say that “amnesty” means extending LPR status to undocumented immigrants; this is what happened in 1986, and it is what needs to happen again whether or not it includes other measures. In addition, it is a term that immigrant communities understand, especially the Spanish-speaking community with the translation “amnistía.”

Within the immigrants’ rights community, others argue that, although they also support granting LPR status to undocumented immigrants, legislators in Congress are unwilling to even begin a conversation if the term “amnesty” is used. Therefore, they prefer the term “legalization.” Some would also say that there is a substantive difference between the concepts of “legalization” and “amnesty,” in that “legalization” would include a more stringent application process or other provisions, including measures to regulate future flows of migration. At the same time, however, others would argue that the concepts are exactly the same; the difference is simply the term.

Proponents of the term “legalization” argue that “amnesty” implies “forgiveness” for a “crime.” Immigration, they believe, should not be seen as a crime. Proponents of the term “amnesty” say that no human being is illegal, and so they do not need to ask for “legalization.” “Amnesty,” the believe, is the more more appropriate term, because it asks forgiveness for breaking a law, albeit an unjust law. Amnesty International, for example, has been using the term for years, but it does not cast political prisoners in a negative light. And so, the debate continues.

Those who oppose providing legal status to undocumented immigrants have vilified the word “amnesty” so much that President Bush, in his January 7 th statement on immigration reform, declared, “I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship.” It is important to note that President Bush implied yet another definition of “amnesty,” which differs from those we have offered so far.

Members of Congress from both parties refrain from using the word “amnesty.” Some use “legalization.” Other terms are also used occasionally, including, “earned adjustment,” “regularization,” and “normalization.” Earned adjustment tends to imply that the applicants for legal permanent resident status must “earn” their right to LPR status by promising to work additional years or fulfilling some other requirement besides having been an important member of the community for years. As a result, they may be granted some kind of “conditional” status before receiving LPR status. At times, regularization and normalization refer to granting temporary legal status, for example through a guest worker program, rather than permanent residency. There have also been occasions, however, when these two terms have been used by policy makers as synonyms of legalization.

AFSC advocates for the full recognition and protection of the human rights of all people, including immigrants to the United States, documented or undocumented. Regardless of which term is used, AFSC affirms that, under U.S. laws and on a policy level, protecting the human rights of all requires, at the very least, providing LPR status to undocumented immigrants.

^ Top of page