New Imigration policy

[AMDMACMAN]

I cant believe I am the first one to post about the new Bush imigration policy. THis is the most liberal open imigraton policy in recent memory.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/124131.html)

[Frohickey]

Only if its accompanied by stricter border enforcement. I would not be averse to building a wall, or mining the border with seizmographs and cameras and Predator drones. :p

Of course, the same level of scrutiny would need to be done at the seaports, and airports. Remember the trailerful of chinese aliens trying to get smuggled into the US?

[bousozoku]

It seems as though they just might give the country to someone else, if the price is right.

Does this seem like a way to get the hispanic vote in the presidential race?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by bousozoku

Does this seem like a way to get the hispanic vote in the presidential race?

i believe that's at least one of the motivations behind the action.

even if the measure never passes, bush can claim compassion.

[pseudobrit]

Too bad it seems aimed at one ethinic group. I have a Hungarian friend who can't get his girlfriend into the country since 9/11. This bill is liberal for some, but doesn't help his situation one iota.

[wwworry]

THis bill is structured for...

cheap labor for PepsiCo.

Do you see how it is structured? First a company has to make sure that the jobs are not being filled by Americans. (Sign a form.) Then bring in cheap labor that has to leave in 3 years. (No benefits! No long term responsibility for the employer!)

What is to stop US employers from slashing wages when they now have access to cheap foreign guest workers? Instead of moving the factory overseas for cheap labor, now anyone can move the cheap labor here!

THis bill could have been improved by a raise in the minimum wage and some negotiated worker standards in our foreign trade agreements.

For Bush it's WIN WIN. Cheap labor for big business. Florida and California electoral votes.

[Desertrat]

Something never mentioned when speaking of the numbers of immigrants--whether legal or illegal--is the effect on the resource base of an inflow of large numbers of people.

For instance, the water supply for the LA Basin comes via the All American Canal from the Colorado, and via the California Water Project which gets its water from the snowmelt of the Feather River above Sacramento. Both systems are stressed as to supply capability.

Phoenix and Tucson are dependent on the Central Arizona Project, which also takes water from the Colorado.

Atlanta, Birmingham and Chattanooga are in a squabble about water from the Tennessee River.

The growing megaplex strip city of San Antonio-Austin is also stressing the local-area water supply.

All these areas are high-growth, and have large numbers of immigrants as well as native in-migration.

Interesting times...

Minimum wage is aimed at entry-level skills. From what I've seen first-hand, the productivity of entry-level workers barely justifies the existing $5.15 per hour, regardless of a worker's "need". If you raise the minimum wage, you reduce the profitability of many small businesses--a high percentage of which are already marginal. One major problem for them is the inelasticity of their pricing. One regular result of raising the minimum wage is a reduction in a business' workforce. More workload on those remaining, and more folks on unemployment.

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

As a Republican voter, I am deadset against the Bush proposal. Wwworry is right in that it is all about cheap labor for big business (and any resultant Hispanic voter support would be a nice fringe benefit). So, we will import cheap manual laborers; outsource tech work to India; import cheap products from foreign countries; and the only way for US citizens to make money will be to give each other haircuts and sue one another.

Desertrat, you are right in pointing out the strain on our natural resources. Dems are compassionate to a fault regarding illegal immigrants, but they conveniently ignore the increase in smog, pollution, energy consumption, etc. that goes along with that. If they are going to complain about overpopulation, why do they support more crowding in their own areas?
This is bad policy. The GOP will get no donations from me this year, and if Clark manages to get the Dems' nod, I will seriously look at his candidacy.

And before you allege racism, let me tell you that my mother just got approved for US citizenship TODAY (after 40 years as a legal resident alien in the US), and will be taking the oath this afternoon. I support limited, legal immigration.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
the water supply for the LA Basin [chomp]

the bush family has been buying up water rights around the world for years

[Giaguara]

why do everyone now need an electrical etc passport (or go thru the visa thing via consulate) to get here? why make that more hard, and then tell it's really easier ..?


what does actually happen when someone stays longer than they should? if you have e.g. a 90 days or 1 year vista, but you just stay (for 10 or 20 years.. as long as you can)? you can't renew your passport eitehr .. :rolleyes:

wait, reading it further... 140,000 g cards .. of which 10,000 to skilled persons? if it takes up to 6 y or longer to wait for the card anyway, why to sign to that thing even if it theorically promises something?

in practise it will just increase your probability of being kicked out of the country.

miserable attempt to try to catch votes from the hispanics. jsut let people stay, period.

[Desertrat]

Back 20 or 30 years ago, the numbers of "wetbacks" was not overwhelming. Today and in recent years, it's very much overwhelming. Look at the public-cost numbers for California and Arizona, and to a lesser-but-significant extent, Texas. (The largest single factor is medical.)

I'm favorably disposed toward legal immigrants to this country. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigrants from any country, including Europe or what were the Iron Curtain countries, regardless of how good and hard-working these folks are.

I fail to see how criminals' rights are supposed to be superior to my right to not be over-crowded or a right to a fairer level of taxation.

'Rat

[Dont Hurt Me]

Why dont we just open all the jails and say we are starting over? whats the point of Laws if anyone can break em and then be made a U.S citizen. This is smoke and mirrors to divert attention from getting us in Iraq and he is trying to get that latino vote. Bush administration has failed at doing anything about our borders. and to think i voted for this guy:rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Sounds like your Hungarian friend ought to get his US citizenship and marry his girlfriend. Thats one way of getting a foreigner into the country.

DesertRat touched upon the lunacy of minimum wage (current term is living wage) laws. Used to be that you would have teenage kids and people with no skills in gainful employment accumulating more skills as they work. With the minimum wage laws, these people end up on the welfare rolls, or unemployment.

I've been following the illegal alien migration from various websites by people that own land that is being trespassed on a daily basis. You would not believe the ecological damage and rubbish these aliens leave. Diapers, shoes, empty water jugs, and other trash. And Democrats are pro-environment. Sounds like the correct solution is for more border enforcement, and if they want more immigration, make it legal immigration via border check stations where these people can be screened for criminal records, infectious diseases and other stuff.

Lets see. If Al Qaeda has the smallpox virus, and it takes 11 to 14 days after virus encounter to get sick, lets see. They can hand illegal aliens hoping to cross the border smallpox infected blankets. Terrorists don't even have to be the one to die to cause an epidemic.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Sounds like your Hungarian friend ought to get his US citizenship and marry his girlfriend. Thats one way of getting a foreigner into the country.

He's been naturalised since he was a kid. Marriage is a bit extreme of a way to have to get into the US, isn't it?

I've been following the illegal alien migration from various websites by people that own land that is being trespassed on a daily basis. You would not believe the ecological damage and rubbish these aliens leave. Diapers, shoes, empty water jugs, and other trash. And Democrats are pro-environment.

So what? You think Democrats are pro-illegal immigration? What's your point here?

Lets see. If Al Qaeda has the smallpox virus, and it takes 11 to 14 days after virus encounter to get sick, lets see. They can hand illegal aliens hoping to cross the border smallpox infected blankets. Terrorists don't even have to be the one to die to cause an epidemic.

Oh God. The sky is falling. Let's all be really scared. Orange alert!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
He's been naturalised since he was a kid. Marriage is a bit extreme of a way to have to get into the US, isn't it?

So what? You think Democrats are pro-illegal immigration? What's your point here?

Oh God. The sky is falling. Let's all be really scared. Orange alert!

Well, there are tourist visas that your naturalized friend can ask his girlfriend to get. But she would need to go back after thats over with. I'm assuming that he wants her to stay in the US for a bit longer than that.

Democrats haven't went out and said they are against illegal immigration. Its always been, lets give amnesty to the ones that are here illegally already since they are only here for a better life. Sure, the last president that signed the illegal alien amnesty was Ronald Reagan, and we know that that did not do. It did not stop the flow of illegal aliens.

The smallpox scenario is just that, a scenario. It could happen. Something else that could happen is that illegals carry 10 lb packages of cocaine in as well. Oh wait, thats not an imaginary scenario.

So, what is your solution?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

The smallpox scenario is just that, a scenario. It could happen.

it _did_ happen. that was one of the techniques of genocide against native americans.

oh the irony, should it happen again.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
it _did_ happen. that was one of the techniques of genocide against native americans.

oh the irony, should it happen again.

I know about the smallpox blanket situation, why do you think I used it. But you have pseudobrit yelling... h God. The sky is falling. Let's all be really scared. Orange alert!

Yeah, but if it should happen again, indians get to have it happen to them twice!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I know about the smallpox blanket situation, why do you think I used it. But you have pseudobrit yelling...

We do have a few things today that we didn't have those days. You know, modern medicine and vaccines and all...

I've got better things to do than sit around worrying about killer germs that are going to come from wherever I'm supposed to be afraid of.

Let's remember that the only documented biological attack on America didn't come from without.

[Durandal7]

At this point it appears that if al-Qaeda is about to attack anyone then it will be Saudi Arabia.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Democrats haven't went out and said they are against illegal immigration. Its always been, lets give amnesty to the ones that are here illegally already since they are only here for a better life.

It isn't something they focus on so they're for it?

Republicans don't go out and say they're against smoking and gun violence because it might send the a conflicting message to their party base. Does that mean they really don't care about homicides and lung cancer?

Republicans focus on illegal immigration because it's an easy target, same as the Dems focus on gun violence. Democrats don't go after immigration because their base doesn't have a big red xenophobic button that's easily pressed.

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit offered:

"Republicans don't go out and say they're against smoking and gun violence because it might send the a conflicting message to their party base."

'Scuse me. Just what part of their base favors gun violence?

"Republicans focus on illegal immigration because it's an easy target, same as the Dems focus on gun violence."

I wouldn't argue that Republicans focus on it more than do Democrats, if one admitted that legalization of illegals and facilitation of citizenship would expand the voting base for Democrats. But forgiving criminals in order to gain votes strikes me as pretty sorry politics--whether proposed by the usual bloc of Democrats or by Our Lil Dubya.

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

Probably some commentator has already suggested this, but I haven't heard it yet so here goes:

Bush should propose an amnesty for Pres. Clinton so that Bill can get his impeachment revoked. Sure, Clinton broke the law, but he was productive otherwise, and lots of business-types look favorably on him. (Besides, the guy was just trying to get ahea-- ahem, won't go there.) Plus, it'll appeal to the "swing" voters ("Yeah, baby!").

Makes as much sense to me.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
pseudobrit offered:

"Republicans don't go out and say they're against smoking and gun violence because it might send the a conflicting message to their party base."

'Scuse me. Just what part of their base favors gun violence?

None. But there are more than a few who are very touchy about gun issues. The mention of a hint of any gun control throws them into a spin. So Republicans end up avoiding the issue. I'm not faulting them; it's a strategy practiced on both sides for certain issues.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Probably some commentator has already suggested this, but I haven't heard it yet so here goes:

Bush should propose an amnesty for Pres. Clinton so that Bill can get his impeachment revoked. Sure, Clinton broke the law, but he was productive otherwise, and lots of business-types look favorably on him. (Besides, the guy was just trying to get ahea-- ahem, won't go there.) Plus, it'll appeal to the "swing" voters ("Yeah, baby!").

Clinton was never convicted of any crime.

Now the current President...

[2jaded2care]

Pseudobrit, you are correct, Clinton was never convicted of any crime. However, he did admit to one in a plea-bargain with prosecutor Robert Ray, who said (per CNN):

"President Clinton has acknowledged responsibility for his actions. He has admitted that he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers to questions in the Jones deposition and that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

"He has acknowledged that some of his answers were false. He has agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas bar license. And he has agreed not to seek attorney's fees in connection with this matter.

"The nation's interests have been served, and therefore I decline prosecution."

So, while technically correct to say that he was never convicted, it is somewhat misleading.

Sorry, didn't mean to throw the thread off-track.
I guess one could also argue that individual illegal immigrants are not "illegal" until they have been ruled by the government to be such. To me, this does not mean they are not breaking the law.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I'm favorably disposed toward legal immigrants to this country. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigrants from any country, including Europe or what were the Iron Curtain countries, regardless of how good and hard-working these folks are.

I'm favorably disposed to lawful driving, but that doesn't seem to affect the behavior of many on the road besides myself. The point being, legality is not a very useful distinction IMO when it has such a flexible definition in most people's minds, at least insofar as their behavior is concerned.

Immigration quotas have always been arbitrary, and will remain arbitrary under the new Bush proposal. The number of legal (green card) immigrant workers is currently limited to a ridiculously low 140,000 a year, and most green cards go to highly skilled laborers -- when the real demand for immigrant labor in the US is for unskilled or semi-skilled labor. So far as we know, the Bush plan will do nothing to alter those numbers. The demand for undocumented workers will continue unabated. So fear not -- you will always be able to wag your finger disapprovingly at people who cross the border illegally to fill the demand for cheap labor on which our prosperous lifestyle is based.

[2jaded2care]

Hi IJ, hope you enjoyed MWSF!

Myself, I can't wag my finger at illegals too much. I know that most are hard workers, supporting their families, etc. I can't say with any certainty that I wouldn't be one of them if I were in their situation.

However, I do wag my finger at the government which simultaneously preaches immigration enforcement, but then tacitly ignores the situation. Ditto traffic laws. Either don't pass the law, or be prepared to enforce it. Otherwise, you encourage 90 mph drivers in a 55 mph zone.

Bush's plan might be a step toward aligning our public policy with reality, but I remain unconvinced that more low-wage workers will benefit the citizenry more than Wal-Mart. We already have a disadvantaged class which used to perform much of the labor now performed by illegal immigrants. (The illegals whose families are not here can afford to work at a "loss", given the exchange rate.) I don't know why we need to import another underclass.

Also, I used to see teenagers working at fast food outlets. They got work experience and spending money (not a "living wage"). Now, breadwinners are in these positions.

I think that any "benefit" derived from these low-wage workers will not last. In addition to taxing our health-care system and natural resources, many of these workers are already cozy with the AFL-CIO, which would love to organize the hotel workers, farm workers, etc. Then, I guess we'll have to import and exploit a whole other population.

My 2 cents...

[Desertrat]

IJ, I guess where I differ on a lot of stuff is that there are laws that I consider stupid, but they are still on the books. If I'm caught speeding, I don't try to pretend that my attitude toward that law justifies my action.

We have laws concerning immigration. If we didn't have the illegals, it might well be that many now eking out some existence in our inner cities might seek work at the probably-higher wages the work could command. The illegals will work at lower wages, which is why the employers want them, right? If they weren't available, the wage scales would rise, correct? (I note that in the northeast, the fast-food joints were offering $10 to $12 an hour not long ago, due to a shortage of labor.)

Once again, government actions and decisions lead to more drain on the taxpayers, and lower wages from interference in our internal free market of labor. Without illegals, we could reduce our welfare rolls and the issue of minimum wage could become moot...

:), 'Rat

[wwworry]

So we agree that with a possibly unlimited source of cheap labor wages will have new strong downward pressure. Union organization will be next to impossible in workplaces staffed by 3-year guest workers. Politically, who is going to fight for minimum wage for foreigners?

There was an interesting statistic in the latest job numbers showing that almost all the job growth in the US has been filled by non-citizen workers. We will see much more of the same.

We will see much more of: profits up, productivity up, no-growth in middle and lower income wages. Now, who do you think benefits from this sort of situation?

[wwworry]

Q: Who Benefits?
A: THe Chairman of PepsiCo.

Taxes on people who earn btw. $50,000 and $500,000 have been going way up.
If you make above that amount your taxes have been going way down.

link to real audio file - interesting interview with David Cay Johnson (http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/fa/20010814.fa.03.ram)

now new downward pressure on wages of people making below $50,000.

So, I ask you, who is this administration fighting for? The Super-Rich at the expense of everyone else.

[Sayhey]

wwworry,

the link in your post gets me to an interview about Alan Kurzweil's (sp?) new book "The Grand Complication." Is that what you meant to provide a link to? It is interesting, but a little off topic.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, do you have any idea as to how many people have salaries above $500K? I'd bet it's darned few, compared to the total number of salaried people above $50K or $100K and below $500K. Some CEOs and some union leaders...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Does immigration produce a downward influence on wages? Possibly, I don't really know. But what I do know is that this argument against immigrants is age old -- in fact, at least 150 years old. This is why I think it pays to take the long view when it comes to looking at immigration in the United States. We may try to pretend otherwise from time to time, but truth be told this is a nation built on immigration. So please, let's not try to kid ourselves that circumstances have somehow magically changed here and now, in this generation, when clearly they have not.

The Brazilification of our workforce (by which I mean, a growing bifurcation between the poor and well off) is also nothing new, and would be happening apart from immigration from poor countries such as Mexico. In fact, Mexico is also now losing jobs to Asia, which only increases the immigration pressures on the US. Neither the Bush plan nor any sort of protectionism can divert much if any of these larger economic forces. I would think we'd have learned that lesson by now.

The Bush guest worker plan seems quite peculiar, now that I find out more about it. Apparently it places the status of the immigrant worker at the beck and call of their employer. This sounds less like a plan to regularize the labor market then to give employers a stronger hand in controlling their labor force. It looks like a huge gift to corporations -- which it turns out is a lot like other Bush programs, so maybe it's not so peculiar after all.

[wwworry]

it was supposed to link to

Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everybody Else by David Cay Johnson

You might be able to find a link to it on npr.org

Desertrat, yes it is darned few, mostly the interview talks about the richest 400 people in America, but it is suprising how the tax system works entirely different for them as opposed to how it works for us. It is also surprising how much money they have.

If you think it is OK that they are able to pay taxes on far less a percentage of their income than we have to pay taxes on. well, fair enough. The author makes the point that people earning up to $500,000 don't have the political voice that the multi-millionaires have and it is reflected in the tax code. Also he makes the point that while we may argue about spending the fact is that the government costs money to run and the richest 400 are paying less and less of a percentage of that cost. Therefore, people earning up to $500,000 are paying more of that cost. In fact the richest 400 pay the same percentage as someone making $126,000, if that, in some cases.

THere are 2 different tax systems - one for wage earners and one for the super-rich. You don't have voice and the tax code is against you. Only a sucker would argue the merits of that system.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, what I've been trying to do all along in these tax discussions about the "super rich" or whatever is to point out that these people generally are not salaried.

Those people who are salaried and who make over $500K a year are subject to the usual tax code as are the rest of us. Even a multi-million dollar salary doesn't put you into the ranges of wealth as exemplified by the Kennedy clan or the Ted Turners of this world. The key word is "salary". Per the IRS, this is "Ordinary" income, differentiated from other forms such as Capital Gains, or Interest/Dividends.

Now: If there is a reduction in the tax rate on Capital Gains, that does indeed benefit the super rich. It also benefits any of those in the middle or upper-middle class as well. When there is emoting against reducing this tax in order to not give any benefit to the super rich, there is de facto a willingness to keep taxes high on those of the poorer classes who try to better themselves via savings and investment...

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

Those people who are salaried and who make over $500K a year are subject to the usual tax code as are the rest of us.

i agree that there aren't a lot of people w/ such a salary. but that group gets much bigger once bonuses are included.

[wwworry]

the capital gains tax was originally meant to mirror the life cycle of a cow.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, I pray you, elucidate! :D That's a notion that's absolutely new to me! Seems to me the notion of a gain in the capital value of most anything predates the IRS!

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Now: If there is a reduction in the tax rate on Capital Gains, that does indeed benefit the super rich. It also benefits any of those in the middle or upper-middle class as well. When there is emoting against reducing this tax in order to not give any benefit to the super rich, there is de facto a willingness to keep taxes high on those of the poorer classes who try to better themselves via savings and investment...

'Rat

Now the solution here seems to be to put a reasonable exemption level on capital gains so that the middle and upper middle class don't get their upward mobility thwarted. Same could be done with the estate tax, but common sense is a little lacking it seems to me.

[Desertrat]

Common sense and taxation? Do they belong in the same sentence? :D

I feel that way about most things are done throughout our government, of course. Welfare, gun control, anti-terrorism, foreign policy, ad infinitum...

'Rat

[candan9019]

This is stupid. I just moved back to Canada after being a U.S. resident for 12 years (since I was 8). I just want to go to school up here and maybe wait untill Bush is gone, but oh no can't do that and keep my residency. I have to give up my residency for 4 years, re-entry permits are only good for 2. To move back to the U.S. I have to re-apply, and probably need a sponsor.

So when I go back I guess I should do It illegally and be a non-educated laborer, I'll get my residency back In no time now. Maybe it's me but how come people who didn't have to spend thousands of dollars and who have no education get in so easily, but they give me a hard time.

I just moved from Colorado and there were a lot of illegals there. My mom is a nurse and she would talk about all the things illegals would do, share health cards, get pregnent to claim citizenship, ect...
So why do they get a free ride. Why are they favored so much? I get a hard time for being Canadian but oh can't talk about Mexico.

Just a note I am not racist, I had friends in school from Mexico.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by candan9019

Why are they favored so much?

well, for the topic at hand, bush needs their vote.

[pseudobrit]

Canucks don't factor as a major voting bloc.

Can't you have dual citizenship?

[candan9019]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Canucks don't factor as a major voting bloc.

Can't you have dual citizenship?

Actually most Canadians living in the U.S. are only legal residents so they can't vote, so ya.

Yes and no. To become a U.S. citizen you have to renounce other citizenships but this is by oath only they don't check if you follow through with it. So people will get a U.S. citizenship and retain there Canadian too, but It can cause problems with taxes and at customs. It is much easier for an American to obtain dual since Canada doesn't care about duals.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by candan9019
Actually most Canadians living in the U.S. are only legal residents so they can't vote, so ya.

Yes and no. To become a U.S. citizen you have to renounce other citizenships but this is by oath only they don't check if you follow through with it. So people will get a U.S. citizenship and retain there Canadian too, but It can cause problems with taxes and at customs. It is much easier for an American to obtain dual since Canada doesn't care about duals.

Interesting. Could you then get naturalised as an American and then re-apply for Canadian citizenship?

[candan9019]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Interesting. Could you then get naturalised as an American and then re-apply for Canadian citizenship?

I wondered about that. There are so many "grey areas" in imigration, a U.S. customs officer actually told me that. There's not much info on it but I imagine it would be a real pain to deal with. Besides I'm in Canada now and It takes a while to get your citizenship.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by candan9019
To become a U.S. citizen you have to renounce other citizenships

that's something i really hate about US immigration law

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
We do have a few things today that we didn't have those days. You know, modern medicine and vaccines and all...

I've got better things to do than sit around worrying about killer germs that are going to come from wherever I'm supposed to be afraid of.

Let's remember that the only documented biological attack on America didn't come from without.

There was an anthrax attack on American and allied troops during WW1. Germans used anthrax against the horseys :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Probably some commentator has already suggested this, but I haven't heard it yet so here goes:

Bush should propose an amnesty for Pres. Clinton so that Bill can get his impeachment revoked. Sure, Clinton broke the law, but he was productive otherwise, and lots of business-types look favorably on him. (Besides, the guy was just trying to get ahea-- ahem, won't go there.) Plus, it'll appeal to the "swing" voters ("Yeah, baby!").

Makes as much sense to me.

Impeachment is like being indicted.
Trial was held and Clinton was exonerated. So, there is no amnesty to grant because he was exonerated.

[candan9019]

Originally posted by zimv20
that's something i really hate about US immigration law

Imagine how I feel. I refuse to give up my Canadian citizenship, so I gotta do things the hard way.

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Impeachment is like being indicted.
Trial was held and Clinton was exonerated. So, there is no amnesty to grant because he was exonerated.

So, there's no way to get an indictment stricken from your record? (I want a refund from that lawyer!)

Thanks for the info.