There were five of us on INSIDE TRACK discussing immigration last week, co-host Tom Danehy (Democrat), our other co-host Jonathan Hoffman (Libertarian), regular contributors Joyce Downey (Republican) and Mike Tully (Democrat) and myself (Republican). Tom asked if the current Senate proposal was “amnesty.” Mike and I were the two “no” votes.

For different reasons, we both oppose it as presented as did all the others. A 5-0 rejection by folks from three political parties is not a good initial sign for those promoting it, but the first hurdle before debating the substance of any immigration proposal is defining “amnesty.”

The center-right has long criticized the left for weasel words and almost instant re-definitions. We argue that “establishment” in the First Amendment means what it meant when it was written — the official government recognition and support of a specific sect. Secular liberals have long maintained that it really means any government recognition of any religion in any form, an argument made absurd by any reading of American history. Established churches existed on the state level well into the 19th Century, and the abolition of those local privileges occurred at the state level. Jefferson wanted his role in abolishing the Anglican establishment in Virginia on his tombstone. I mention that for those who love to quote his phrase about “the wall of separation.” That he wanted one was clear. That he didn’t believe not having one was “unconstitutional” is also obvious.

We of the center-right also grasp the simple meaning of the right to keep and bear arms as written in the Second Amendment. Imagining that this is somehow a “collective” right allowing the states to have a militia is even more absurd than warping the establishment clause. Once again, words should mean what they say.

The classic center-left propensity to imagine new meanings for words is found in the famous/infamous Roe v. Wade case adding the right to an abortion to the constitution. An entire concept was invented and inserted for the purpose of reaching a pre-determined goal by the then SCOTUS majority, which paid little heed to several words and even imagined others.

Conservatives point to Justice Antonin Scalia as a paragon of judicial behavior. Justice Scalia maintains a large collection of dictionaries to help him determine what the usage was of words at the time they were inserted into the laws upon which he rules. To define amnesty we only need one.

In defining any measure not draconian as amnesty, too many in the center-right join the center left in language pollution. They conveniently highjack a word for it’s emotional appeal, and in doing so muddy their own arguments.

The following are synonyms for amnesty: absolution, acquittal, condonation, dispensation and pardon. Please note that they, like amnesty, describe a reaction to a transgression THAT INVOLVES NO PENALTY.

Any proposal that requires, fines, back taxes, leaving the country and returning or any other penalty is not by definition amnesty. Whether it is a good or bad idea calling it something other than what it actually is demeans the argument to the extent that it demeans the language.

One can be an atheist and still concede that the founders did not preclude religion from government. Or an advocate of firearms confiscation from individuals and still recognize a constitutional prohibition of it. Or be totally pro-choice up until birth and still realize that Roe v. Wade was bad law.

All those require is enough will power to keep political passions to overtake a coherent reading of words and their meaning.

Author, lawyer, law professor and fellow KVOI talk-show host Hugh Hewitt knows this well.

He calls the current immigration proposal “amnesty light,” which keeps the pejorative without usurping the meaning of the word. Those on our side should spread it around.

We all recall a president who asked what the meaning of “is” was. We don’t need to join him in any further language contamination.