Agreed. But, they have been officially encouraged to come here and have been rewarded for being here thanks to pseudo-legal creations like sanctuary cities and even federal loan programs to give illegal aliens home loans.
There are, within the variety of illegals, a percentage that has shown through how they have lived their lives here that they are worthy enough to stay.
Do NOT grant them amnesty and reward them with full citizenship.
Instead, perhaps they should be treated the same and have a similar limited set of rights and privileges as convicted felons who have served their sentences, once they have earned it by coming forward and going through the immigration process.
They are they only ones who get to stay. Make them pay for the privilege and don't make it easy. Boot the rest, enforce the border and reform the immigration process.
Give me a break. Now we must legalize them because we weren't enforcing our laws?
Do NOT grant them amnesty and reward them with full citizenship.
It has nothning to do with citizenship. Being allowed to stay and work here, the objective of their crime, IS amnesty. McCain and Obama claim their plans are not an amnesty.
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty.
Definition: Amnesty, from the same Greek root as "amnesia," forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien's illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The textbook example of an amnesty. The 1986 law's path to citizenship was not automatic. The legislation stipulated several requirements to receive amnesty, including payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, understanding of American civics, a medical exam, and registration for military service. Individuals convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. No one disputes that this act provided amnesty. Supporters said it would be a “one-time” amnesty. It was estimated that one million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million.
Instead, perhaps they should be treated the same and have a similar limited set of rights and privileges as convicted felons who have served their sentences, once they have earned it by coming forward and going through the immigration process.
Candidates who respond that we should deport “criminal” illegal aliens and that “undocumented workers who play by the rules” should have their status regularized in some way by the federal government, i.e., pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line on a earned path to citizenship are supporters of amnesty. Trying to create two classes of illegal aliens is a distinction without a difference, except if you are intent on treating them differently, i.e., providing one group with an amnesty.
They are they only ones who get to stay. Make them pay for the privilege and don't make it easy. Boot the rest, enforce the border and reform the immigration process.
Boot the rest? How do you do that? And if you can do it, then let's boot them all out. We need enforcement without amnesty. Why do we need to legalize the status of the illegals already here? What's the urgency?