Replies

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.

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. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.

What do we do today with someone that has been here 30 years illegally? Do we deport them? If not, are we better off just letting them stay here illegaly, give them a path to residency, or do we round them up and send them back home (where ever that is)?

No one is proposing that we "round them up." The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does.

If you allow those lawbreakers to stay and work here, the object of their crime, then you send the message that all you have to do is just get to the US and eventually have your status legalized. Conferring rights and privileges upon illegal aliens has a corrosive effect on the Rule of Law, the very foundation of our Republic. It is also a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws. There are millions of immigrants waiting their turn overseas to enter the U.S. legally and approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., most of whom followed the law.

What do we do today with someone that has been here 30 years illegally?

FYI: We had a one time amnesty 25 years ago in 1986. The proponents like Ted Kennedy said it be the first and only amnesty and that it would solve our illegal immigration problem. The government estimated 1 million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. We now have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. When you reward something, you get more of it. I see no real urgency to addressing the legal status of the current crop of lawbreakers. Let's try enforcing our laws and securing our borders, including implementing fully the US-VISIT program to track and deport visa overstays. 40% of the illegal aliens in this country came here legally and overstayed their visas.