AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS? (a question for Freepers)

August 22nd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[JimVT]

Should all or some portion of

It really depends on the specific circumstances, doesn't it?

If some 'illegal aliens' can justify their presence here and if they would be useful participants in our society I think they deserve to be investigated for possible citizenship rather than arbitrarily deported.

For the rest....ship 'em out.

[RaceBannon]

no amnesty under any circumstance or re-definition of words. Send them home, let them apply again. Let Native born Americans have first pick at low paying jobs, like teenagers who need to learn how to work!!

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

In short, I can't support amnesty given the current welfare system/mentality. However, given my feelings about welfare in general, the amnesty issue is really secondary.

[old school]

"Do you support total, partial, or no Amnesty at all?"

Let me summarize. No! None! Never!

[Sabertooth]

Thanks for your thoughts. Can you be more specific about your answer to the question...

Should all or some portion of the Illegal Aliens be granted an Amnesty and be thereby allowed to change their status and acquire legal residence in the United States?

I think I know, but I don't want to misinterpret anyone. Thanks.

[glc1173@aol.com]

Has Washington ever given any "amnesty" to native-born Americans with IRS liens? Hordes of middle-class Americans have IRS liens. Hordes more are or have been victims of IRS snafus when they owed nothing. But did "their" government give them "amnesty?"

Illegal aliens put huge social costs on the U.S. - particularly in some locales. School overcrowding - and ever-higher school taxes - is high on the list. Overcrowded emergency rooms - accompanied by unpaid bills - is close behind. Uninsured driving is endemic.

Get the sticker!

[skeeter]

Your question is a slamdunk, since we have the luxury of hindsight.

Every problem which it was claimed the '86 amnesty would solve is still with us, and then some. In fact, illegal entry to the US shot up since and hasn't come down as more and more anticipate another such amnesty.

Reagan's deputy in charge of the '86 debacle (his name escapes me) is on record as opposing any new amnesty, whatever form it might take.

[Nea Wood]

I oppose any kind of amnesty for illegal aliens. Ever.

[BornOnTheFourth]

I only have a minute before my massive workload calls, but I had to respond...

I say no. We in Califorina are taxed to death supporting illegals. What part of "ILLEGAL" don't libs understand? The United States of America is a great country--I wouldn't want to live any where else. If people from other countries want to move here to make the USA their home, please come and contribute to this great country, but do so legally--just like my father did many years ago.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

Global, indiscriminate amnesty? No, of course not. But what about the many illegals who have been here for years and have been hard working members in the lower echelons of our capitalist structure. I think there should be some way of helping them to assimilate legally, after thorough background checks, etc. I think many of these people could become valuable, hard working, right thinking, American conservatives, having laid hold of the American dream from the roots so to speak, and working themselves up from the bottom. This is still the great promise of America and we should not forget it.

Otherwise, we run a risk of abandoning them to the liberal nannies who want to scoop them up in their arms and coddle them, creating a whole new dependent class of voters that will ensure them a power base, which will surely lead to the destruction of this nation as we know it.

[doc30]

I am Canadian and am in the process of legally immigrating to this country (can't stand the socialism up north). It's costing thousands of dollars in legal bills, tons of paper work and will take many years. My fiance is Japanese and she is going through the same hurdles I have to get over to do it properly.

We are working hard, not breaking any laws (immigration or otherwise), yet it is a very arduous procedure. Why do we have enter and immigrate to the U.S. through proper channels when these illegals of questionable background get to line jump? It is disgusting to us LEGAL immigrants.

[Nephi]

I oppose rewarding criminal behavior by granting amnesty.

Presently, the President and the congress are unlawfully supporting a passive open border policy - they don't have the cajones to do it legislatively, so they simply aren't enforcing the law.

Also, I support requiring all legal immigrants be able to speak english and be sponsored by family or friends as a prerequisite for gaining entry.

[Sabertooth]

Yes.

I was going to score 4 types of respones.

1. Support blanket Amnesty
2. Support partial Amnesty
3. Support no Amnesty
4. Decline to state.

For you, Gawain, I'm creating a fifth category...

5. English as a first language, still lacks the skills to cope with the question.

[maeng]

But, legal Hispanics in Texas are not returning, they were here before us and still are here. There is quite a difference. Again, I am strongly opposed to amnesty for any illegal, regardless of race.

[Dante3]

No amnesty for any illegals. Why should we encourage criminals? These people obviously have a sense of entitlement and no repsect for our laws.

Furthermore, I am opposed to favoritism, of giving amnesty to some but not others. And asylum seeking has become a racket.

[2Trievers]

I oppose amnesty for all illegals also. Until they get their act together, agencies should also review the quotas for legals for the short term. &;-)

[Militiaman7]

Amnesty only for illegals who came to excape Communism. No economic amnesties.

Change the law that gives US citizenship to babies born to illegals in the United States.

[Sabertooth]

Amnesty only for illegals who came to excape Communism.

They would fall under the category of political refugees, so the term "Amnesty" doesn't apply to them. Cubans are one example, and I support the current policy, though I would lose the "wet feet/dry feet" distinction.

Thanks for your post.

[2Trievers]

In your "for what it's worth department:"

Teaching Math in 1950: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1970: A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar.Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M." The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?

Teaching Math in 1980: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math in 1990: By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.

Teaching Math in 2000: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?

Teaching Math in 2010: El hachero vende un camion carga por $100. La cuesta de production es.............