It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The question of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:00 PM
I see this is becoming a very hot topic now, and very rightly, it should be. The problem i see in this, is how granting those who are here illegally now, will stop the flood of more coming into the country once the amnesty is given? It doesn`t stop it, as long as the government will not take more drastic measures at the border, and the Mexican government does nothing to help. How does this tell other countries, look, we don`t mind you wanting to come here for a better life, but do it in the way our law states for you to do it? Does the amnesty program tell them this? If it does, please explain how.

So, are we to give the next influx of illegal immigrants the same amnesty? When does it stop? At this pace, it never will. Amnesty does nothing to slow it down, or even stop it, if it does anything, it gives anyone, from any country, the idea to come across the open southern border, at least try to, and if they make it, they will also get amnesty in due time. Why even have any immigration laws if this will always be the outcome, and they don`t crack down on it? I say, don`t promise amnesty, until you have the border problem under control. If not, we are all in for a rude awakening.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:48 PM
You have to address the border before anyone can be really serious about illegal immigration.

It will take a massive overhaul of the laws to make everything "right" and I guarantee you people will still be pissed off.

A blanket pardon is the easiest, but least likely thing done. It's political suicide for any person to mention this. If Obama was in his 7th year, without a doubt, this would be on the table.

Sending everyone back is most popular but least feasible. There are just too many people involved and then the "anchor babies". No one said one word about keeping the "anchor babies" in this country with the Russian spies, (we sent the whole damn family back to the good ol' USSR) but then it doesn't fit the needed propaganda for either side to point this out.

To go through every person's case on an individual basis, would be just about impossible due again from the number of people involved. Political asylums withstanding, there is a myriad of legitimate reasons to keep someone here legally. This would be a bureaucratic nightmare from lack of employees at INS. The last thing we need is more bureaucrats sucking the economic lifeblood of Federal employment while actually being a burden on society with their job.

This isn't an easy fix...

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:41 PM
The problem of illegal immigration is, without a doubt, a multi faceted problem and it cannot be solved by simply "securing the border." Even the Berlin Wall didn't stop everyone from crossing into W. Germany and it was manned with guards that had orders to shoot to kill, so "walls" are not the answer.

First, we have to realize that we will never stop all illegal immigration and if we don't address the main cause of it, which is jobs being provided by unscrupulous U.S. employers, then we have no hope of even minimizing it.

Second, before we can hold U.S. employers accountable for hiring illegals, we are going to have to provide a means by which the employer can be certain of the worker's status like biometric I.D. cards.

Third, we have to recognize the fact that illegals coming here from Mexico are fleeing a desperate situation in their own country and the U.S. has the ability to help bring about change if we only have the political will to do so.

It is not uncommon for American corporations to move some or all of their operations overseas in order to evade taxes and or regulations intended to protect both the environment and workers while we embrace the very initiatives that allow them to do so, like NAFTA.

We should pass legislation that makes it clear to these nations that we will not allow their products into the U.S. unless they recognize and enforce the same environmental and worker rights protections.

We have the power to change their situations more than you think and in doing so, improving our own dilemma at the same time.

Fourth, I think we should train our military drone operators at the U.S. borders. They can get the training they need while we get a little border security.

I agree that it would be far too expensive to attempt to round up all illegals and deport them, just to have them come back a week later. On the other hand, I think that the word "Amnesty" is only appropriate if you are going to give them complete forgiveness.

If we were to create a process where it would be easier and faster to just go home and immigrate again, legally this time, than it is to stay and pay fines and become legal here in the U.S., then at least part of the problem will solve itself.

This is why we need "Comprehensive Immigration Reform."

Maybe we should include RFID chips in the visas issued to immigrants so that we could attempt to find them if they overstay their welcome. I mean if Walmart can afford to put them in underwear it can't be that expensive and the immigrant could be made to foot the bill.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Flatfish]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:55 AM
President Regan granted Amnesty for 3 million Illegals, with the condition that this would never be done again.

3 Million turns into 30 Million a couple decades later.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:27 AM
In this case I might have to agree with Obama when he says, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. Granting amnesty didn't work out that well. Here we are again with millions of people breaking the law. They should all have to perform community service hours or pay fines to compensate for breaking the law. I don't expect to be granted amnesty if I go rob a bank and happen not to get caught for several years. Why should we grant amnesty for breaking the law? We shouldn't. History has shown it only encourages more people to break the law. There are many communities across the nation that could use more people doing service for the country.

This could be a win win situation without resorting to drastic measures. Military service, community hours, or just pay a large fine could all be choices given for illegals to become legal. It should be more expensive to come here illegally than legally. We could allow easier renewals of temporary work visas for farm work and low paying jobs for those who only want to work here temporarily. Most Americans don't want to do hard labor working farms or doing other hard labor for low pay. Of course there may be a few willing to do so right now.

I pretty much said the same thing about amnesty in a Rant in Below Top secret within the last few weeks.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:00 PM
They simply have to have incentive to go back. We know the majority of these folks are from Central America.

If they had the better work/wage compensation and better property rights there is a good chance they would go back. Their families are divided and most hate that part of it, children left behind with grandma.

These Central American governments could make it easier for the U.S. to do business there. It would take some diplomatic effort but with money going out the window anyway it may be a way to reverse the trend.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:38 PM
I see a lot of thought being stated here, and I want to thank all of you for doing so. This does need to be discussed, as I see many problems coming up for us, if this goes into affect. For the life of me, i can`t see how adding more people to a system that is already at it`s breaking point, going to help? Will there be enought jobs for the illegals, let alone for those who are citizens, and out of a job? So many of your points are very valid, and yes, they do need to be addressed. These are points that need to be brought to the attention of the government, IF they are willing to listen. That is the only problem I see in all of this. ARE THEY WILLING TO LISTEN?

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:46 PM
I don't have a problem with amnesty, if done properly, and if it can truly get a handle on all the illegals in this country. However, if there are no guarantees that the borders will also be secured as well, then no. Because if that's the case, why not just hand them certificate of citizenship at the crossings and stop playing games.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

Exactly, this is why I made the statement about the immigration laws. Why have them, if your just going to give all the illegals amnesty, every time we are over run with them and not secure the borders before hand?

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:28 PM
The answer isn't securing the border.

The answer is making sure employers can't hire illegals. Make E-verify mandatory. There has to be a way.

No jobs and illegals won't come. They will get in line to come legally.

This would save money on the border.

Then the resources we have on the border could concentrate on the US war on drugs.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by zzombie
President Regan granted Amnesty for 3 million Illegals, with the condition that this would never be done again.

3 Million turns into 30 Million a couple decades later.

To add to what you have mentioned: Reagan agreed to amnesty based upon a false promise: that the border would be secured to prevent this from happening in the future.

As such, being the border was not secured, the issue of amnesty has and currently does revolve around the [their] vote, which inherently makes any talk of comprehensive immigration reform (aka: amnesty) political in nature. To eliminate/remove the political nature of the ongoing comprehensive immigration reform (aka: amnesty) discussions, have a provision that would make it where those given legal status in the US have their voting rights revoked for x-amount of years (i.e.: like 5+) as part of any immigration reform/amnesty, among any other penalties assigned. One large part of the problem would then be solved and would arguably allow for increased bipartisanship.

top topics


log in