What's the difference between granting amnesty and granting freedom to runaway slaves who made it north?

Question

Look at the following similarities:

1) Neither illegals nor slaves were citizens of our country.
2) Both groups broke the law to get north
3) Neither group previously had any rights according to the Constitution.

Popular arguments against amnesty include:

Argument: Illegal immigrants broke the law. Case Closed.
Response: Runaway slaves broke the law. The Supreme Court even ruled in Dred Scott that runaway slaves must be returned to the south. Also, we forgave violators of Prohibition for their crimes when Prohibition was repealed...why should the 'crime' of entering America be thought of differently?

Argument: Yes, but alcohol used to be legal before prohibition...so breaking that law was not as bad
Response: So it's not really 'case closed' when you break the law...if it's justified in your eyes, then sometimes it's ok.

Argument: Illegal Mexican immigrants came her of their own accord. Slaves did not.
Response: True. Slaves did not....but slaves that ran away north DID. No difference between them and the illegal Mexicans.

Argument: Illegal aliens have rights in their own country. If I went there, I would not have the same rights they do because I'm not a citizen.
Response: This is a 2 wrongs somehow makes a right argument. I rue the day we measure ourselves based on other countries standards.

Argument: We OWED it to the runaway slaves to let them escape north. They never should have been enslaved to begin with.
Response: This is a valid distinction between the 2 groups. However, it proves only that runaway slaves have an even stronger case than illegal Mexicans. It does nothing to diminish the case for granting amnesty to Mexicans.

Argument: How is it fair to the legal Mexican immigrants to give amnesty to illegals?
Response: How is it unfair? No one is denying the status of legal immigrants. Once you are an American, you have the same rights as every other American. You don't get more rights because you've been here longer.

Argument: Amnesty is telling people who came here illegally that they can break the laws and sovereignty of our country.
Response: Shouldn't we address the sovereignty of our country at the border?...the way Eisenhower was successfully able to do? (and Bush refuses to do?). Let's grant amnesty but get real about enforcing the border at the same time.

Answer 1

Man, I guess I'll just have to tackle each one of your arguements in the order you have listed them- I'm not sure which one is the most insane. To begin with your Dred Scot arguement, the Dred Scot Decision was immediately voided once the CSA ceded from the USA since the South was no longer part of the USA and gave up any previous rights enjoyed under the "United States"; runaway slaves may have been considered criminals in the CSA by attempting to escape but their entry/presence into the remaining Union states was not illegal (I actually believe it WAS still illegal during the Civil War for slaves to escape from slave states that actually remained loyal to the Union during the war- at least until the Emancipation Proclamation which came after the South ceded/Civil War began and was seriously debated among Lincoln and his advisors as to the affects it would have on the loyal slave states) and was widely encouraged by the American people- whereas most Americans are strongly against illeagal immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants. If you are arguing the fact that slaves who ran away (and those who helped them) before the Civil War were criminals, on that point you are correct. Consider that many slaves and people who aided them during their escape attempts were, in fact, punished when caught- if and when the American people as a whole decided these laws should be enforced. However, Americans (largely in Northen states) simply didn't care to enforce laws that were on the books regarding runaway slaves and the people that helped them. The vast majority of Americans (in all states) are strongly united in their stances against illegal/open immigration, amnesty for illegal aliens currently inside the USA, etc. and not only want current immigration laws to actually be enforced but most American citizens would actually prefer tougher laws and more enforcement on theses issues.
On the Prohibition topic, Prohibition was one of the most unpopular (set of) laws ever legislated inside the US by the American people. As Prohibition grew ever more unpopular, Americans decided, ever increasingly, that these laws should be largely ignored- right up to the point that Prohibition was officially repealed due to response/desire of the American public; also it was the will/desire of the American people to forgive the crimes of those that broke Prohibition laws after these laws were no longer in place. Again, Americans are generally quite opposed towards illegal immigration, granting amnesty to illegal aliens currently inside the US, etc.
American citizens have every right to decide if they want to give amnesty to illegal aliens, if they want to stop illegal access to our nation, etc- or not- because only citizens of our nation, like most others, are provided with all the rights and liberties under our Constitution and legal system. We have laws on the books, for example, regulating pre-marital sex, homosexuality, adultry, etc. that haven't been enforced for decades because Americans no longer cared to enforce them/punish them/consider them crimes and simply because they were never legally taken "off the books" as crimes through the judicial or legislative processes. Americans want immigration laws to be enforced and strengthened and do not want to provide amnesty for illegal aliens inside the US.
Just because Americans wouldn't have rights in other countries if they entered their borders or remained inside their borders illegally, why SHOULD Americans be forced to grant illegal aliens the same rights and priviliges as citizens??This may be your craziest arguement. Americans are not "matching standards" of other countries by wanting our borders protected, by preventing people from entering our nation without our permisssion, by refusing to grant amnesty/basically give citizenship to all those who have entered/remained inside our country without our permission, etc. they are simply trying to maintain the sovereignity of their nation just like people in any and every other country does. Why on earth is it that the United States of America seems to be the only country on the globe that somehow isn't supposed to have the right to maintain its' sovereignity by establishing and enforcing immigration (and any other laws) policy as desired by the majority of its' citizens?
On your point about more enforcement at the border- the vast majority of Amrican citizens agree with you completely and do want tighter enforcement/more security at our borders to prevent illegal immigration. In addition, however, the USA has the right as a sovereign nation to take any and every action supported by the American people to protect its' "sovereignity" both at our borders and everywhere inside our borders as well.
The American people will determine for themselves whether they wish to grant amnesty to the illegal aliens currently inside their country. Illegal aliens inside the US (just like in any other nation) have no rights inside our nation to protest/complain about the actions that American citizens decide to take towards border security, amnesty issues, or, any other "sovereignity issue regarding the USA- illegal aliens gave up any opportunity towards sharing the same rights that citizens and legal immigrants enjoy under our laws because they came here/remained here without permission from the American people.
I think I have countered every one of your arguements for supporting illegal immigration to and providing amnesty for current illegal aliens currently inside the USA- at least the points I saw you had made by the time I began with my response. If you notice one underlying theme to my response, it is that the American people- its' citizens- ultimately decide what laws/policies they want created and enforced. The American people do in fact decide when a law is "good" or "bad", whether "in our eyes" certain laws should be enforced in our society or not- that is the very essence of the US, our Bill of Rights and Constitution (remember "We the People..."?), and the judicial, executive and legislative systems that have made and continue to make our nation uniquely great (and largely quite different politically, economically, etc. from the nations that most illegal immigrants come from). The American people will ultimately decide these issues relating to amnesty, illegal immigration, border security, etc. as well. Currently, Americans see the issues of illegal immigration and amnesty as threats to the sovereignity of their nation, the security of their citizenry, the strength of their economy, and to the many cultural issues which threaten to undermine it from being the great country it is today (which so many people from across the world wish to immigrate to) and until someone can convince the American people that amnesty for current illegal aliens (along with open borders/open immigration) is in their best interest (and most citizens are still waiting for a persuasive arguement, and they haven't seemingly found one with any of your points), amnesty for illegal aliens (along with the other immigration issues) will be opposed in/prevented from happening inside the USA by its' citizens.

Answer 2

There is no comparison between runaway slaves and amnesty. The laws back then were different in that slaves were thought of as property not people. Plus they did not want to be brought to America, they were brought by force. Also Mexicans are crossing the border to get into America. Slaves were already here but they were trying to get out of the oppressive south to freedom. You cannot compare because they both happened at different time periods under different circumstances. The Dred Scott ruling was unjust and should never have been made but it was because of the extreme racism and prejudice that was happening at the time.

Answer 3

just like you said the slaves were brought here by force the illegal come here In force by breaking the law. And at that time the There were no Illegals Until the U.S government pass laws stating that entering Into the U.S without papers or proper permission (green card) is against the law. back then a lot of things were legal and illegal that today are not. slavery is not allowed and entering the U.S without permission is not allowed. New Laws For New Times. so if you want to live in the pass. Then go back to Mexico. Ask Mexico about their Immigration Laws and see what they tell you If you do not agree with them.

Answer 4

Runaway slaves were considered property at that time- returning them to their owners would be like returning a puppy that got out of its backyard to its owners. Also- if you exclude the ones that went to Canada, as Canada is famous for taking in people that want to leave America- all stayed in their country of birth or the place to which they were brought.

Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, are illegally entering a country and are not America's property or responsibility- however, they make themselves America's responsibility constantly when they use welfare, commit crimes and enter our prisons, go into our public schools, etc. Also, unlike slaves, they are entering another country ILLEGALLY where the majority of people do not want them.

Answer 5

Our country was split at that time. We had the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. CSA had their own president, Jefferson Davis between 1861 and 1865. These eleven states declared their secession from the United States.

1)Slaves who ran North were not illegally here, they were brought here against their will, not willingly defiant of the laws.

2)They broke CSA laws, not Northern laws.

3) They had HUMAN rights, according to the northerners.

Later, they fought for their rights. They were not here illegally to fight for those rights. The illegal immigrants from south-of-the-border CHOSE to come here ILLEGALLY, knowingly on their own. That is UNACCEPTABLE!!

Answer 6

The difference is that slaves were kidnapped and brought here against their will. They were enslaved against their will. They were treated horribly and forced to do horrific things against their will. They were people. No matter what the color of their skin they deserved to be treated with respect and dignity.They were robbed of their rights. The slaves born here were American citizens therefore they were breaking no laws.

I feel that Immigrants should be able to come into America because that is what this country was founded by. However the law does restrict immigration therefore it is against the law for them to come here without proper documentation and paperwork.

Answer 7

i might be wrong on this and i had an argument with a friend about this. amnesty is granting pardon to an individual and that wouldn't change the status of that individual in any way so the slave would remain a slave but forgiven for running away but granting freedom would remove the status of being a slave of the slaves who made it up north. so the difference is in their status just like you said with the illegal vs. legal comparison today and that difference plays out in what kind of benefits they get and ability to get a job. i think that everyone deserves a chance to immigrate but there should be background checks to get the criminals out.

Answer 8

On the surface, your question appears to ask the dictionary meaning of the words 'amnesty' and 'emancipation', but the full text of the question appears to evoke provocation.
For a dictionary definition, I would recommend several on line sources, including Wikipedia.
For an argument, I prefer not to argue with people who have all the answers. B.

Answer 9

The slaves were still in their own country and we owed them something having brought them here.

These people have come illegally, ruined education for our children and health care for our sick, and if any one owes anyone anything, they owe us.

Answer 10

Wow now you have confused me and that's damn near impossible So I will just say NO Amnesty,and no resemblance to the slaves and their plight.

Answer 11

Come one the polictician here is use Religion to control their mind, slavery is a gift from God, God give us a power to control the both side of east and west sea Atlantic to Pacific