For those who are opposed to illegal immigration, would you ever consider being pro-amnesty?

Question

I am opposed to illegal immigration too, but I do believe that in some individual cases we should be pro-amnesty as measure of goodwill to those who are suffering. I just wanted to ask this question to get a feel for everyone's sensitivity level towards his fellow man. OK, let's put the Mexican border issue aside for just one second and consider an individual case:

A starving man flees opression in North Korea and immigrates illegally to the US, knowing that he cannot leave his communist country legally and if he makes his intentions known he will be subject to arrest and possibly torture and execution. Many people would say this man and his neighbors should fight to overthrow their opressive government rather than come to our soil. I can see why you would feel this way. We fought for our freedom. But, say this man doesn't find support from his neighbors because they are afraid. If he fights, he will die and then there will be no life for him to live. Can't amnesty be considered?

One quick detail I wanted to add that wouldn't fit in my original question. There will be at least one person on here who will assume I ultra liberal. Not the case, I consider myself moderate. Also, I am very pro-American and always have been. I just wanted to add that before anyone thought of throwing an insult at me.

Thank you to those people who educated me on politcal assylum. I did not think of that.

Answer 1

I believe that would be an asylum situation ,not amnesty.
To flee an oppressive communistic government is not running across the border to get a better paying job.
Those country's try to prevent their people from leaving,not encourage then to as the Mexican government does.And in Mexico most all the neighbors either has a relative or knows someone that has illegally entered America.I feel you are comparing apples to oranges in this question.There is a huge difference in political asylum and illegal immigration.
I do not ,will not support a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens from any country.

Answer 2

I just don't think we can afford to cave on this issue, period.

In 1986, amnesty was declared, and there were lots of lofty promises as how they were going to do all these enforcement measures to prevent illegal immigration in the future. But, apparently, they forgot to follow through, 'cause now there's (ballpark guess, here) somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in the country.

The 1986 amnesty effectively set a dangerous precedent, that
our laws are basically ineffective, and the ones that are effective are for sale, more or less.

Immigration lawyers and other hucksters of fake ID's and so forth turn a tidy profit. These people have been in business for years and years and years, helping further cement that precedent.

To my view, there's not much negotiation on this issue, not much wiggle room, quite simply because whether people like it or not,
the world as we know it has changed pretty dramatically just in the last 4 decades, let alone the last 100 years.

Consider this, on population: It took all of known history to reach the first billion people, in 1900 or so. In 2000, they declared 'baby 6 billion'. Ok, 6 years later, it's baby 6.5 billion. Pretty amazing.
In the US alone, the population has tripled since 1900.

At some point, someone needs to take a skeptics viewpoint on all of this, and consider all the other news about pollution, poverty, starvation, and so forth, and call for some better civic planning, because at the rate we're going, there likely won't be too many trees left by, oh, say, 2050. They keep making cars, they keep making people, and they quit making land.

I'm against illegal immigration, that's pretty much my stand. And, in direct answer to your question, about case-by-case, under VERY select circumstances, it is to be considered. But, not 200 million instances, or whatever the advocates could parley such precedents into. Lawyers get paid lots of money because they're really really good at what they do, and they've been hard at work these last decades punching holes in the immigration laws.
I vote for the border fence, an overhaul of those laws to make sure they're really effective, give em the devil's advocate test, the whole trip, and fines/punitive measures against employers of illegals who are knowingly breaking the law, or who can be proven negligent etc.Immigration's a biggie, it's a global problem, having it handled well is really important. I support work visas, I think that's fair, but those things already exist etc. Amnesty paves a path for breaking the law altogether. I can't be moderate on that, I have to vote 'no'.

Answer 3

We were pro amnesty in 1986 to those who were "suffering", and we see how well that worked. 20 years later here we are again, talking about amnesty. Some of those who benefitted from that said amnesty came back and ran planes into the WTC and the pentagon. What a nice way to say thank you. No, thanks I prefer to help the American who suffers, since it's not in vogue to care about them. We can't make exceptions, it's not fair to the whole of the group. Besides, haven't you considered the fact that North Koreans SHOOT AT OUR MILITARY and shouldn't be given any kind of citizenship without screening and proper evaluation. My brother served there(on the border of S. Korea) for 4 years until 2004, guarding the border, and was shot at more than once. Screw the people that defend your freedom though, right?

Answer 4

What You Are Describing Is Called Political Asylum

Cubanos Escape From Cuba EVERY DAY
Some Head For The USA (Only 90 Miles Away)
Some Go Otherwheres

If They Reach The USA
They Are Granted REFUGEE Status
(Same Scenario Would Hold True For The Escaped N Korean)



Political Asylum And ILLEGAL Immigration
Are 2 Different Animals





Mexico (And Other Latin American Nations)
Are FREE Nations
(NOT Being Oppressed By Communism Or Fascism)
Therefore
These Latin Americanos Do Not Qualify For Political Asylum
As A Cubano Or N Korean Does

Answer 5

No. We did amnesty once and proved it's not the answer.
This gentleman would probably qualify for asylum since if he were returned he would face death. Yes there are many illegals comming here in search of freedom. Which is far better than those who just want to abuse our system and take over this country. Unfortunatly it would probably take decades to interview every illegal and until then they'd still be crossing the border by the thousands everyday just wanting money. Way too many abused the freedom this country has to offer and still do. Our laws must be enforced and respected or you can kiss this country goodbye.

Answer 6

No respectable man or woman commits against the law the first actual moment they input a international nation. The best rationale illegals haven't any crook list is considering the fact that they have got no longer been apprehended and charged. Amnesty makes it possible for for those indecent folks to come to be residents with no need to attend and abide by way of the identical laws as others. It is a "cheater's go to the entrance of the road" if you'll. It is a spit within the face to the hardworking legislation abiding immigrants who had the appreciate for our legislation and did matters the RIGHT WAY.

Answer 7

There is a fundamental problem with this. First, you give amnesty to this man. He, of course, will want his family to have the same benefit. Soon, the neighboring town decides they have it tough too, and they want the same treatment as the first gentleman and his family. It continues on and on, until we are expected to give amnesty to the whole country.
Not to mention, if we were to give amnesty on a case by case basis, who is to say the bleeding heart in the cubicle next to you isn't just feeling sorry for every sob story that comes across her desk? Before you know it, some guy has a neighbor that kicked his dog, therefore he just HAS to get to America, and this woman lets him in.

Answer 8

A starving man living in oppressed North Korea. What about the rest of the people? People need to make the best with what they have. God willing he has two good hand, legs and strong lungs filled with air. Make the best with what he (they) have. Illegal immigration needs to be stopped!

There are other countries besides the US. Some of these countries I bet are alot better than oppressed North Korea.

Answer 9

I agree with you to a point. It will be almost impossible to round up and send all the illegal immigrants home. We need to put real pressure on those who are hiring illegals through harsh penalties. I think if we also set strict requirements on those who would like amnesty, as some have alluded to, like a requirement to pay back taxes, to learn English, and to have a job, etc. then it may work. However, we do need to do something. I would rather them be paying taxes, along with the employers, then what we have now.

Answer 10

Well lets think about it for a minute. At the very least, most illegal immigrants commit 3 crimes: illegally entering the country, use false id, and not paying taxes.

So I will be pro-amnesty when I am allowed to commit 3 crimes and am given amnesty.

In the case you stated, he would be eligible for asylum so there would be no need to illegally immigrate.