"Amnesty is not a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, but, rather, an abdication of the need to come up with a solution. For precisely this reason, such a bandaid approach will never be accepted as legitimate by opponents, nor will it prevent the need for yet another amnesty in the future. While short-term gains can be achieved by legislative tinkering or imposed by judicial fiat and executive order, only through a slow but painful reform of the fundamental operating assumptions on which our immigration system is based can we ever bring the undocumented in from the shadows to realize the promise of American life in full measure."
Oct. 3, 2007 - Heritage FoundationThomas G. Tancredo, US Representative (R-CO), in a June 12, 2007 press release titled "Tancredo Criticizes Bush’s Amnesty Push in Senate," available at tancredo.house.gov, stated:"The President continues to ignore the will of the American people... He simply cannot accept the fact that Americans are not interested in rewarding illegal aliens with a $2.5 trillion blanket amnesty... It’s time the administration to put an end to this tired old ‘Groundhog Day’ routine and shelve this misguided amnesty plan once and for all... It’s time for them to start enforcing our laws."
June 12, 2007 - Thomas G. TancredoRon Paul, MD, US Representative (R-TX), in a Sep. 14, 2006 press release titled "Dr. Paul's Writings: Paul Votes for Stronger Border Security," offered the following:"The problems associated with illegal immigration cannot be addressed unless and until we gain physical control of our borders and coastlines... The number one priority for Congress should be securing our borders - no immigration reform is possible until then. Once we have control over who is entering the country, we can begin to reform the legal immigration process... Amnesty for lawbreakers is not the answer, and it's time to rethink birthright citizenship."
Sep. 14, 2006 - Ron Paul, MDThe Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR), in a www.cairco.org website section titled "Issues" (accessed Mar. 5, 2007), stated:"An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Giving amnesty to illegal aliens forgives their act of illegally entering the United States and in addition forgives related illegal activities such as driving illegally and working using false documents. An amnesty results in large numbers of foreigners who illegally entered the United States being given legal status as a reward for breaking the law. Amnesties encourage additional illegal immigration into the United States."
Mar. 5, 2007 - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR)Gary Endelman, JD, PhD, Immigration Counsel at British Petroleum (BP)-Amoco Corporation, in a Siskind Susser Bland, LLC website section titled "Elephant in the Room: Amnesty and the Rule of Law" (accessed Oct. 5, 2007), wrote:"Amnesty is not a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, but, rather, an abdication of the need to come up with a solution. For precisely this reason, such a bandaid approach will never be accepted as legitimate by opponents, nor will it prevent the need for yet another amnesty in the future. While short-term gains can be achieved by legislative tinkering or imposed by judicial fiat and executive order, only through a slow but painful reform of the fundamental operating assumptions on which our immigration system is based can we ever bring the undocumented in from the shadows to realize the promise of American life in full measure."
Oct. 5, 2007 - Gary Endelman, JD, PhDAndy Selepak, writer for Accuracy in Media, in a May 22, 2007 www.Californiarepublic.org section titled "Public Outrage Over Amnesty Bill," wrote:"The senators who support this amnesty bill have called it everything but, including 'comprehensive immigration reform,' or an 'immigration compromise bill.' If they spent less time trying to craft code words for amnesty, and more time listening to the people who put them in office, we might have a real bill on illegal immigration that enforced the law without rewarding those who broke the law to enter and work in this country illegally. Instead we get broken campaign promises and senators hiding from constituents."
May 22, 2007 - Andy SelepakHumberto Fontova, MA, author, in a May. 30, 2006 NewsMax.com section titled "Illegals Love Mexico and Che," wrote:"The 62 senators who voted 'yea' on last week's immigration bill [Senate Bill S2611] apparently missed all the May Day marches. Either that or these senators were blind to the marchers' symbols and deaf to the their chants. Describing our legislative magnificoes as 'out of touch' misses it. The mainstream media showed us something akin to a Fourth of July picnic by Okies from Muskogee. But bloggers from Babalu to Michelle Malkin didn't let them get away with it. They pulled a quick end run around the mainstream juggernaut and showed us what was really going on. Thus we saw the Mexican tricolor flapping everywhere. Thus we saw Ernesto 'Che' Guevara scowling from countless banners, T-shirts and placards. He appeared as the movement's spiritual leader... Apparently, given all those flags, the marchers looked longingly on the Mexican government. Fine, perhaps ours should emulate it, especially its policies toward immigrants. Amnesty, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate? Instead take a cue from the government represented by that ubiquitous tricolor and indict every one of these marchers as felons."
May. 30, 2006 - Humberto Fontova, MAThe Constitution Party National Veterans Coalition, in its www.nvets.org section titled "Constitution Party National Platform" (accessed Sep. 14, 2007), stated:"We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country... We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign. We favor a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances... We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country. We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion."
Hi, I am Joseph B. Zilar, a veteran, patriot, and a native of Washington State. I was wondering about the issues on amnesty, so I looked it up on Bing (http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000771). Come to my surprise, I had found a few argument for and against amnesty, and this is not the first time that our "Representatives" have voted for amnesty. I agree that we have a problem with controlling our borders. I agree that illegal immigration is a problem, and it is difficult and costly to find, prosecute, and deport illegal immigrants. I agree with no amnesty should be allowed as this is not the issue that should be addressed. The problem is how do we address keeping our boarders open and keep illegals from entering and staying? Securing our borders and reforming immigration law should be our first step before going on with amnesty.
Thank you for your attention,
Joseph B. Zilar
To my State representatives,
In regards to amnesty, I have found a few well thought out words from people in the know about the subject at hand. Please review and take them to heart, as am in agreement with these people, and you represent me along with many other Washingtonians.
Gary Endelman, JD, PhD, Immigration Counsel at British Petroleum (BP)-Amoco Corporation, in a Siskind Susser Bland, LLC website section titled "Elephant in the Room: Amnesty and the Rule of Law" (accessed Oct. 5, 2007), wrote:
Comments