Who were the original illegal immigrants from a historical perspective?

How do people feel about this and illegals?Illegal Immigration: The Anti-Amnesty Perspective?

• Illegal Immigration: The Anti-Amnesty Perspective Summarizing arguments against amnesty for illegal immigrants http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=385347&rel_no=1 Illegal Immigration: The Anti-Amnesty Perspective Summarizing arguments against amnesty for illegal immigrants This article is lightly edited. Without a doubt, illegal immigration in the United States has developed into one of the most significant hot-topic issues in American politics today. In fact, its dynamic nature has become a defining factor of contemporary American society and politics. The debates surrounding the notion of amnesty, in particular, have stirred much tension and controversy. So what exactly is “amnesty”? Amnesty is normally considered to be a process in which an illegal immigrant residing in the United States can obtain a "path to citizenship”. With some calling it "rewarding law-breakers", the notion of amnesty has garnered much debate and controversy. Currently, the Senate Judiciary Committee is working on what they call a "comprehensive immigration reform", a measure that could potentially allow twelve million illegal inhabitants of the US to eventually gain citizenship. This article will aim to provide an impartial summary of the anti-amnesty perspective. It seems that the much of the anti-amnesty advocates' arguments are based on practical considerations, those concerned with topics such as the economy, politics, and law. Lou Dobbs, an outspoken advocate of anti-amnesty, can often be heard calling the United States a "nation of laws". This is based on the notion that undermining the American legal system by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would damage the integrity of the system as a whole. Following this idea, many anti-amnesty advocates argue that failing to effectively punish immigrants who break the law would only encourage more illegal immigration by sending a message that illegal immigration is tolerated in the United States. As such, they argue, amnesty would only aggravate the situation and make it more difficult to find a legitimate and permanent solution. Other Conservatives and anti-amnesty advocates prefer to focus on the Mexican government and its alleged hypocrisies regarding immigration. Felipe Calderon, president of Mexico, once declared, "I believe in the rule of law". Upon first glance, Calderon seems to be in agreement with those like Lou Dobbs who stress the importance of the rule of law, yet his hypocrisy is revealed in his continuous push for amnesty in the United States for illegal immigrants from Mexico. Further undermining the Mexican government's legitimacy is the notoriously cruel methods with which Mexico deals with its own illegal aliens. The Mexican government encourages mass deportations and detentions of illegal migrants within its own borders while concurrently complaining about the American government’s alleged mistreatment of Mexican migrants. In light of this, anti-amnesty advocates seem to be asking the question: why should the United States compromise on behalf of Mexico when the Mexican government itself is acting in such a hypocritical manner? Many also worry that amnesty would set dangerous precedents that would prompt countries such as Mexico to push for further compromises by the US government. Another common concern among anti-amnesty advocates seemed to be the potential threats that a porous border system and lenient immigration policies would place on homeland security. In addition to such legal and political arguments, many of the anti-amnesty advocates' most passionate arguments seem to come from the economic perspective. It is an undeniable fact that illegal immigration costs the American government millions of dollars each year (whether or not that is offset by potential economic benefits of illegal immigrants are a different question altogether). In fact, a study done by the Center for Immigration Studies found that illegal immigrants in the United States cost taxpayers around 78 billion dollars every ten years. This is further compounded by the notion that illegal immigration adds millions of poor inhabitants into the United States each year. A study done by the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that the average undocumented resident who has resided in the US for ten years has an annual salary of less than $9,000 and has only a seventh grade education. All of this is topped off by the age-old argument which maintains that undocumented workers in the United States lower wages for everybody while taking the jobs of American citizens and adding unnecessary burdens on American social services. All of this, the Conservatives and the anti-amnesty advocates argue, give the illegals an unfair advantage over those who choose to immigrate to the United States legally. Many of them scoff at the what they see as the apparent naivete of the liberal pro-amnesty

• Answer:

  "It is without a doubt that those who oppose amnesty have many arguments on their side. However, that does not change the fact that the pro-amnesty advocates have just as many arguments on their side as well. As such, it seems that ones position may be determined by his or her priorities on the matter." LOL, the illegal lovers just want their friends, family or the one they are doing to be allowed to stay here. Never mind that they disregarded the laws! I do not feel that they have any valid arguments! Secure our freakin borders and enforce our immigration laws!