I have a single, simple question for all who support amnesty: Why do you support it? As far as I can tell from what I have read, and seen, Democrats, and Republicans who support amnesty do so because they believe on some level that those who have come here deserve to stay. Now, I’m not talking about the Democratic leadership, who clearly have a demographic agenda at the heart of their amnesty plans, I’m talking about the average Democrat voter who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. Many amnesty supporters to whom I’ve spoken tell me that it is cruel to deport, or penalize someone simply because they wanted to make a better life for themselves, or their family. While I do understand the origin of that sentiment, there is a frustrating lack of foresight on the part of those who believe it.
According to Breitbart, Janet Marguia, Presidemt and CEO of La Raza, had some harsh words for Republicans who oppose amnesty, following the Democratic Party’s shellacking in the election last Tuesday:
“If they continue on this trajectory, Republicans will have elected their last president for the foreseeable future. Latino voter priorities must be reflected in Republican policy priorities.”
I question just how much of a priority amnesty is to Hispanic voters, given that 44% of Texas Hispanics voted for anti-amnesty Republican Greg Abbott for governor, and 42% of Georgia Hispanics voted for Republican Senate candidate David Purdue, who ran an aggressively anti-amnesty campaign, even signing the FAIRs anti-amnesty pledge. Those two candidates were obviously appealing enough to Hispanic voters in a way that warrants further study, and makes one question the meme of them being single-issue amnesty voters. Additionally, suggesting that amnesty is the single most important issue among Hispanic voters is a bit of bad labeling. It implies that Hispanic voters don’t have much respect for the rule of law.
But back to my initial question. Why do average, run-of-the-mill liberals believe amnesty is ok? And once again, they believe it because they think it’s acceptable on some level to break the law if the circumstances are right. That is the root of the belief. Amnesty supporters believe that even though illegal immigrants break the law to come to the United States, and drag our economy down, their reasoning for coming absolves them of punishment. That being the case, I would ask the following question to amnesty supporters: What other laws are subject to that same rule? What other laws can be broken because of need? Furthermore, what defines “a better life?” Under what parameters is a life made better enough that it allows for the breaking of the law?
If a family is relatively poor, and can’t afford a television, or a computer, do they have the right to steal those things to give themselves, and their children a “better life?” If a family lives in a bad school district, and their children go to a terrible public school, does the family have the right to commit credit card fraud to gain the money to send their children to a private school, which will ultimately give their children a better shot at college, and life? What else can be justified under the guise of compassion?
We are a nation of laws—as are most other nations. If we cannot follow, and maintain even the most basic of laws, such as citizenship, how can we continue to function? Additionally, what does it say to those who are waiting in line to come here legally if we grant amnesty to the millions who just up, and came here without going through the proper channels? It’s a slap in the face.
I’m not against providing aid to other nations and people, should we have the ability to do so. But amnesty would not only be harmful to our economy, but to our people—specifically the young, black community.
Are you pro-amnesty? What else can be justified?