Let's keep in mind, this is an arguement on legality, not race. If anyone DOES bring up race, whether it be in support or against my arguement, then I always have to leave the arguement as it becomes pointless.
I consider my political views to be conservative (I'm riding a fine line between the Republican party and the Libertarian party). Also, my wife is first-generation American with parents from different countries (Spain and El Salvador). I felt it would make sense to lay that info on the table.
1. I don't believe it's bad for a country to moderate its borders. Just about every country moderates their borders, and why should America be an exception? America doesn't even close the door on immigrants--the door is always open, it's just a matter of getting in line with everyone and being patient.
2. I get why immigrants come here, and I even understand why they might do it illegally. Take Mexico for example: I've been there and it is a beautiful country with great people...but I would never live there. Why? Because their government is so fx*ked up. They have the recourses to adapt to a system that allows the people to thrive, but they wouldn't do it and it's hurting the people instead. America is conveniently right there so they come here to make things better. Totally understandable. Nonetheless, the problem then becomes "are they giving back to the country they are benefitting from?" Unfortunately, a large chunk of illegal immigrants are not.
3. "But the pilgrims took from the Native Americans, so why can't immigrants just come here and do what they need to do? This isn't really your country if you think about it!" The method of migrating to a new country was very different years ago--paper work wasn't needed, the concept of settlers existed and government was extremely limited. Unfortunately, the entire planet has made things complicated--not just America. It has become a standard for most many countries, not even specifically first world countries.
Government has made Indian tribes wards of our state. Government managers their land, provides their healthcare, their schools, gives food stamps, pays for housing, child-care and even barriel assistence. How do the reservations look? They're in poverty and only 1 in 4 is employed. They have the highest unemployment rate and the lowest life expectancy of any group in the country--but they still have the highest amount of government subsidies. But then you have certain Indian tribes (like the Lumbee tribe) who aren't recognized as sovereign, receive NO government subsidies and do incredibly well economically (no casinos).
So here's the thing; on an economic level, I'm ok with immigrants coming here, even if it's not 100% legit so long as government stops with hand-outs. There are 11.2 million illegal immigrants in this country. 71% of illegal immigrants are on welfare--and many of them stay on welfare. It is not only going to keep them in a cycle of poverty, but it's going to drag the country down with them. What if 11.2 million illegal immigrants didn't get government hand-outs? I think it would not only benefit them, but it would benefit the economy.
4. What about crime? 25%-30% of federal prisons are made up of illegal immigrants, and the majority of them are in their for drug dealing, gang activity, etc. etc. So to argue why guarding the border so aggressively is also important is because a large number of immigrants, who by definition aren't supposed to be here, have caused crime.
Ultimately, I do believe big government plays a big part in why the country is going down the drain, but I also don't think there is reason to dismiss the arguement against amnesty with "racism" or "classism." Yes, there are racists and people who descriminate over class too, but put those things aside keep in mind that an arguement is still valid against amnesty.
reply
share