Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A common critique of giving the American underclass of 11 million some kind of legal relief is that it is tantamount to "amnesty." That's a dirty word in the right wing, and why shouldn't it be? It's not like forgiving people is something a Christian would do nor does it promote family values in this case. However, the linchpin of the exclusionist argument is that amnesty has been tried before and it didn't work. Let's examine this assertion in detail.
The very first amnesty happened not in 1986, but in 1776. Several dissatisfied British subjects openly fostered rebellion and overthrew the kings rule, a heinous crime of treason punishable by death. Instead of being hung for their insubordination, they started their own country, gave themselves amnesty and were declared national heroes. These dirty law breakers are honored with statues, their namesakes adorn our public buildings and their stories are enshrined with the deepest of respect in our history books. Amnesty was off to a great start!
18th century criminals who gave themselves the first American amnesty.
Almost a century later, the country would revisit this now thorny concept. The country was plagued with an epidemic of law breaking fugitive slaves who had run away from their rightful owners. What's worse, several "sanctuary" states harbored these fugitives, thereby themselves breaking the law. The resentment over the slavery question tore the country in two, with many of the southern states illegally seceding to form their own country. Needless to say, lawbreaking was in its prime in the mid 19th century. How did America solve this problem? One word. Amnesty.
The fugitive slaves were forgiven, so were their harborers. The seceding states were forgiven, and re-admitted into the Union with some tough preconditions (sound familiar?). In an act of unbridled, mass amnesty, the country was saved and reunited in a way that modern Americans hold in the deepest awe and respect. It's no surprise that the architect of this mass amnesty, President Abraham Lincoln, is considered the greatest President of all time. But were we done giving amnesty? Not quite.
Law breaking fugitive slaves such as these were later given amnesty.
In the mid 20th century, a lady by the name of Rosa Parks illegally refused to move to the back of the bus. What a dirty law breaker! Surely we couldn't forgive her or others like her could we!? The law clearly mandated the segregation of white and black Americans, and anyone who broke the law should have gotten no sympathy at all no matter how bad the law was! But, as history tell us, we yet again reformed the law and forgave the law breakers. And how does history judge this mass amnesty? Countless streets were renamed after the reformer Martin Luther King, and a public holiday declared in his honor. The status of this proponent of amnesty? You guessed it. National hero, like all the pro-amnesty heroes before him.
Rosa Parks being booked. She and others later got amnesty.
As today, there were many who opposed reform and decried it with colorful language. The only difference was they didn't use the word amnesty, since no immigrants were involved. The dirty word for reform exclusionists was "race mixing." Instead of shouting "stop illegal immigration," the 1950's ultra-conservative hardliner would yell "stop illegal integration."
Anti-reform exclusionists. They didn't want "amnesty" for minority races.
Stopping illegal integration one law breaking minority at a time.
This brings us to the alleged first amnesty, which is only just the fourth major amnesty with many mini amnesties in between that I didn't get into. In 1986, 3 million law breakers were allowed to get right with the law and become our equals. Many predicted the end of the United States as we know it, with law breakers running loose and terrorizing the public, mass lootings and chaos. What actually followed? Only the largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the United States.
So when someone says amnesty has been tried before and failed, the question must be asked, which amnesty do they speak off? Or is it only amnesty when immigrants are involved, but for others, it is liberation for patriots, emancipation for slaves and integration for segregated minorities? This country has a long history of reforming unjust laws to bring masses of people to equality with their peers. It's high time for us to relive this American tradition and to welcome the 11 million as equals.
A demonstration for the law breakers of our time. Will they get their amnesty?
I'd like to end this piece by reminding everyone of our pledge of allegiance, that we recite under out beautiful flag. Read it, as many before us have, and apply it to the 11 million undocumented Americans. Here let me write it out for you:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
That's right, liberty and justice for all. Not only for whites, not only for men, not only for straight, rich and documented. This is a country where everyone is entitled to liberty and justice.
A common critique of giving the American underclass of 11 million some kind of legal relief is that it is tantamount to "amnesty." That's a dirty word in the right wing, and why shouldn't it be? It's not like forgiving people is something a Christian would do nor does it promote family values in this case. However, the linchpin of the exclusionist argument is that amnesty has been tried before and it didn't work. Let's examine this assertion in detail.
The very first amnesty happened not in 1986, but in 1776. Several dissatisfied British subjects openly fostered rebellion and overthrew the kings rule, a heinous crime of treason punishable by death. Instead of being hung for their insubordination, they started their own country, gave themselves amnesty and were declared national heroes. These dirty law breakers are honored with statues, their namesakes adorn our public buildings and their stories are enshrined with the deepest of respect in our history books. Amnesty was off to a great start!
18th century criminals who gave themselves the first American amnesty.
Almost a century later, the country would revisit this now thorny concept. The country was plagued with an epidemic of law breaking fugitive slaves who had run away from their rightful owners. What's worse, several "sanctuary" states harbored these fugitives, thereby themselves breaking the law. The resentment over the slavery question tore the country in two, with many of the southern states illegally seceding to form their own country. Needless to say, lawbreaking was in its prime in the mid 19th century. How did America solve this problem? One word. Amnesty.
The fugitive slaves were forgiven, so were their harborers. The seceding states were forgiven, and re-admitted into the Union with some tough preconditions (sound familiar?). In an act of unbridled, mass amnesty, the country was saved and reunited in a way that modern Americans hold in the deepest awe and respect. It's no surprise that the architect of this mass amnesty, President Abraham Lincoln, is considered the greatest President of all time. But were we done giving amnesty? Not quite.
Law breaking fugitive slaves such as these were later given amnesty.
In the mid 20th century, a lady by the name of Rosa Parks illegally refused to move to the back of the bus. What a dirty law breaker! Surely we couldn't forgive her or others like her could we!? The law clearly mandated the segregation of white and black Americans, and anyone who broke the law should have gotten no sympathy at all no matter how bad the law was! But, as history tell us, we yet again reformed the law and forgave the law breakers. And how does history judge this mass amnesty? Countless streets were renamed after the reformer Martin Luther King, and a public holiday declared in his honor. The status of this proponent of amnesty? You guessed it. National hero, like all the pro-amnesty heroes before him.
Rosa Parks being booked. She and others later got amnesty.
As today, there were many who opposed reform and decried it with colorful language. The only difference was they didn't use the word amnesty, since no immigrants were involved. The dirty word for reform exclusionists was "race mixing." Instead of shouting "stop illegal immigration," the 1950's ultra-conservative hardliner would yell "stop illegal integration."
Anti-reform exclusionists. They didn't want "amnesty" for minority races.
Stopping illegal integration one law breaking minority at a time.
This brings us to the alleged first amnesty, which is only just the fourth major amnesty with many mini amnesties in between that I didn't get into. In 1986, 3 million law breakers were allowed to get right with the law and become our equals. Many predicted the end of the United States as we know it, with law breakers running loose and terrorizing the public, mass lootings and chaos. What actually followed? Only the largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the United States.
So when someone says amnesty has been tried before and failed, the question must be asked, which amnesty do they speak off? Or is it only amnesty when immigrants are involved, but for others, it is liberation for patriots, emancipation for slaves and integration for segregated minorities? This country has a long history of reforming unjust laws to bring masses of people to equality with their peers. It's high time for us to relive this American tradition and to welcome the 11 million as equals.
A demonstration for the law breakers of our time. Will they get their amnesty?
I'd like to end this piece by reminding everyone of our pledge of allegiance, that we recite under out beautiful flag. Read it, as many before us have, and apply it to the 11 million undocumented Americans. Here let me write it out for you:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
That's right, liberty and justice for all. Not only for whites, not only for men, not only for straight, rich and documented. This is a country where everyone is entitled to liberty and justice.
A common critique of giving the American underclass of 11 million some kind of legal relief is that it is tantamount to "amnesty." That's a dirty word in the right wing, and why shouldn't it be? It's not like forgiving people is something a Christian would do nor does it promote family values in this case. However, the linchpin of the exclusionist argument is that amnesty has been tried before and it didn't work. Let's examine this assertion in detail.
The very first amnesty happened not in 1986, but in 1776. Several dissatisfied British subjects openly fostered rebellion and overthrew the kings rule, a heinous crime of treason punishable by death. Instead of being hung for their insubordination, they started their own country, gave themselves amnesty and were declared national heroes. These dirty law breakers are honored with statues, their namesakes adorn our public buildings and their stories are enshrined with the deepest of respect in our history books. Amnesty was off to a great start!
18th century criminals who gave themselves the first American amnesty.
Almost a century later, the country would revisit this now thorny concept. The country was plagued with an epidemic of law breaking fugitive slaves who had run away from their rightful owners. What's worse, several "sanctuary" states harbored these fugitives, thereby themselves breaking the law. The resentment over the slavery question tore the country in two, with many of the southern states illegally seceding to form their own country. Needless to say, lawbreaking was in its prime in the mid 19th century. How did America solve this problem? One word. Amnesty.
The fugitive slaves were forgiven, so were their harborers. The seceding states were forgiven, and re-admitted into the Union with some tough preconditions (sound familiar?). In an act of unbridled, mass amnesty, the country was saved and reunited in a way that modern Americans hold in the deepest awe and respect. It's no surprise that the architect of this mass amnesty, President Abraham Lincoln, is considered the greatest President of all time. But were we done giving amnesty? Not quite.
Law breaking fugitive slaves such as these were later given amnesty.
In the mid 20th century, a lady by the name of Rosa Parks illegally refused to move to the back of the bus. What a dirty law breaker! Surely we couldn't forgive her or others like her could we!? The law clearly mandated the segregation of white and black Americans, and anyone who broke the law should have gotten no sympathy at all no matter how bad the law was! But, as history tell us, we yet again reformed the law and forgave the law breakers. And how does history judge this mass amnesty? Countless streets were renamed after the reformer Martin Luther King, and a public holiday declared in his honor. The status of this proponent of amnesty? You guessed it. National hero, like all the pro-amnesty heroes before him.
Rosa Parks being booked. She and others later got amnesty.
As today, there were many who opposed reform and decried it with colorful language. The only difference was they didn't use the word amnesty, since no immigrants were involved. The dirty word for reform exclusionists was "race mixing." Instead of shouting "stop illegal immigration," the 1950's ultra-conservative hardliner would yell "stop illegal integration."
Anti-reform exclusionists. They didn't want "amnesty" for minority races.
Stopping illegal integration one law breaking minority at a time.
This brings us to the alleged first amnesty, which is only just the fourth major amnesty with many mini amnesties in between that I didn't get into. In 1986, 3 million law breakers were allowed to get right with the law and become our equals. Many predicted the end of the United States as we know it, with law breakers running loose and terrorizing the public, mass lootings and chaos. What actually followed? Only the largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the United States.
So when someone says amnesty has been tried before and failed, the question must be asked, which amnesty do they speak off? Or is it only amnesty when immigrants are involved, but for others, it is liberation for patriots, emancipation for slaves and integration for segregated minorities? This country has a long history of reforming unjust laws to bring masses of people to equality with their peers. It's high time for us to relive this American tradition and to welcome the 11 million as equals.
A demonstration for the law breakers of our time. Will they get their amnesty?
I'd like to end this piece by reminding everyone of our pledge of allegiance, that we recite under out beautiful flag. Read it, as many before us have, and apply it to the 11 million undocumented Americans. Here let me write it out for you:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
That's right, liberty and justice for all. Not only for whites, not only for men, not only for straight, rich and documented. This is a country where everyone is entitled to liberty and justice.
The sad thing about this post is that you believe it.
I also think its appalling to compare illegals to George Washington, Black American slaves & civil rights leaders.
I also think its appalling to compare illegals to George Washington, Black American slaves & civil rights leaders.
When the civil rights leaders were fighting for their freedom, the anti-communists would have been similarly appalled at any comparisons between them and George Washington and Black American slaves.
When the civil rights leaders were fighting for their freedom, the anti-communists would have been similarly appalled at any comparisons between them and George Washington and Black American slaves.
Illegals are invaders. Would you praise a bank robber or rapist?
Its deplorable you would put them in the same picture.
Illegals are invaders. Would you praise a bank robber or rapist?
Its deplorable you would put them in the same picture.
A bank robber or a rapist commits a crime against another person. You can point to a victim that is the direct result of the criminal action. When someone enters or stays in the country in violation of immigration laws, there is no direct victim. You could argue they take welfare, but it's OUR government that gives it to them. You can't hand someone money then call them a thief! To that end, they've violated a man made rule that hurt no one. And I don't buy that "taking our jobs" makes them bad. If that were the case then everyone in my college class is evil because they will take the jobs that I could have taken.
Between bank robbers and rapists, and criminals like Rosa Parks and fugitive slaves, I think immigrants are closer to the latter in terms of the severity of the "crime."
A bank robber or a rapist commits a crime against another person. You can point to a victim that is the direct result of the criminal action. When someone enters or stays in the country in violation of immigration laws, there is no direct victim. You could argue they take welfare, but it's OUR government that gives it to them. You can't hand someone money then call them a thief! To that end, they've violated a man made rule that hurt no one. And I don't buy that "taking our jobs" makes them bad. If that were the case then everyone in my college class is evil because they will take the jobs that I could have taken.
Between bank robbers and rapists, and criminals like Rosa Parks and fugitive slaves, I think immigrants are closer to the latter in terms of the severity of the "crime."
Thats where you are wrong. You justifying illegal actions.
There is harm, that is why we have laws for thieves who steal from a bank, air space laws and rapist laws, DUI laws etc....
Laws are laws. They don't belong here nor are they entitled to anything except a deportation ticket.
I'm confused about how one set of freedom-seeking law breakers are national heroes and another are wretched parasite invaders.
Most illegals aren't freedom seekers. They already have freedom in their own countries unless they are refugees. They are only here for economic gain but it negatively impacts the wages, job prospects and taxes of our own citizens. The groups you mentioned in the past had nothing to do with that. No one has the right to a better life at the expense of negatively impacting the citizens of any country and by breaking laws. Did those groups commit felony ID and SS theft? No, I don't think so and these are just some of the examples of why your analogy to the past is way off base. Granting amnesty for millions today would have a big negative impact on our own citizenry or don't we count?
Don't confuse any unjust laws of the past to today's immigration laws. There is nothing unjust about them. We have limits for immigration and for very good reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
