Why do people oppose amnesty

That majorities of Americans favor a qualified amnesty is strong evidence for the proposition that it is the policy that would make citizens best off. Even those motivated by selfless humanitarian concerns derive value from getting their way in politics. Are any of their fellow citizens similarly passionate in the other direction? There are, in fact, millions of American citizens who very likely value amnesty much more highly than the vast majority of its most passionate opponents value stopping it.

Still, there is a hugely compelling case for the proposition that 4 million Americans who will no longer worry that armed agents of the state will force their moms and dads to move far away, often to an impoverished or dangerous country, will get more utility from an amnesty than millions of those most opposed will lose. When one starts to treat all Americans with close personal connections to undocumented immigrants as fully equal citizens whose pursuit of happiness is as valuable as that of any others, rather than unconsciously discounting them as possessing less legitimate claims to the nation, the case for legalizing the status of their parents or romantic partners or best friends or employers or employees starts to add up to a whole lot of profound benefits for Americans.

The danger of a backlash is all the more real given the almost certain consequence of an amnesty: more illegal immigration. Common sense suggests as much. So does our experience after amnesty was granted in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of and illegal immigration burgeoned. And if the economy continues to slow down, then the impact of such factors will be all the greater. Still, to many Americans, amnesty in some form seems reasonable. People who have lived and worked here for a prolonged period of time, established businesses, and raised families do build up compelling claims on the rest of us, especially since we have not seen fit to enforce our immigration laws more rigorously.

Yet standing on equally moral ground, Texas Sen. But what we need here is a lot less high-mindedness, on all sides, and more realism—including some backlash insurance. In the immigration law, amnesty was counter-balanced by sanctions against businesses that hire illegals, which unfortunately were never adequately enforced.

Perhaps stiffer, more meaningful employer sanctions should be put on the table now. Or maybe we should talk about reviving the alien registration program, which required aliens to verify their addresses by mailing a postcard to the federal government every January, a law the Reagan administration allowed to expire in the early s. But some sort of reasonable demands should be placed on amnesty beneficiaries to reassure the American public that immigration is not out of control, and that those who have jumped the queue are not simply being rewarded.

Such demands need not be punitive. For example, mandatory English-language classes, which immigrants need and which most Americans would be happy for them to take, could become part of such a deal. If we were really serious about our immigration problems, we would shelve amnesty, which sends the wrong signals to everyone—immigrants, their advocates and immigration opponents. Democrats currently control the House , with two vacancies.

Barrow reported from Wilmington, Delaware. Sections U. Science Technology Business U. Biden immigration plan opposed by GOP, conservative groups. Full Coverage: Immigration.

The public interest — how immigration affects the economic, social and national security interests of the American people — was, at best, an afterthought.

Immigration has taken center stage in the campaign because many Americans have come to recognize that it is a policy without any definable public interest objective. Particularly among the Republican contenders, there has been an effort by candidates to distance themselves from immigration reform that includes amnesty for millions of illegal aliens as its centerpiece.