Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Background and context

A path to citizenship is a proposal in the United States to help deal with illegal immigration and the existence of an estimated 15 million illegal immigrants within US borders.
It would allow illegal immigrants to remain in the Unites States, instead of deporting them, while they are given an opportunity to apply for US citizenship, meeting requirements such as language skills and, in some cases, paying a fee for having immigrated illegally. Advocates consider it the most realistic way of dealing with this population, arguing that it is infeasible to deport all 15 million illegal immigrants. They also contend that it is the most civilized approach, avoiding splitting up families and neighborhoods over forced deportation, and that it helps sustain industries that have come to rely on these workers. Opponents contend that it rewards illegal immigrants, disrespects those that have come to the country legally, undermines the integrity of US laws, and encourages further illegal immigration. The Bush administration attempted to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2006, which included a fairly strict path to citizenship, requiring that illegals demonstrate that they had paid their taxes while residing in the US, that they pay a fine for having broken the law, and that they go through the regular, lengthy channels for becoming a citizen, albeit while being allowed to remain in the country. While legislation failed to pass then, in 2010 the topic arose once again as large immigration rallies were conducted on the National Mall and as Arizona passed highly controversial anti-illegal immigrant legislation in April of 2010. Many have called for comprehensive immigration reform, and debate continued to revolve around whether to include a path to citizenship.


Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]

Principle: Is a path to citizenship a principled move?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Citizenship is great opportunity; grant it to those already here. Consider being a part of another country which would treat you... "unwell". Where would you go? Certainly somewhere near your border, so what would the choice be? You will definitely choose the U.S. since it is a free country and for immigrants this is a great opportunity to get out of their past lives and make a new one, despite the fact that this is attained through desperate matters what you people call "Illegal Immigration". So why don't we give these people a shot at what they want, give them the rights of any American citizen? If America really is the land of the free, why can't we share some of that freedom?
  • Path to citiz. puts illegals through citiz. process w/o deportation George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd President of the United States, in an Aug. 3, 2006: "The best plan is to say to somebody who has been here illegally, if you've been paying your taxes, and you've got a good criminal record, that you can pay a fine for being here illegally, and you can learn English, like the rest of us have done, and you can get in a citizenship line to apply for citizenship. You don't get to get in the front, you get to get in the back of the line. But this idea of deporting people is just not -- it doesn't make any sense to me, and it doesn't make any sense to a lot of people who understand this issue. So here's a reasonable way to treat people with respect and accomplish what we want to accomplish, which is to be a country of law and a country of decency and respect."[1]
  • Illegal immigrants denied basic human right w/o citizenship The American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), in a Feb. 16, 2000 www.aflcio.org website section titled "The AFL-CIO Calls for Amnesty": "Millions of hard-working people who make enormous contributions to their communities and workplace are denied basic human rights because of their undocumented status... The AFL-CIO supports a new amnesty program that would allow these members of local communities to adjust their status to permanent residents and become eligible for naturalization."[2]
  • Path to citizenship respects dignity of the undocumented The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), in its website section titled "About AFSC" (accessed Oct. 1, 2007), stated: "Programs on immigration are based on our conviction of the worth and inherent dignity of all people. That’s why AFSC has consistently expressed support for undocumented immigrants, and has repeatedly called on the US government to grant permanent residency to all undocumented men, women, and children."[3]


[Add New]

Con

  • A path to citizenship grants amnesty to criminals. Illegal immigrants are criminals. They have broken US law. Why should they be given any special favors? They should treated like criminals, found, charged, jailed, and deported. It's simply a matter of enforcing the law.
  • Path to citizenship disrespects legal immigrants James Sensenbrenner, JD, US House Representative (R-WI), in a Mar. 27, 2006 Bristol Herald Courier article titled "James Sensenbrenner Not Deterred by Immigration Protests": "illegal aliens should not be granted amnesty and a path to citizenship. This would be a slap in the face to all those who have followed the law and have come to America legally."[5]
  • Path to citizenship disadvantages prospective legal immigrants John Jacob, Owner of John D. Jacob Land Surveying Services, while being a 2006 U.S. congressional Republican candidate in Utah, in a June 25, 2006 Deseret News article entitled "John Jacob's Responses to News Candidate Questionnaire": "[Amnesty] is a mass-pardon for lawbreakers and serves as a disadvantage to those who are legally seeking the American dream." [6]
  • Illegal immigrants do more harm than good; deport them. Illegal immigrants undoubtably bring many benefits to the US. However, they bring much more harm than good. They increase the poverty rate in the areas they live in. They most likely are a bad influence on the Americans they live near with. They come to the US illegally and beg for legal citizenship so they can get rights they don't deserve. They came to here illegally and want citizenship so that they can have rights and abuse the US system. They decrease the morale of the parts they live in because of discrimination and also because of the suspicion, the fear they bring in because of their image of being criminals and drug dealers. Why should we grant them citizenship when they're here first illegaly?
  • Statements against path to citizenship for illegal immigrants Todd Schnitt, who often discusses immigration policy on the Schnitt Show, said in a phone interview with KOMO News: "Everybody who broke into this country illegally knows they broke into this country illegally, and they've been siphoning off our system. [...] I'm all for immigration. We're a country of immigrants that came to this country legally. [...] [But,] I don't believe in amnesty. We need to send them back to their home countries, and then they can reapply, get in line, and enter this country legally."[7]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Illegal immigration: Does a path to citizenship help reduce illegal immigration?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Path to citizenship is about earning citizenship Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Co-Founder and President of Migration Policy Institute (MPI): "we should ask unauthorized immigrants to earn their new legal status. Unauthorized immigrants could begin the regularization process by registering with immigration officials and then be given, say, three years in which to qualify. The criteria for regularization should be forward-looking, easily proven, and consistent with what we as a society consider important. Steady employment, paying taxes, speaking English capably and having a clean criminal record are a good start. And the process should a pay for itself by collecting a substantial but reasonable fee from the immigrants who are regularized."[8] The difficult conditions of this path to citizenship, which gives illegal aliens no advantages over legal aliens, provides no incentive for illegal immigration over legal immigration.


[Add New]

Con

  • Path to citizenship encourages illegal immigration The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in a Jan. 2007 www.fairus.org section titled "The Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites": "The proposal to simply convert illegal alien residents to legal resident status with an amnesty violates a fundamental principle of immigration reform, because that will encourage rather than deter future illegal immigration. A policy that conveys the message that the country or any state or local government will tolerate and reward foreigners who ignore our immigration law invites the world to see illegal immigration as an accepted route to seeking a better life in our country and it will exacerbate the problem."[9]


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Deportation: Is mass deportation not an option?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Deportation is not feasible; legalization is only option Michael R. Bloomberg, MBA, 108th Mayor of the City of New York, in a July 5, 2006: "We need to get real about the people who are now living in this country illegally – in many cases raising families and paying taxes. The idea of deporting these 11 or 12 million people – about as many as live in the entire state of Pennsylvania – is pure fantasy. Even if we wanted to, it would be physically impossible to carry out. If we attempted it – and it would be perhaps the largest round-up and deportation in world history – the social and economic consequences would be devastating. Let me ask you: Would we really want to spend billions of dollars on a round-up and deportation program that would split families in two – only to have these very same people and millions more, illegally enter our country again? Of course not. America is better than that – and smarter than that. There is only one practical solution, and it is a solution that respects the history of our nation: Offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together."[10]
  • Deporting illegals would be economically damaging "The GOP's Immigration Fumble." The Wall Street Journal. Aug. 4, 2002: "Deporting them for the duration of the application process would break up families. It also would disrupt businesses that depend on foreign labor for jobs that Americans don't want... The U.S. needs policies in place that recognize the economic realities that come with a long, porous border between an immensely rich country and a poor one. We need programs that will legalize the status of foreigners who are here already and contributing to our economy. We need more legal channels, such as temporary work programs, to handle future arrivals. And we need to speed up family reunifications."[11]
  • Deportation disrupts immigrant families The Wall Street Journal, in its Aug. 4, 2002 editorial titled "The GOP's Immigration Fumble," offered the following: "Deporting them for the duration of the application process would break up families."


[Add New]

Con

  • Illegals should be deported, not given amnesty Jim Gilchrist, MBA, CPA, Founder and President of The Minuteman Project, in a May 31, 2007 Global Politician interview titled "Jim Gilchrist of Minuteman Project on Immigration, Terror, Elections": "I’m pro-deportation or if you want to use a nicer word, pro-repatriation. You cannot have a defeatist attitude towards the problem and have a solution. The repatriation of illegals must begin with a recognition of the problem and a plan. We may be called names, but the names our grandchildren will call us will be worse when they have to live in a destroyed country. There must be a multi-faceted approach, including arresting illegals and also cutting off social welfare programs to them."[12]
  • Path to citizenship is more difficult than deportation Joe Guzzardi, English Instructor at Lodi Adult School. "Joe Feels Good About Immigration Bill..." VDARE.com. June 2, 2006: "S. 2611 is not administratively manageable. Has anyone wondered how many hundreds of millions of pieces of paper would have to be processed to legalize tens of millions of aliens? Forget it."[13]
  • Costs of deportation made up for by savings to taxpayers Edwin S. Rubenstein, MA, President of Edwin S. Rubenstein (ESR) Research Economic Consultants, in a Jan. 26, 2006 VDare.com article entitled "No-one’s Suggesting Mass Deportation—But It Would Pay For Itself,": "even if $206 billion was a reasonable cost estimate, mass deportation would be well worth it. Just consider the economic burden illegal aliens impose on the rest of us... Total fiscal benefits of deportation are thus estimated at $51 billion per year... At this rate, mass deportation would pay for itself in about four years. Plus, of course, we’d get America back."[14]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Economics: Is a path to citizenship economically sound?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Undocumented immigrants perform essential work in the US. Undocumented immigrants perform many jobs in the United States, including farming, cleaning, yard-work, and many other types of work that US citizens are not willing to engage in. A path to citizenship helps protect these industries.
  • Path to citizenship will lower poverty among illegals Jared Bernstein. "Path to citizenship and out of poverty." Economic Policy Institute. June 29, 2006: "In other words, there is a huge difference between the economic status of immigrants who have become citizens and those who have not. The path to citizenship is also a path out of poverty. [...] the poverty rate of Hispanic non-citizens was 26.1 percent in 2004, compared with 13.4 percent of the naturalized Hispanic population. (The comparison is almost identical for black immigrants.) [...] We can thus be confident that an important reason for this difference is the benefits conferred by citizenship and the disadvantages associated with lack of citizenship. It is simply much easier to integrate economically, not to mention culturally and socially, if one is a citizen."
  • Path to citizenship will improve working conditions for all John J. Sweeney, President of the American Federation of Labor "Letter to the National and International Union Presidents." AFL CIO. June 1st, 2005: "We are strongly supportive of the concept of legalization, recognizing that raising the floor for undocumented workers and bringing them out of the shadows will improve working conditions for all workers. We are also in agreement that if this bill moves forward, we will seek expand its labor protections considerably to ensure a positive outcome for all workers."[15]


[Add New]

Con

  • Home sweet home The money that these immigrants earn are sent directly to Mexico and the countries they come from where they send to their families. Giving these illegal immigrants citizenship only gives them more rights, opportunities, and money, giving even more of their money to Mexico and the countries they come from. This overburdens the taxpayers and the people that support these citizens which came here illegally in the first place.
  • Illegals and path to citizenship is a burden on taxpayers Phyllis Schlafly, JD, conservative political activist, public speaker, and author, in a Nov. 9, 2004 Human Events article titled "Get Borders and Illegal Immigration Under Control": "Since millions of Americans are without health insurance, repeal the federal laws that require local American taxpayers to pay for emergency medical care and schooling for illegal aliens, and enforce the law that forbids states to grant the subsidy of in-state college tuition to illegal aliens."[16]
  • Illegals take jobs from and lower wages for US citizens Phyllis Schlafly, JD, conservative political activist, public speaker, and author, in a Nov. 9, 2004 Human Events article titled "Get Borders and Illegal Immigration Under Control": "No Amnesty. Congress should stiffen its backbone against the Bush Administration plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens... Millions of foreigners are 'willing' to work for a few dollars a day and Americans are not willing to work for Third World wages. Terminate H-1B visas, since the U.S. has thousands of unemployed American engineers and computer specialists."[17]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Security: Is a path to citizenship important to national security?

[Add New]

Pro

  • US has many national interests in path to citizenship John McCain, US Senator (R - AZ), in a May 13, 2005 press release titled "Members of Congress Introduce Comprehensive Border Security & Immigration Reform Bill [S 2611]": "We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status."[18]


[Add New]

Con

  • Condoning illegal immigration threatens national security. A path to citizenship legitimizes illegal immigration, increasing the belief that immigrating illegally is OK, thus further jeopardizing borders, straining border enforcement resources, and generally increasing the risk that terrorists or narco-traffickers will be able to pass through the borders undetected. A path to citizenship, therefore, constitutes a threat to national security.
  • Legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic John Fonte, PhD, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, in a Sep. 1, 2006 transcript of the hearing before the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary: "If Reid-Kennedy [S 2611] or Pence-Hutchison 'Compromise Plan' becomes law, 11-12 million illegal immigrants will be eligible for U.S. citizenship, while, at the same time, retaining citizenship to their birth nations greatly exacerbating the dual allegiance problem and encouraging the diminution of loyalty to the United States."[19]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Opinion: Does public opinion support citizenship for illegals?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Some polls find Americans support conditional amnesty. Polls that describe proposals that have actually been considered found broad support. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found in 2009 that "most Americans (63%) say they favor providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs." An April 2009 Washington Post/ABC News poll also found that 61 percent of respondents support "a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements."[20]



[Add New]

Con

  • Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants A 2010 CNN/Opinion Research asked, "Do you think the United States should or should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?" Sixty-six percent of respondents said the U.S. should not make it easier. 33 percent said it should.[21]




[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con sources

[Add New]

Pro


[Add New]

Con

See also

External links and resources


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.