Immigration Amnesty or Attrition

850 Words4 Pages
In the 21st Century immigration has to be one of the most important and argumentative political issues for the United States. The issue we face is what to do about illegal aliens living here and how we fix it. Do we round them all up to arrest and deport the mass amounts or amnesty? Mark Krikorian offers a third option of attrition in his article “Not Amnesty but Attrition”. Krikorian presents a good argument and has done his homework. The author seems to respect patriotism and feels we have a greater obligation to our citizens than foreigners. Krikorian speaks of a country we once were when our grandparents came to America but not that same country now. He argues our immigration laws need to be shaped to improve the United States along with the government enforcing more stringent immigration laws. This would shrink the illegal population and life for American workers would improve. Mark Krikorian is the executive director for The Center of Immigration Services and supports The Federation for American Immigration Reform who is a national, non-profit organization who share a common belief that our nation’s immigration policies must be reformed. Even though amnesty is thought to be the solution to cure our illegal population, we need to shape and enforce immigration laws. Nathan Thornburgh comments in his article “The Case for Amnesty” that he feels amnesty would be a good thing for America and gives five main reasons to support his findings. Thornburgh believes Amnesty can work politically, amnesty will not depress wages-globalization has already done that, Amnesty will not undermine the rule of law, Amnesty will not necessarily add to the social-services burden and Amnesty doesn’t have to spawn even more illegal immigration. (Thornburgh) Thornburgh supports legalization and would like to see the politicians agree and this hope for amnesty can come
Open Document