Kit Daniels
January 31, 2014
The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has more than doubled
since the last time Congress granted immigration amnesty in 1986, a
trend which will continue if current amnesty proposals become law.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service even admitted the link between the 1986 amnesty and the increase in immigration as far back as 2000.
“The new INS estimates show that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly increased illegal immigration, as the relatives of newly legalized illegals came to the United States to join their family members,” Steven A. Camarota wrote. “The flow of illegals grew dramatically during the years of the amnesty to more than 800,000 a year, before dropping back down to around 500,000 a year.”
Additionally, a large percentage of the illegal immigrants are emigrating from countries with much stricter immigration laws than the U.S., such as Mexico for example.
According to Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony with a penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos.
Yet on this side of the border, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and other House Republicans are pushing to make American immigration law far more lenient by once again offering amnesty which will greatly accelerate illegal immigration as it did in 1986.
Ryan’s plan calls for current illegal immigrants to be offered “temporary, probationary” status so they can continue working in the U.S., paving the way for them to eventually receive a green card and even citizenship.
Immigration in itself is not a bad thing, but currently big government advocates are giving illegal immigrants taxpayer-funded benefits such as welfare and healthcare in order to ensure their support for authoritarian politicians who work against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
They want amnesty so they can accelerate the immigration of people into the U.S. who are used to living in poverty under tyrannical regimes with very few rights.
Noted 16th-century historian Niccolò Machiavelli explained this strategy in his treatise The Prince, in which he pointed out the ease of controlling such populations and the challenge of subjugating those who know liberty.
“He who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watch-word of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget,” he wrote.
0 comments:
Post a Comment