Believe In America.com

butterbean · Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 2271

I emphatically disagree with statements Sen. Mel Martinez made recently to the Washington Times ("New RNC chief backs bill with guest-worker plan" Page 1, Feb. 2). Mr. Martinez wants to grant illegal aliens a "path to citizenship." This represents nothing less than endorsement of a mass amnesty for many millions of illegal aliens. Americans reject mass amnesty by large margins. Amnesty is an affront to native-born Americans, to legal immigrants, and to the very concept of the rule of law.
Amnesty can be dressed up as "earned legalization," "going to the back of the line" or a "path to citizenship," but it is still amnesty. Do we give bank robbers "earned plunder" or make them "go to the end of the line" to get their pillage or a "path towards keeping their prize"? Consider two brothers living in Mexico City. One came to the United States illegally. The other stayed in Mexico and supports his family there. Mr. Martinez would grant the brother who broke our laws permanent residence and then citizenship in our country. He would grant no such prizes to the brother who stayed in Mexico. This is the worst kind of amnesty -- it grants huge benefits that are reserved only for those who have broken our laws.

Amnesty will not, as advertised, increase national security; it will imperil us all. Some argue that if we grant amnesty we will at least know "who is in our country." They are fundamentally mistaken. We will not learn who the illegal immigrants are, but who they want us to believe they are. Aliens who want to create false identities will provide counterfeit or fraudulent documents from their "home country" and we will catch only those unlucky few whose can't afford quality fakes or who have fingerprints in the FBI system. There was a massive number of fraudulent applications filed for the 1986 amnesty. An estimated two-thirds of the applications for amnesty for agricultural workers were fraudulent and most of those fraudulent applications were approved.

continued:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070211-102906-4055r.htm