THW give Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Thank you for your rebuttal. "I gave no specific referral to the United States. 'Amnesty' for illegal immigrants refers to all nations, including Middle Eastern nations. " Since you spoke originally of current conversation, I assumed you were talking about the US. I cannot address other countries as each will have their own laws, etc. Of course the US Code isn't a part of the Constitution, which is why I addressed them separately. The US Code are US laws, supporting the Constitution. I fear that you are confusing asylum with amnesty. If one is being persecuted in another country, they certainly may petition the US govt. for asylum. They cannot, according to the US Code, just walk through our borders and say, "things were bad in my country so now I'm here". The US Code, Title 8 is very easy to understand in its definition of "illegal alien" and in the process if that law is broken, along with the consequences of anyone who chooses to help them. I will ask you to please read and reference the Code (it's far too long to post here). "..giving amnesty to immigrants does not break the US Constitution,...". Actually, it does. The Constitution states "The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4). Having been established by Congress, the US Code specifies the process for naturalization, citizenship, illegal entry, etc. " If you are insinuating that immigrants come over the border merely to murder you must be mistaken, they are looking for a new life. " NOWHERE did I mention any social role of illegal immigrants, nor did I insinuate such. My comments were strictly from a Constitutional/US Code perspective. " May I remind you that America itself is built on immigration." Legal immigration, yes. Illegal, no. That was the purpose of Ellis Island. Many of the 'founding fathers WERE born here. Many fought for the right to be here. Many slaughtered innocent natives to be here....but that's a different topic. Bottom line, we fought for our rights and to escape from King George's tyrannical rule and did so with bloodshed on previously uninhabited land, not given to any other sovereign nation. To use the argument that our founding by immigration is the same as illegally entering a standing nation is absurd. We weren't a country then, and once we became a country, laws were created to keep our borders secure. Part of that was a citizenship process and a process for allowing those who are not citizens to be here legally. " attend a high school that has many immigrants, legal or not. I also attend school with naturalised citizens. 95% of them support amnesty for illegal immigration. Put yourself in their shoes. You are escaping a place with no job, money and can't afford to support them, your papers are constantly rejected for lack of proper documentation you cannot get. What do you do? Amnesty. Those people you've mentioned had the papers and documentation to apply, what about the ones that can't get it?" That is an emotional argument. You cannot run a country on emotions. We all have emotional experiences that differ, that reflect different opinions, so an emotional argument isn't one that can be easily documented. Laws can be. Again without them, we have anarchy.