Time Magazine's Article on Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

Time magazine's article, "Immigration: Why Amnesty Makes Sense" makes the argument that legalizing illegals makes sense for Beardstown (Illinois)--and for America. Step by step we'll look at the author's (Nathan Thornburgh) arguments and "facts".

"the estimated 12 million illegals are by their numbers undeportable". Thornburgh, like all propagandists, assumes only limited recourse to problems--deportation is not the only solution, there is a better way--employer enforcement. Also, it is not impossible to round up large numbers of aliens; not all of them would have to be rounded up. If the cozy climate that we have now allowing illegal aliens to work and move about freely was changed to an unfriendly one many illegal aliens would return to their countries on their own.

"They are too enmeshed in a healthy U.S. economy to be extracted" Again, by enforcing the immigration laws regarding illegal employers there would be little necessity to arrest and deport large numbers of illegal aliens.

Time spelled out the argument going around by amnesty proponents--that amnesty is not amnesty because of fines and the length of time that it would take to become citizens, etc.--and disagreed with the proponents; that in fact amnesty was in fact amnesty. Time it seems is all for amnesty.

"Real wages have been stagnant for nearly three decades". "The wages went from $11 to $7.50 an hour due to the meat packing plant's changing hands (from Oscar Meyer to Carghill). The town of Beardstown is pitching the fact that they have a large Hispanic population in order to attract more businesses to settle in the community." Well, there is the problem right there--communities colluding with big business--greed in action.

"Amnesty wont undermine the rule of law." Time contends that the immigration law should be changed making it a misdemeanor instead of a felony--their premise being that everyone is breaking the law; large numbers of employers and many illegal employees, which the numbers lessens the seriousness of the illegal acts. The "bandwagon" fallacy.

"If they (illegal aliens) were legalized--we could concentrate on serious criminals and terrorists crossing the border". Without enforcement of all the laws how can you tell the difference? The criminal and terrorist aren't going to file citizenship papers or let anyone know where they work or live. Another non sequitur argument. Without enforcement of the border you can;t know who is coming and going and without some "teeth" to the laws you have anarchy--like we have now. Regarding ID theft; Time states, "forgiving a crime may be the best way to establish law and order".

Besides the wrong definition of the word "amnesty" (amnesty comes from the root word amnesia, to forget) no other possibility for a solution for ID theft is given, such as social security law enforcement, cross referencing individuals to addresses, verifying documents, and enforcing existing immigration laws; just to name a few.

Time states: "Amnesty wont necessarily add to the Social Service burden". That the illegal aliens use the system now is our fault, because of our laws the illegals use emergency services to avoid being traced and that their illegal state, and low wages, preclude their having medical insurance. Time goes on further; "We infintilize undocumented workers by relegating them to second class status, and then chastise them for being dependent on the nanny state". This statement is a blatant trivialization of a serious problem of illegal aliens abusing an important and necessary service in our communities. What Time left out of the article is the fact that many medical facilities have been closed down due to having to treat large numbers of non-payers--many of these being illegal aliens. Amnesty, might in fact, add to this problem for the former illegals would be free to move about freely. Amnesty too may encourage more illegal aliens to enter the U.S., like the amnesty of 1986 did. No one has been able to refute the "slippery slope" of the 1986 precedent to my knowledge.

The personal story of Fernanda tries to elicit empathy but in my opinion only points out the selfishness of those who are here illegally--five years of free schooling at someone else's expense, the promise of a continued illegal presence in this country, using up resources many of us have fought and paid for.

"Amnesty doesn't have to spawn even more illegal immigration". Thornburgh would like you to believe economic factors alone are the only reason that illegals are forced to come here and not lax immigration laws--Time's argument seems to be that better tools for enforcement will guarantee that amnesties in the future will not be as large as this one; i.e. a national ID, real employer verification, high tech border controls will work to do that.

In summary, the Time article by Nathan Thornburgh (June 18, 2007) does not hide the fact that they are in favor of amnesty--in fact they call the legislation amnesty--however the article is nothing more than bad propaganda--full of non sequiturs, generalizations, emotional appeals, and weak facts. No one has good numbers; the only real numbers are the arrests at the borders. The changing face of America is obvious, hispanic neighborhoods sprouting up everywhere, Spanish speaking news tations, and more and more employers offering lower and lower wages. Sometimes you don't need numbers.