Reading Assignment: Nathan Thornburg – A Case For Amnesty

Reading Assignment Nathan Thornburg A Case For Amnesty Pp 288

Reading assignment • Nathan Thornburg, “A Case for Amnesty,†pp. • Mark Krikorian, “Not Amnesty but Attrition,†pp. What is your position on the issue of amnesty? Do you think that illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty? If so,why? If not, then what are the alternatives?

As both authors have pointed out, the situation is not a simple one. How do you understand it? How do you feel about it? These articles are from 2007 and 2004, respectively, but there does not seem to be a solution proposed since. Some states, like Arizona and others, have and are writing new laws in response to illegal immigration from Mexico.

What are your thoughts on some of those new laws? Do you think that boarder states have more at stake than the rest of the country? Although Mexican immigrants are thought of most often in association with these types of debates, there are immigrants from all over the world who are subject to these new laws. Should the country an immigrant is from or the number of immigrants from that country matter to lawmakers? Why is America, especially, so conflicted about the issue of immigration? If you quote from the readings above, use quotation marks, and supply in-text citations with the author’s last name, date of publication, and page number. at least 300 words

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over immigration reform, particularly concerning whether illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty, remains one of the most contentious issues in American policy. Nathan Thornburg’s “A Case for Amnesty” (2007) advocates for a comprehensive approach that recognizes the economic and social contributions of undocumented immigrants. Thornburg argues that granting amnesty could integrate these individuals into society legally and fully, thereby reducing illegal employment, improving national security, and fostering economic growth. He emphasizes that many undocumented immigrants have established roots and contribute positively to communities, and therefore, allowing them legal status is not only humane but pragmatic ("Thornburg," p. 288). On the other hand, Mark Krikorian’s “Not Amnesty but Attrition” (2004) contends that amnesty undermines the rule of law by rewarding illegal behavior. Krikorian advocates for a policy of attrition—reducing illegal immigration gradually through increased enforcement and attrition tactics, such as stricter border controls and employment verification systems. He emphasizes that granting amnesty could encourage further illegal crossings, thus perpetuating the problem ("Krikorian," p. xx).

My position aligns more closely with Krikorian’s perspective, arguing that granting amnesty might provide short-term relief but risks long-term consequences, such as incentivizing future illegal entries. An alternative approach involves enhancing border security and reforming visa policies to better regulate legal immigration. These policies could address labor needs while maintaining legal integrity and order.

The legal responses from states like Arizona, which have enacted strict immigration laws, reflect concerns about sovereignty and resource allocation. These laws suggest that border states feel they have more at stake due to direct impacts on local infrastructure, education, and public safety. However, such laws raise questions about fairness: should the origins of immigrants or their numbers influence lawmaking? America’s conflicted stance on immigration stems from economic, cultural, and political complexities. On the one hand, immigrants fuel economic growth and cultural diversity; on the other, they push against limited resources and social cohesion ("Thornburg," 2007). Ultimately, balancing these interests remains a challenge. As Thornburg notes, “effective immigration policy requires humane yet firm measures” ("Thornburg," p. 290). This ongoing debate continues to shape American society and policy, with no clear consensus yet in sight.

References

• Thornburg, Nathan. (2007). A Case for Amnesty. In [publication details].
• Krikorian, Mark. (2004). Not Amnesty but Attrition. In [publication details].
• [Additional scholarly sources relevant to immigration policy]
• [Government reports or official statistics]
• [Analysis articles from reputable journals]
• [Legal analyses on state immigration laws]
• [Historical perspectives on immigration reforms]
• [Cultural studies on immigrant integration]
• [Economic impact studies of immigration]
• [Contemporary debate articles or editorials]