First Affirmative Constructive Speech

Former President Ronald Reagan once said, A nation that cannot

control its borders is not a nation. We, the affirmative, adamantly do not
support the pending resolution that by 2015, all illegal immigrants under the
age of 18 shall be granted amnesty for up to seven years. We define illegal
immigrant as a person born in another country that has entered or currently
resides in the United States without documentation. The New American
Oxford Dictionary defines amnesty as an official pardon for people who
have been convicted of political offenses.
1

Our first reason for opposition is that this resolution will grant a reward
to people who have broken a law. This argument can be best interpreted
through a quote by Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio in The Hill News,
Theres a lot of sympathy for kids who came here at a young age through no
fault of their own. Theyre here. I think there are people who want to look at
it, but still, the laws the law. It is a fact that illegal immigrant children have
committed a civil offense. Despite their age and circumstance, a federal law
has been broken and consequences need to be considered as such. The U.S
Code from the United States Department of Justice states, Section 1325 sets
forth criminal offenses relating to improper entry into the United States by an
2

alien...The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

amended 8 U.S.C. Section 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while
entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than
as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty. If
the proposed resolution is executed, it will set the example that certain laws
are acceptable to break and puts into question the legal system of the federal
government. Representative Steve King in a column from the Inquisitr
countered that even though some illegal immigrant children have been
brought by their parents, it is "not a reason to sacrifice the rule of law. All of
us, our parents did a lot of right things, and they made some mistakes. We're
3

the beneficiaries of our parents' good decisions and we pay the price of our
parents' bad decisions. So why would we exempt a class of people for that?"
It is the responsibility of the U.S government to uphold rule of law and see
that laws are enforced.
The second argument for our contentions is that child amnesty will
extend to amnesty for all illegal immigrants. The resolution is on the same
basis as the KIDS and DREAM act, which focus on citizenship and amnesty
for illegal minors. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) state,
Advocates of the DREAM Act and the Kids Act sell their amnesty by
focusing entirely on sympathetic young children. But even though the M in
4

the acronymous DREAM Act stands for Minors, the amnesty has never
been limited to people 17 years of age or younger and most beneficiaries
would, in fact, be adults. While some versions of the DREAM Act restricted
recipients to illegal aliens under age 35, the most recent version had no upper
age limit. Illegal immigrant children prefer the DREAM Act ideally because
it will permit amnesty for their families. The Huffington post interviewed
Greisa Martinez, an organizer with United We Dream, who said, We will
not leave our parents behind. They deserve a chance to become citizens just
as much as we do. By granting amnesty to children, the government will
5

have to grant amnesty for their parents, thereby providing amnesty for all
ages.
Our third argument is that a similar proposal was enacted by Ronald
Reagan in 1986 and ultimately failed. According to Karen Tumulty, a
political reporter for the Washington Post, The latest proposals contain the
same...components as the 1986 law: a legalization program and a possible
path to citizenship for those who are in the country illegally... Part of the
1986 plan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. The CIS reviewed the
outcome of the failed act and state that in fact, the new INS estimates show
that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly increased illegal immigration, as the
6

relatives of newly legalized illegals came to the United States to join their
family members. Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, tells NPR
News, The U.S. failed to regain control of the border making the 1986
law's amnesty provision an incentive for others to come to America
illegally. Granting child amnesty through this resolution will most likely
result in a similar, negative outcome.
For these reasons, we choose to affirm the status quo and argue against
granting child amnesty.