Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants: A Humanitarian Case
This essay argues that undocumented immigrants in the United States deserve amnesty on the grounds that they are human beings entitled to the same rights and opportunities upon which America was founded. Drawing on two essays — Fred Reed's "Why Blame Mexico?" and John Kavanaugh's "Amnesty?" — the paper presents complementary arguments: Reed demonstrates that American social and economic structures effectively invite undocumented workers, while Kavanaugh appeals to Judeo-Christian morality to assert the humanity and dignity of migrants. Together, both perspectives support the central thesis that all people, including undocumented immigrants, deserve the right to pursue happiness and prosperity.
- Introduction: The Immigration Debate: Overview of debate and thesis on amnesty
- America's Promise of Equal Opportunity: American founding ideals support immigrant rights
- Undocumented Workers as Human Beings: Reed's quote supports migrants' humanity and worth
- Kavanaugh's Moral and Religious Argument: Biblical morality elevates migrants above legal status
- Reed's Socio-Political Perspective: U.S. structures enable and invite undocumented labor
- Conclusion: The Case for Amnesty: Both essays converge on pro-amnesty conclusion
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear, consistent thesis from the opening paragraph and returns to it throughout, giving the argument a strong sense of direction.
- It effectively synthesizes two contrasting perspectives — Reed's structural/political argument and Kavanaugh's moral/religious argument — to reinforce a single central claim.
- Direct quotations from both source essays are integrated and analyzed, rather than left to speak for themselves, demonstrating basic textual engagement.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models comparative essay synthesis: rather than treating each source separately, the writer identifies how two authors with different rhetorical approaches (political realism vs. Christian humanism) converge on the same policy conclusion. This technique shows how multiple sources can be marshaled to support a unified argument even when their underlying reasoning differs.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a classic five-paragraph-style structure expanded into six sections. It opens with a thesis-driven introduction, develops the argument through three body sections (foundational American values, humanity of migrants, and Kavanaugh's and Reed's individual contributions), and closes with a summary conclusion that revisits both sources. The structure is straightforward and well-suited to undergraduate argumentative writing.
Introduction: The Immigration Debate
Immigration in the twenty-first century is one of the most widely debated issues in the United States. Many different states, liberals, and conservatives have taken varying stances on this topic, which seemingly becomes more pressing every day as the number of undocumented workers continues to grow. This phenomenon is discussed at length in a pair of essays by John Kavanaugh and Fred Reed. In Reed's piece, "Why Blame Mexico?", the author argues that the United States does not actually want to stop illegal immigration from occurring. In Kavanaugh's essay, "Amnesty?", the author presents humanitarian and religious reasons for tolerating — and even granting amnesty to — undocumented workers. Both essays inform the central argument of this paper: all humans deserve a fair chance to succeed in life, and because undocumented immigrants are human beings, they should be granted amnesty when they enter the United States.
America's Promise of Equal Opportunity
One of the foundational ideals upon which the United States was built is that it would be the land of the free — a place where opportunity could abound for those who could not find it elsewhere. The country quickly developed a reputation as a place where anyone could achieve success and happiness simply through hard work and determination. This very notion is predicated on an inherent equality among people, regardless of their personal circumstances or fortune. On paper, at least, the laws of the United States reflect the principle that people have equal rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness.
Therefore, all humans are deserving of this chance for a good life — a notion central to Kavanaugh's essay. His article argues that illegal immigrants are people and should be treated as such when they enter the country. This belief aligns with the principle that all people deserve a fair chance to succeed, and since immigrants are people too, they deserve amnesty upon entering the United States. As the American Dream has long promised, the promise of opportunity should not be reserved for those born within particular borders.
Undocumented Workers as Human Beings
The crux of this argument is that undocumented immigrant workers are people. Because they are people — and not some subclass of humanity simply because they were not born in the United States — they deserve the opportunity to pursue happiness and success like anyone else. One of the most important points to recognize in the broader debate over amnesty for illegal immigrants is that a significant portion of the American public appears to share this view. Reed alludes to this in the following passage:
"The problem of immigration, note, is entirely self-inflicted. The U.S. chose to let them in. It didn't have to. They came to work. If Americans hadn't hired them, they would have gone back" (Reed).
This straightforward observation emphasizes that many people in the United States want undocumented workers — which is why they have hired them and will continue to do so. However, employers are not merely hiring a labor commodity when they give these individuals jobs. They are hiring people who also need housing, healthcare, and food in order to continue contributing to the U.S. economy and performing labor that is largely unwanted by others. These employers are hiring human beings, and since all people deserve to pursue the shared ideals of equal rights and freedom, undocumented immigrants deserve amnesty when they come to this country.
Conclusion: The Case for Amnesty
In summary, both essays by Reed and Kavanaugh offer convincing evidence in support of granting amnesty to undocumented workers. What is particularly notable is that both authors arrive at this conclusion through very different reasoning, and they may not even agree with each other's specific arguments. Reed contends that despite whatever political legislation the United States has created around this issue, the country lacks meaningful social or structural mechanisms to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants — largely because it has no vested interest in doing so. He provides useful examples of foreign countries that do not tolerate such immigration and the methods they employ to prevent it. Kavanaugh, for his part, takes a conventional humanitarian approach, viewing illegal immigrants unequivocally as human beings rather than merely as laborers. He cites Christian morality as a foundation for his position that these individuals should be allowed to remain in the country and build prosperous lives.
Both essays ultimately provide evidence for the view that all people deserve the right to happiness and prosperity — and since immigrant workers are people, they deserve those rights, including the right to amnesty.
References
Kavanaugh, John. "Amnesty?" America. 2008. Web.
Reed, Fred. "Why Blame Mexico?" The American Conservative. 2008. Web.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.