Ben Carson is Pro-Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Phil Jensen


trespassingAs much as I hate to say it, I think it’s now time to remove Dr. Ben Carson from consideration for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

Dr. Carson came out of the gate a couple of years ago at the National Prayer Breakfast strong, saying many things that needed to be said–things that few Republicans had the anatomy to say publicly.

Unfortunately, since then, Carson has made some troubling statements such as the right to keep and bear arms being conditional on where you live, amnesty for illegal aliens, and recently it was revealed that he acted favorably toward the homosexual agenda while serving on the board of Costco and Kelloggs.

Rick Kriebel 2016


Now, Carson has come out even more explicitly in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens who violated our nation’s borders and broke our immigration laws.

From Breitbart:

Very easy question. I’m in favor of enforcing the laws that we have and in favor of securing our borders. All of our borders. This is not a difficult thing to do as was demonstrated in Yuma county Arizona where they stopped 97 percent of illegal immigration by putting up a double fence with asphalt road in between so there was quick access. Actually putting border guards on the border and prosecuting first time offenders rather than the catch and release program that we now have. That stopped. That’s without the addition of some of the unique surveillance equipment that we now have available to us. I think you can get pretty close to a hundred percent. The other thing you have to do is you have to decrease the incentives for people to come here. They say what is the point. That gets rid of the influx but it doesn’t take care of the 11-plus million people that are still here. I propose that we give them a six month period in which to register. If they don’t register, they’re criminals and treated as such. If they register in that six-month period and have a pristine record and they wish to be guest workers in this country they would have to pay a back tax penalty and have to continue to pay taxes going forward. They would no longer have to live in the shadow. That does not give them the right to vote. It does not make them U.S. citizens. If they want to become U.S. citizens, they have to go through the same thing anybody else wants to become a citizen, including leaving the country and apply from the outside unless the American people indicate they want a difference course than that.

Woodrow Wilcox


He can’t be “in favor of enforcing the laws that we have” when a few sentences later, he advocates ignoring the laws that we have about illegally entering this nation, and illegally residing in this nation.

He can’t be in favor of “decreas[ing] the incentives for people to come here” when a few sentences later he increases the incentives for people to come here by advocating that we not deport people who violated our borders and broke our immigration laws. Telegraphing to lawbreakers that you’re going to give them a pass on their just punishment for breaking the law invites…more lawbreaking.

How is giving lawbreaking illegal aliens six months to admit they broke our nation’s laws, and then not sending them home not “amnesty”? They aren’t just “criminals” after not registering for six months; they are already criminals by definition when they violate our immigration law.

We’re going to allow someone who violated our nation’s borders and broke our laws to become a citizen of our country?  Do we really want to draw from a pool of lawbreakers for new citizens?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to make new citizens from people who have demonstrated respect for our sovereign borders and our nation’s laws?  Do we really want to increase the ranks of our country with people who have demonstrated–DEMONSTRATED–a willingness to break the law, or do we want to increase the ranks of our citizenry with people who have demonstrated that they respect our laws?

Are we really expected to believe this talk of financial penalties amounts to anything?  Does anyone really expect a minimum-wage or below-minimum-wage illegal alien to pay a financial penalty for their lawbreaking? Where’s that money supposed to come from? You’ve heard about how hard it is to get blood from a turnip, right?

For several years now, several Leftist groups have been offering to pay taxes and penalties for illegal aliens, so even if we actually followed through on levying a financial penalty for their lawbreaking, someone else would be paying the penalty. How is that supposed to a punishment, a penalty, or even a disincentive? The obvious answer is that it is not. If you do not face negative consequences for breaking the law, then you have received amnesty.

Let’s not be stupid. You could almost forgive rank and file Democrats of that; we expect them to be as dumb as a box of rocks. Republicans should know better–especially a Republican running for our nation’s highest office.

Promoting amnesty is a deal-breaker for me because it is so wrong on so many levels. In addition to making millions of new Democrat voters, it makes a mockery not only of our nation’s borders, but the rule of law in general. If we are not a nation of laws, then we are really nothing at all. If there is no respect for the rule of law, then justice and order will break down. If justice and order break down, corruption and anarchy will become rampant. I love my country too much to allow this to happen.

There were never a whole lot of options to begin with, this election season. For me at least, they just became fewer. I’d already written off Marco Rubio because he aggressively peddled amnesty. Now I’m writing off Ben Carson from consideration. To be sure, Carson isn’t promoting amnesty anywhere nearly as aggressively as Rubio has, but it’s becoming a pattern.  There are some issues that are causing such damage to America at a foundational level that they must be stopped if our nation is to survive as the free nation of law and order it was intended to be. Stopping the illegal alien plague is such an issue.

Sad that Ben Carson seems to have removed himself from consideration by serious conservatives. Though Bobby Jindal got in the race too late to generate much support, Ted Cruz remains a solidly conservative candidate with a reliable record of standing for the principles that made America the greatest nation in history.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Print Friendly
  • Thisoldspouse

    Not surprising. These issue advocacies always occur in clusters, so that you can be sure that one leftist penchant is attended by several others. Carsons softness on CRIMINAL illegal entry into our country is accompanied by his advocacy for homoFasicst policies, and no telling what else (higher taxes, “gun control?”)