Day in and day out, as the immigration debate boils, the halls of Congress are haunted by the specter of Senate Bill 1200, the failed amnesty legislation of 1986.Then, they claim that the Migration Policy Institute is "nonpartisan". Let's let them have that one. Then, they highlight how this time around, doing pretty much the same thing would result in a different outcome. Then:
President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged.
Today, senators who hope to put the nation's illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship say they have learned from the past. But some members of Congress and former immigration officials fear history will repeat itself.
Even some who favor legalization warn that the current bill, which requires illegal immigrants to submit affidavits, rent receipts and other documents as proof of eligibility, may fuel a wave of fraudulent documents and applications.
Many lawmakers engaged in this legislative fray are veterans of 1986, and several senators supported amnesty then, including Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania; Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa; Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana; Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York; and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts...And, from back in 2000, "My Bush epiphany":
"Since the '86 law did not succeed, people are understandably skeptical," said Mr. Specter, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But this time, things are different."
W.'s delusions of cultural similarity don't stop there. "Differences are inevitable" between Mexico and the U.S.," W. continued. "But they will be differences among family, not between rivals."And, 1984's classic WSJ editorial "In Praise of Huddled Masses":
Coming from the Republican candidate for president of the United States, the statement boggles the mind. It was bad enough when the Democrats in the 1980s started their socialist rant (soon echoed by the Republicans) that Americans are all "one family." But now George W., "The Man from Inclusion," has taken the "family" idea several steps further. For W., it is not just the United States, but the United States and Mexico, and ultimately the United States and the whole of the Americas, that constitutes one "family."
...W. has unambiguously demonstrated his allegiance to the liberal policies of open borders and multiculturalism, characterizing everyone who dissents from those policies as driven by "resentment" and implying that they have no place in the Republican party...
...If Washington still wants to "do something" about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders... The nativist patriots scream for "control of the borders." It is nonsense to believe that this unenforceable legislation will provide any such thing. Does anyone want to "control the borders" at the moral expense of a 2,000-mile Berlin Wall with minefields, dogs and machine-gun towers? Those who mouth this slogan forget what America means. They want those of us already safely ensconced to erect giant signs warning: Keep Out, Private Property...
Immigration · Wed, 05/24/2006 - 09:54 · Importance: 1