Many of the aspects of the current immigration "reform" proposals are similar to the horribly failed past amnesties, and even some of the players - such as Teddy Kennedy - have been at this same game for decades.

There is, however, a major difference between now and then that politicians, pundits, policy makers, and even bloggers would be very wise to heed: the internet.

If you wanted to find out the position of a politician on the 1986 amnesty you might have to go scrounge through microfiches at your regional library or buy a pass to a newspaper's archives. Nowadays, information like that is stored on dozens to thousands of websites and is almost instantly available. While censorship is certainly possible, completely wiping the record would be almost impossible and information on the positions of those thought leaders will be readily available for decades or centuries to come.

In other words, it will be much easier to hold, say, an amnesty-supporting pundit responsible than at any previous point in time. If amnesty is passed, that pundit's support for the massive failure will perhaps be brought up every time that he opines on this topic. That might even end a few careers as those pundits completely lose whatever credibility they might have had previously.

As for the deja vu aspects of this issue, even the NYT has taken notice with "Failed Amnesty Legislation of 1986 Haunts the Current Immigration Bills in Congress". They not only use the forbidden word in the title, but in the URL as well:

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.

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.

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:

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...

"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."

And, from back in 2000, "My Bush epiphany":

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."

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...

And, 1984's classic WSJ editorial "In Praise of Huddled Masses":

...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...