"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Monday, April 10, 2006

Like appeasement, amnesty, whether euphemistically term "legalization," will lead to more of the same

A June 2004 report by Matt Hayes at the occasion of the death of President Reagan's death, gives an inkling of how long proponents of open borders and amnesty have been scheming to get their way:

In 1986, there were about 2.5 million illegal aliens in the US. who Congress and the Reagan administration regarded as being "safe"--that is, not having committed serious crimes or otherwise being dangerous, and having sufficient ties to American life to be allowed to remain here. Many members of Congress, chiefly Democratic members, regarded the amnesty of these illegal aliens a sine qua non, (An essential condition or element; an indispensable thing) of any attempt to reform our immigration laws. Reagan recognized this, and, being the optimist that he was, saw something humane and profitable in affording this relatively small group of illegal aliens legal status.

In exchange for legal status for the group, Reagan insisted that the magnet attracting illegal aliens to the United States be removed by extinguishing any incentive for U.S. employers to hire illegal aliens. In tandem wit the amnesty, Reagan campaigned for employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, sanctions so stringent that many at the time regarded them as draconian.

Reagan reasoned that if an employer were fined for hiring an illegal alien (as much as $1 million in the worst cases), any payroll savings achieved by the hiring would be wiped out by the fine. In effect, it would be more expensive to hire illegal aliens than to hire Americans or lawful permanent residents. The few illegal aliens who continued to take the gamble and cross the border would be intercepted by a robust and more generously funded Border Patrol.

While Reagan’s 1986 immigration reforms (search) can at least be called rational, they were a failure. Today, there are between 8 million and 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. The majority of them crossed our southern border and has found employment — illegal employment, but employment nonetheless. This is attributed to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s eventual gutting of the enforcement mechanism for Reagan's employer sanctions, and successive administrations refusing to give our Border Patrol the resources it needs to achieve its mission.

Actually Reagan did not advocate amnesty, his proposal stipulated temporary residency.

Problems we are having with illegal immigrants started years ago and are the result of the stupidity and cupidity of many members of Congress of both parties as well as in the business community.

Democrats Ted Kennedy and Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois’ 4th District have sponsored the Safe, Orderly, Legal Visas & Enforcement Act, or SOLVE Act (search) (HR 4262). Long on visas and short on any actual enforcement, the law would give a visa, and eventually a green card, to any illegal alien who has worked an aggregate 24 months in the U.S. at any time.

The AgJOBS (search) bill (HR 3142), which has 62 co-sponsors in the Senate alone, is the Republican version of an amnesty bill. It is somewhat more modest in its employment requirement, though, giving green card eligibility to any illegal alien who can demonstrate 100 days of agricultural employment before Aug. 31, 2003.

One of the AgJOBS bill’s co-sponsors is Sen. John Ensign of Nevada. I (Matt Hayes, author of this quoted reported), asked his office if the senator detected any tension between President Reagan’s outlawing of employment for illegal aliens and AgJOBS’ affirmative requirement that an illegal alien be employed in the U.S. before he is eligible for the amnesty.

According to January 9, 2004 report filed by Louis Uchitelle, Reagan's reforms actually "increased the flow" of illegal immigrants.

But foreigners saw in the 1986 act an invitation, not a deterrent, said Stephen Trejo, a labor economist and immigration expert at the University of Texas. "The biggest long-term impact of the 1986 law was the idea that maybe there will be periodic amnesties, and even if I come to the United States illegally, there is a good chance I'll be able to legalize my status while I am there," Mr. Trejo said.

Why wouldn't they? Since 1986 there have been a series of 7 past amnesties. Other legislation is pending or about to be proposed:

Votes on Amnesties that have
not become law:

S. 778 - the Section 245(i) Extension Act of 2001,would have allowed for a one year extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty by extending the filing deadline until April 30, 2002. The eligibility requirement to apply for a Section 245(i) adjustment of status under S. 778 is January 14, 1998.

S. 778 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a voice vote

H.R. 1885 - Introduced by Rep. George Gekas (R-PA), H.R. 1885 would have again extended the reinstatement of Section 245(i) that was included in the LIFE Act of 2000 four months past the current deadline of April 30, 2001.

H.R. 1885 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 336 - 43 in May, 2001.

H. Res. 365 - is a version of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 that originally passed the House of Representatives as H.R. 3525 in December of 2001. But under heavy pressure from the Bush Administration, an extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty was added to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 and it was again voted on as H. Res. 365. would extend the Section 245(i) amnesty until November 30, 2002, with an eligibility cut off date of August 15, 2001.

H. Res. 365 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 275 - 137.

Farr amendment to H.R. 4775 - Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) introduced the Farr Amendment to H.R. 4775, a supplemental appropriations bill. The Farr Amendment would have re-instated the Section 245(i) amnesty for four months, with the same provisions as those contained in H. Res. 365. Rep. Farr's amendment was offered as a substitute amendment to the Serrano Amendment for a permanent 245(i) extenstion.

The House Appropriations Committee voted against the Farr Amendment by a vote of 27 - 32.


Amnesty by any other name has cost us and costs will continue to rise. Few realize that legal status will give ten million or more instant access to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, SSI, and other welfare and entitlement programs.

Amnesty is the last thing we need, the result of benign neglect that has allowed the indiscriminate entry of many millions that has led to consequences, such as the birth millions of anchor babies,that are undesirable, prehaps the product of the law of unforseen circumstances.

Anchor babies tie the babies and their families to the United States and place their parents under the jurisdiction of the United States, thus eligible for eventual citizenship and all the benefits thereof as provided by the taxpayers of the United States.

My first question: will these "new citizens," whether naturalized or born, give their undivided loyalty and permanent allegiance to the United States of America? The behavior of the marchers in their "rallies" show that even all these benefits are not enough.

My second pertains to Congress: will they fall victims to pressure tactics and betray the American people?


  • At Mon Apr 10, 10:32:00 AM PDT, Blogger Always On Watch said…

    So here we are, 20 years after the 1986 amnesty with hell to pay because RR's "draconian" measures were not put into practice.

    Thank God that he didn't live to see the mess his beloved "city on a hill" is in.

    We've got to seal our porous borders--whatever the cost. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home