Posted on 05/22/2006 12:12:23 PM PDT by 45Auto
As we watch the tragicomedy in the U.S. Senate on immigration reform, it behooves us to hark back to the last time the Senate debated major immigration reform. It was in 1985.
Why does it behoove us to learn this history? Because the promises being made today are exactly the same promises made back then. The bill that the Senate produced in 1985, which became law in 1986, was ambitiously titled the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). It is probably the most fraudulent legislation in American history, for it neither reformed nor controlled immigration. In fact, it actually exacerbated illegal immigration and, in many ways, directly led to today's immigration crisis.
The IRCA is informally known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, named after its main author, Sen. Alan Simpson (R.-Wyo.), and Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D.-Ky.), who helped shepherd it through the House. Though neither Simpson nor Mazzoli is currently in office, a few key participants of that debate are still in office, such as Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.).
Introducing the bill on the Senate floor on Sept. 11, 1985, Simpson confidently assessed his long involvement in immigration issues:
"Today I urge my colleagues to support S. 1200, which is the culmination of the substantive and political fine-tuning of a 6-year involvement in this issue…I wish all of my colleagues could have shared in that rich 6-year learning process, for I assure them that the longer one is in it the more one comes to understand that this is the approach we must take.1"
The "approach" referred to the simultaneous enactment of employer sanctions and amnesty for most of the illegal aliens then living here. It eventually amnestied three million illegal aliens.
Twenty years later, today we have almost zero worksite enforcement and more than 10 million illegal aliens -- but the Senate wants another amnesty. The Senate fraudulently calls it "earned legalization" or "comprehensive reform," but it is amnesty nevertheless. By the Senate logic, a burglar who held on to stolen goods for a long time would get “earned ownership” of the goods.
Even in 1985, it was known that several hundred thousand illegal aliens were entering the country each year. Thus, Simpson acknowledged:
"The United States cannot perform the most basic function of a sovereign nation, which is to control the entry of aliens across its borders, and to enforce whatever conditions are imposed on the aliens who we do allow to enter. Immigration to the United States is out of control…. "
Again, that is not a quote from the current Senate debate -- that is a quote from the Senate debate from over 20 years ago. Immigration to the United States was out of control even then, and the Senate knew it, yet it initiated and passed a bill that eventually exacerbated the situation.
Per Simpson's bill, the legalization (i.e., amnesty) of illegal aliens was to begin three years after the bill's enactment into law. The intention was to institute adequate enforcement measures during those three years so as to discourage a further influx. But this was not enough for Kennedy, the putative guardian of those who are down-trodden and of those who have trodden down on the law. He wanted amnesty to begin right away. He insisted:
There simply is no valid reason to take the unnecessary and regrettable step backwards that this bill does in failing to immediately authorize a legalization program.
The bill required employers to ask for valid identification from new hires and contained sanctions against non-compliant employers. But Kennedy, in true liberal fashion, thought that would set off mass xenophobia across the country:
"Mr. President [of the Senate], an equally important concern I have about this bill is that it must not become a vehicle for discriminatory actions against Hispanic Americans or other minority groups. Immigrants and undocumented aliens must not become scapegoats for the serious problems our country faces today…I believe we must be extremely cautious to avoid any legislative action that could raise the level of intolerance and discrimination in our society."
The senator's jeremiad turned out to be misguided, nay, utterly and ridiculously wrong. Today, with millions of illegal aliens working for thousands of American employers, the xenophobia the senator feared has hardly made employers discriminate against even illegal aliens, let alone discriminate against Hispanic Americans.
In fact, we could argue that, to eradicate the scourge of illegal immigration, we should indeed "raise the level of intolerance and discrimination in our society" -- intolerance of and discrimination against illegal aliens, that is. It is because that level is very low that we have employers who insouciantly hire illegal aliens.
Two days later, on Sept. 13, 1985, Kennedy again insisted on immediate amnesty for illegal aliens:
"Mr. President, legalization is an essential corollary to the implementation of employer sanctions. As we institute new enforcement policies, legalization allows us to wipe the slate clean, to deal humanely and responsibly with the problems of the past as we begin to deal more effectively with future illegal migration."
Wiping the slate clean, dealing humanely and responsibly with the problems of the past, having effective measures against future illegal immigration -- is this not the same rhetoric we are hearing today, 20 years later?
In fact, Kennedy was hardly alone in believing that amnesty was crucial. Here is what Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa), who is still in office, said on the Senate floor during that 1985 debate:
"The Immigration Reform and Control Act is a well-conceived product which may go far in achieving our badly needed reforms….The advantages of this proposal are apparent. Massive deportations are not only impractical but nearly impossible."
Yet today, 20 years later, the Senate is rehashing ad nauseam -- the same defeatist nonsense about amnesty being the only practical way to handle the illegal aliens already here. How many times must the Senate make the same mistake before it learns anything? How long should we the taxpayers tolerate such an incorrigible body of public servants? Specifically, how long should conservatives abide such perfidious compromises as the McCain-Kennedy and the Hagel-Martinez pacts?
As Simpson explained in his opening remarks quoted earlier, his bill was the product of a six-year saga of public hearings and consultations. But the fact that even his bill, the product of such exhaustive excogitation, still failed to stem illegal immigration is definitive evidence of what happens when any enforcement measure is adulterated by an amnesty.
I was an eye witness to that amnesty. When it became law in 1986, I was here on a temporary visa and desperately needed a green card, since a green card allowed you to work for anyone and live here permanently. But, because I had come here legally, I was not eligible for a green card under that law. Yet 3 million illegal aliens were. Many of them could not speak a word of English, and would not have been able to tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and rap lyrics, yet they were given green cards while I waited in line. I was among thousands of legal entrants who quietly endured that humiliation.
Now, as a naturalized American, I can freely point out the damage that the 1986 amnesty inflicted on our country. To aliens considering illegal entry, it meant that, given enough time, there would be another amnesty. Thus they continued to come. Today they are 10 million strong, are bold enough to march in our streets, and have turned our leaders into eunuchs. Only the House Republicans have fought off the castration.
Many of today's vociferous advocates of another amnesty are those who were legalized under the 1986 amnesty and are now citizens, enfranchised with full political rights. They organize protests and prod elected officials to enact yet another amnesty. If you think such protests are formidable now, just imagine what would happen to the rule of law in America if we amnestied 10 million more illegal aliens and their relatives, amounting to 30 million or more altogether. Do you seriously expect them, when they obtain political rights, to support immigration enforcement?
And, given such a large constituency against immigration enforcement, do you seriously think that future politicians will even consider, let alone pass, strict enforcement measures?
So, you see, the current debate is not just another immigration debate. This could very well be the last chance for America to change course and have an immigration policy that means what it says.
Unlike the Senate, the House has learned from the 1986 amnesty. Hence its enforcement-first approach, exemplified by the bill it passed in December. It is the right approach, and the only approach that will make the illegal aliens return home on their own. After all, since they came here on their own, we should make them leave here on their own. Lax enforcement induced their influx -- and strict enforcement will induce their exodus.
In retrospect, one of the most ironically prophetic comments during the 1985 debate came from Grassley:
"If we do not act now, it may be another 30 years before we return to the issue of immigration control. By that time the problem is guaranteed to be beyond congressional solutions."
Well, they acted -- with a measure that made the problem worse. And we did not have to wait 30 years -- it has only been 20 years. Moreover, the senator was only partly right when he said it would be beyond congressional solutions. If today’s Senate debate is any indication, the immigration problem is certainly beyond senatorial solutions. But the House already has a solution. So it is time the Senate listened to the chamber that has a solution.
1 All passages quoted here are from Congressional Record (1985), pp. 23315-23723.
Grassley is on cspan now regretting voting for amnesty in 1986 and telling how it failed and will fail again....
My guess is on election day this November.
Nobody wants to do anything, because nobody wants to lead.
If leadership were water, Washington would be a desert right now.
Off-shore accounts, change of domecile plans, asset-protection trusts, you name it. Invest in small regional banks that lend to illegal aliens (mortgages & business loans); short government bonds issued to cover budget shortfalls; invest in private security, schools & health care stepping into gaps resulting from gov't pull-backs.
Another large scale trend that we might expect to see would be a downturn in service enlistments. It no surprise that recruits are asking for what, and for who, they are fighting. Still haven't figured out how to make a buck on decreasing US security though. However, like our elected leaders, I will have thoroughly stopped giving a crap.
I'm very skeptical that the Senate will learn anything about any of their NWO puppet master led/commanded globalist goals and values--including the immigration mess hell-bent to make of NORTHAM one country.
Certainly all the DIMRAT powermongers are sold out to such Marxist/socialist/Machiavellian/globalist evils from hell.
And probably plenty of the RINO's, too.
Such forces have long targeted control of the Senate as it was easier and more powerful per person, per State.
But they haven't exactly neglected the House wholesale, either.
"When Will the Senate Learn From Its Immigration Mistakes?"
When will we vote them out of power?
"If leadership were water, Washington would be a desert right now. "
Well said.
aliens only have to pay "back taxes" for 3 of the last five years their choice...I can't wait for Congress to vote for tax amnesty for citizens, surely they don't expect us to pay more for this crap than the illegals themselves..they have truly gone insane.
and don't forget amnesty for employers now being proposed: ...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636331/posts?page=1,50
"Nobody wants to do anything, because nobody wants to lead.
If leadership were water, Washington would be a desert right now."
The Dem base has been shut up with threat of the race card thrown on them. Rove gave the signal to the MSM that the "problem" would be "House conservatives" and they ran with the definition, easily manipulated.
Encapsulating what Bush has said, if you are against his plan, you are racist, atheistic, unAmerican, unwelcoming, and uncaring.
Bush has burned so many bridges here he must be expecting some big payback laundered as speaking fees after 2008.
The question assumes that most of the Senate has their heart in the right place..
Which IS "the mistake"..
"Still haven't figured out how to make a buck on decreasing US security though."
You have to have a large business with many employees to begin with. Then you support open borders to inflate the labor pool and lower wage costs.
If the Amnesty isn't enough, you support even more "guest worker programs." Part of the class war strategy of the businesses behind this issue is playing to the middle that "unskilled" Americans tacitly don't deserve what they are getting, and their wages need depressing. The "unskilled" hate-meme might be problematic. Is a painter "unskilled?" Another way you might make money is becoming a lobbyist/analyst that will provide "reports" and pseudo-scientific data defining more and more occupations as "unskilled."
In the House and Senate, the leadership and the numerous committee chairs are only interested in maintaining the perks of their various positions.
LOL, Well if you can’t beat them………….
Personally I want to be the first on my block with a tax subsidized guest worker. I have spent enough time in Mexico, Central and South America to understand how the system works.
If we are going to turn this nation into a banana republic I will take full advantage of the caste system, I will do all I can to keep the poor impoverished so I may benefit from their misery. Just need to make sure we invest in a strong military and police units to put down the occasional rebellion. s/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.