Section 1 specifies a particular class of immigrant (presumed by its wording to be in the US legally) or nonimmigrant (a temporary visitor to the US) and a specific criminal act having been committed for their entrance suspension to be effected.
It doesn't address Illegaliens in the least, so why should it be brought up when discussing those who've illegally entered the US?
Or did you have something else in mind?
A position CLEARLY in support of this Bush-Fix Mass Amnesty fiasco split the conservative movement, and people at the time like NEWT GINGRICH wrote op/ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal for example, in support of the Amnesty proposal. Free Republic remained stalwartly OPPOSED to this cockamamie Amnesty idea. To wit:
"The debate is boiling in conservative circles. In January, National Review magazine ran a cover story on the president's plan titled: "Amnesty, Again." This month, The Wall Street Journal published dueling pieces on its opinion pages. Fifteen Republicans including Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp hailed the president's plan as "a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration." Nine conservative stalwarts, including David Keene, Paul Weyrich and Phyllis Schlafly, responded, "Everyone with any common sense knows that it will only encourage a new wave of illegal aliens." In California, where Republican candidates have opposed the plan in two races, the Republican Party chairman, Duf Sundheim, said he believed the president would ultimately bring people around."