Well, you've obviously already made your mind up about that, so why even bother talking to you?
Anyhow, yes, it was, and no, Martinez's proposal isn't. But the Tancrediacs have cynically manipulated an unpopular word to get what they want. They even call increases in LEGAL immigration, from new people in Mexico, not from people already here being able to pay fines and learn English or whatever, but new people, totally unrelated to our current population, "Amnesty." (Before you try saying I'm wrong, go read up on the Pence plan, then read what Tancredo said about it).
So, we've established a baseline for calling something "amnesty." Good. Now, how is the 1986 amnesty different from the recent proposals? Let's start with what you just mentioned. You mentioned paying fines or fees as something that would not qualify as an amnesty. In fact, the 1986 amnesty required a fee to be paid. So, I guess a proposal that requires a fine or fee to be paid is still an amnesty if you go by the 1986 standard.
What other common factors of the current proposals (that you want to pretend aren't amnesty) would be different from the Amnesty of 1986?