[Sabertooth]

If we require those applying for the amnesty to prove they were in the U.S. prior to January 1 of this year (I'm open as to the specific date), it should deal with future Illegals to a large extent.

I mean this sincerely, I'm aware of no historical basis for believing this statement.

Did an previous Amnesty deal with or discourage future Illegals to any extent?

When people become aware that breaking a law will likely carry no penalty, won't they be more likely to break that law?

And the additional INS agents can be used to start prosecuting employers hiring Illegals, or going after the folks who smuggle people in.

Again, why can't they do it now?

Why is an Amnesty for millions of Illegals a precondition on your part to willingly enforce the law?

[hchutch]

I think that the problem with a previous amnesty was a Demcoratic Congress that, as it did with the 1990 tax increase, double-crossed the Republican President (typical Democrat behavior, by the way), and which did not follow up on the measures that would have done the job.

That is why I'd combine that partial amnesty with the Gekas bill outlined in post 140 (minus the four provisions I objected to as outlined in Post 145). I'm for about 92% (48 out of 52 provisions) of what the Gekas bill calls for (if you want, you can count my increasing the totals as disagreement, but that one is probably to the right of the proposed legislation).

That would be my ideal immigration bill.