As the ILLEGAL debate continues and I see many posts about impeachment, I see many have forgotten how we got here. As a public service reminder, I will remind those that blame the current administration of the true facts. I dont remember impeachment or treason mentioned back then when it began in the 80s. For the record YES I disagree that anyone that is here illegally get off scott free. There are far to many that follow the legal process, no one should be exempt. But hey, I see the elite get by with theft, lies and murder so I remain baffled by our justice system. I know my vote will count....It is the only voice I have and I refuse to jump in on a bandwagon when previous administrations started this problem. We have laws and if they were simply enforced...oh well... People are upset that it isnt only the elite getting over...well we all can stop the insanity if we vote them OUT!!!! Failed Amnesty Legislation of 1986 Haunts the Current Immigration Bills in Congress By RACHEL L. SWARNS Published: May 23, 2006 WASHINGTON, May 22 — Day in and day out, as the immigration debate boils, the halls of Congress are haunted by the specter of Senate Bill 1200, the failed amnesty legislation of 1986. Related Proposals for Immigration Reform (May 16, 2006) President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged. Today, senators who hope to put the nations illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship say they have learned from the past. But some members of Congress and former immigration officials fear history will repeat itself. Even some who favor legalization warn that the current bill, which requires illegal immigrants to submit affidavits, rent receipts and other documents as proof of eligibility, may fuel a wave of fraudulent documents and applications. Demetrios G. Papademetriou, who studied the 1986 amnesty at the Labor Department in the first Bush administration, said he was encouraged when he heard that the Senate was close to granting legal status to illegal workers. But Dr. Papademetriou, who is now president of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, said his heart sank when he learned about the legalization process, which he believes will create a market for counterfeit documents. In the late 1980s, immigration officials approved more than 90 percent of the 1.3 million amnesty applications for a specialized program for agricultural workers, even though they had identified possible fraud in nearly a third of those applications. The general amnesty, which legalized 1.7 million people, worked much more efficiently, though some of its applications raised similar concerns. Dr. Papademetriou, recalling the difficulties 20 years ago, said: Were going back to 1986. Do we ever learn anything? The bills share some striking similarities, but there are also clear differences, providing fodder for advocates on both sides of the debate. Lawmakers and immigration experts have been comparing the bills as it has become increasingly likely that the current legislation will pass the Senate this week. Unlike the 1986 amnesty, the current bill requires illegal immigrants to work and pay steep fines and back taxes before becoming legal permanent residents. The Chamber of Commerce, which opposed Senate Bill 1200, supports the current legislation, which calls for the creation of a computer system to help businesses verify the legal status of employees, stiffer penalties for employers who disregard the law and a guest worker program to accommodate future flows of immigrant workers. Meanwhile, the Homeland Security Department is expanding its fraud-detection capabilities, officials say. And today, there is much greater political and public pressure for keeping the border secure and cracking down on employers. But supporters and critics agree that the immigration system created by the current bill, like the one created in 1986, may be vulnerable to fraud, and they raise concerns about the governments commitment to maintaining adequate financing for border security and employee verification. They also warn that the burden on the Homeland Security Department, which would carry out the program, would be enormous. Two decades ago, about three million illegal immigrants were eligible for amnesty. This time, roughly 10 million people are expected to be eligible for legalization. Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, dismissed the recent criticism, saying it was coming from lawmakers who oppose this bill and are looking for a way to kill it. There is no denying, however, that the 1986 amnesty has cast a long shadow over the legislation. It is the invisible enemy lurking in nearly every Congressional debate, challenging and dogging even the most eloquent champions of immigrants. These days, skeptical senators pepper their speeches with repeated references to its failures. Many lawmakers engaged in this legislative fray are veterans of 1986, and several senators supported amnesty then, including Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania; Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa; Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana; Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York; and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who supports the current bill, voted against amnesty in 1986. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a vocal opponent of the proposed legalization, also opposed the 1986 amnesty. Mr. Sensenbrenner and many House Republicans vehemently oppose this years bill, leaving its future uncertain. On Monday, Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, moved to limit debate this week to ensure a final vote on the bill before Memorial Day. Meanwhile, lawmakers voted in favor of an amendment that would place National Guard troops on the United States border with Mexico. Since the 86 law did not succeed, people are understandably skeptical, said Mr. Specter, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But this time, things are different. In 1986, immigrant groups and many Democrats opposed the amnesty, fearing that restraints on employers would lead companies to avoid hiring legal immigrants or citizens with unusual names. Today, Democrats, immigrant groups and business leaders are among the strongest backers of the bill. Supporters say better technology exists to create counterfeit-resistant cards to help employers distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, secure the border and root out fraud. They say President Bush has demonstrated his commitment to enforcement by asking Congress for $1.9 billion to pay for putting up to 6,000 more National Guard troops on the Mexico border. Structurally, though, there are still parallels to 1986. Then, as now, the legislation created two separate programs, a general legalization program and a program specifically for agricultural workers. And as in 1986, the agricultural programs rules in this years bill are less stringent. Under the legalization program, illegal immigrants would have to prove that they have lived in the United States for five years or more to qualify. Illegal immigrants who have been here two to five years could also apply, though they would have to depart the country first and participate in a temporary guest worker program before trying for legal residency. Both sets of applicants would have six months to apply. Under the agriculture program, applicants would have to prove they had performed agricultural work for 150 days in 2005. They would be given 18 months to apply. Some critics fear the gap between the two programs would touch off a rush to the farmworker program. Doris Meissner, who studied the 1986 amnesty and later ran the federal immigration agency under President Bill Clinton, warned that many illegal immigrants, who often lack documentation, would most likely turn to the black market to find them. Ms. Meissner also questioned the assumption that illegal immigrants who failed to qualify for legalization would leave the country. That did not happen in 1986. The shift on the part of business is critical, said Ms. Meissner, who works with Dr. Papademetriou at the Migration Policy Institute here. Senator Kennedy agreed. He described questions about fraud and the Homeland Security Departments administrative capacity as a legitimate concern. But he said the consensus on employers would make a big difference. Its going to be enforced, he said. Former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican and a chief sponsor of the 1986 amnesty, said the Senates immigration proposal would be doomed if enforcement efforts flagged again. Then, there will be more amnesties, he said, and more chaos.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 02:46:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015