Failures of 1986 haunt current immigration fight

NY Times:

When President Bush goes to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to push for revival of a comprehensive immigration bill, he will have to wrestle with the ghost of a 1986 law that promised to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

That law prohibited the hiring of illegal immigrants, provided new resources for enforcement along the Mexican border and offered legal status, or amnesty, to several million illegal immigrants. In the current debate, which stalled last week when the latest legislative proposal failed to clear a procedural hurdle, senators of both parties cite the 1986 law as an example of what not to do.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he regretted voting for the 1986 measure.

“I thought then that taking care of three million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all,” Mr. Grassley said. “I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it. Today, as everybody has generally agreed, we have 12 million people here illegally.”

...

Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said: “I was here in Congress in 1986. I heard all the promises of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. None of them were true, and three million people got amnesty. There was no border security to speak of, no employer sanctions to speak of, and there was no enforcement.”

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said: “The American people were sold a bill of goods. It didn’t work. We got an amnesty, and we got no enforcement. That is why people are so distrustful now.”

...

Supporters of the Senate bill acknowledge that the nation’s experience with the 1986 law has made their job harder. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the current bill was “dramatically different from the 1986 act,” because it places more emphasis on enforcement and more conditions on the granting of legal status to illegal immigrants.

But many senators are skeptical. Under the Senate bill, they note, most new enforcement measures are “subject to the availability of appropriations,” meaning Congress would have to provide additional money to finance them.

Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, said he supported amnesty in 1986 “based on the very same promises we hear today.” But that law did not work, Mr. Byrd said, and “I will not vote to make the same mistake twice.”

...

Proponents of the bill, including the NY Times Editorial Board have a serious credibility problem and they are trying to attack it by attacking opponents with insults. They are not persuasive. A promise of future enforcement is not going to be good enough for most voters this time.

There is also the semantic argument that the proponents are also losing. Apparently both sides have determined that "amnesty" is not a winner when it comes to this bill so one sides claims that is what the bill does and the other argues that it is something else. What ever you want to call it, it appears that those who are here illegally will get a better deal than those who follow the rules. The payment of the fine is just for the citizenship papers and not for the legalization status which is automatic.

While proponents of the bill see future voters, the reality is likely to be something else. Most of the 12 million plus will accept legalization and not bother with citizenship which should mean they will not be eligible to vote.

BTW, the proponents gave away the amnesty argument when they voted down the Cornyn amendment that would have bared felons and absconders from being eligible. They need to find an honest way to explain why some form of amnesty is important. If they can't they are probably going to lose.

Democrats may try to register the people anyway. The fight over the US Attorneys is really a defensive campaign by Democrats to make it impossible to prosecute voter fraud.

Robert Pear who wrote this story for the Times has done a real service. Hopefully the Editorial Board will read it and comprehend its message. If they do, you sure could not prove by the editorials they have been writing about the debate.