When is Amnesty Amnesty? When it's AMNESTY!
Michelle Malkin reports on a NYT piece from Ed Meese III, former USAG.
In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.Meese then goes on to detail the conditions that illegal aliens had to meet under the 1986 Amnesty in order to gain citizenship. They're the same as what the Senate is pushing now, so why do they (and El Presidente) keep crying that it's not amnesty?
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
Because they know that WE know that amnesty has never worked, and we don't want to try it again. If they came right out and said "Hey, kids, let's try another amnesty!" they couldn't write amnesty legislation and claim it isn't amnesty.
Meese goes on to compare the results of the '86 Amnesty with what might happened if it's forced down our throats once again by our own elected representatives.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.And THAT'S what I call scary.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.