We should repeat 2006- not 1986

By D.A. King, Marietta Daily Journal, July 2, 2013

Read the complete article


Along with the liberal media, ever-helpful and caring Democrats Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi instruct the Republicans that another amnesty would help them re-gain the White House.

As happened in 2006, amnesty has passed the U.S. Senate again. With more empty assurances of future enforcement in exchange for immediate legalization, the entire Democratic conference was joined by 14 Republicans. They were shielded by Marco Rubio, who is now known in conservative circles as “Marco Rubio, a certified Schumer Republican.”

Future American sovereignty, security and employment possibilities now rests with the U.S. House of Representatives; in which members must face re-election every two years.

Now home on a July Fourth break and gauging public resistance to another amnesty, the House GOP will meet on July 10 back in Washington to compare notes and decide how — or even if — to handle promises of future immigration enforcement.

Legalization: to be or not to be? — that is the nation-altering question. Will the Republican-controlled House also capitulate to the amnesty coalition led by big business? We’ll see.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) claims that a coming House-designed promise (new and improved!) of a five-year period of legal status for 11 million victims of borders arrangement would be somehow “temporary” and reversible. Like temporary and reversible taxes. Ryan says “trust us.”

Along with the liberal media, ever-helpful and caring Democrats Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi instruct the Republicans that another amnesty would help them re-gain the White House.

I can’t find it in the 1,200 or so pages of the Senate swindle, but in his radio ads Rubio might as well have also have promised to equip Border Patrol agents with surplus phasers (set them on stun!) from the Starship Enterprise and to install transporter rooms every 10 meters on the Southern border.

History proves those promises would have as much chance of being honored as the enforcement in-the-future, “no-we mean it this time, really!” language in any legalization legislation.

A partial reminder of broken immigration enforcement promises from their own federal government that Americans have endured, from an outline from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington D.C.:

1986 — Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act amnesty, with the estimate that it would affect an estimated one million illegal aliens. While promising an end to illegal immigration, the law prohibited the employment of future illegal aliens. The enforcement never really happened. The number of illegals who were legalized was closer to three million. In 2004, only three employers in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal aliens. The (very) low estimate is that 7 million to 8 million illegal aliens continue to hold American jobs.

On employment recovery, the Wall St. Journal recently reported that “even if the rate of hiring doubled, it would take more than three years to get employment back to its prerecession level, after adjusting for (non-amnesty) population growth, according to estimates from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project.” (WSJ June 24, 2013)

1996 — In the wake of the first World Trade Center bombing, Congress passed another wide-ranging enforcement law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among its provisions was a requirement to develop an automated check-in/check-out visa system for foreign visitors, by which the feds could at least identify those who refused to leave as promised. Congress has mandated such a system five more times for all ports of entry/exit. No such system exists.

2001 — In line with the 9/11 commission recommendations, the USA Patriot Act expanded the mandated visa departure system requirements to include biometrics. No such system exists.

The recently passed Senate amnesty bill actually dismantles the never-enforced visa monitoring laws. Reasoning? “Too costly.”

2005 — The REAL ID Act required that state driver’s licenses meet certain minimum standards to be acceptable for federal purposes, such as boarding airplanes. The standards included requiring proof of legal presence in the United States before issuing a license. The driver’s license is essential to illegal aliens seeking to embed themselves in American society. The original deadline for state compliance was 2008, later postponed to 2011, then 2013, and now 2017. It seems likely the deadline will be extended yet again, permitting more states to continue issuing licenses to illegal aliens. Terrorists notice and take advantage of these dangerous broken promises.

2006 — The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required “at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing” along roughly 650 miles of specifically designated stretches of the Mexican border. Less than 40 miles of such double-layered fencing have been built. The remainder is a mix of easily defeated single-layer “pedestrian” fencing and vehicle barriers.

Border Patrol Agents report that illegal crossings have tripled since the latest amnesty talks began again.

Pro-enforcement Georgians should contact their congressman. The amnesty coalition is doing exactly that right now.

The 2006 Senate amnesty died in the House. On legalization, we should repeat 2006 — not 1986.

D.A. King is president of the Cobb-based Dustin Inman Society and an expert on immigration matters. Twitter: @DAKDIS

Read the complete article.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html.
In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.