By Genevieve Wood
June 17, 2013 5:45 p.m.
jsonline.com

Reform the system but not by granting immigrants a free ride

When is an amnesty not an amnesty? Whenever an amnesty supporter decides to call it something else. At least, that's what supporters of the Senate immigration bill would have us believe.

Take Karl Rove. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, the former political adviser to former President George W. Bush argues that the Senate proposal offers illegal immigrants a "pathway to citizenship," not amnesty. Two completely different things, Rove insists.

He explains the distinction by referencing the 1986 immigration reform act. That law, he says, "essentially told those here illegally that if they had arrived in the U.S. prior to 1982 and wanted to become citizens, simply raise your right hand." The new law, however, "has plenty of penalties and hurdles for those here illegally who seek citizenship."

Really?

Contrary to Rove's recollection, the 1986 act didn't transform illegal immigrants into citizens instantly. It granted temporary resident status only to those who could prove they had resided continuously in America for five years. After 18 months, their status could be upgraded to permanent residency, and five years later, they could become U.S. citizens. It was, to coin a phrase, a pathway to citizenship.

"Advancement along the path was not automatic," notes then-Attorney General Edwin Meese. Immigrants had to meet various requirements along the way. For example, Meese recalls, "They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible."

Sound familiar? It's largely the same set of "penalties and hurdles" proposed by the Gang of Eight — only, in many ways, their "hurdles" aren't nearly so high as their supporters would like you to believe.

For example, Rove says the proposal would require immigrants seeking to renew their provisional status to "prove they've been steadily employed, paid all taxes and aren't on welfare."

But Betsy McCaughey notes that the bill then proceeds to waive the employment requirement "for anyone who is in job training, getting a high school or GED diploma, attending college, taking care of a child, is over 60 or is unemployed." That's no hurdle. It's a blanket exemption.

The main difference between the Reagan era immigration bill and today's version is that proponents then called it what it was: an amnesty bill. Indeed, it was the very definition of an amnesty bill — literally.

But the '86 law failed to solve our immigration problems. In fact, it made them worse. Despite its supposedly "rigorous" border security and immigration law enforcement provisions, the promised security and enforcement crackdowns never happened. Instead, when the dust settled, only two things changed as a result of the '86 "comprehensive" reforms: millions of unlawful immigrants gained "legal" status, and the number of illegal immigrants quadrupled.

We need to reform our immigration system, but we can do it without amnesty. Amnesty by any other name is still amnesty. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the new bill's sponsors, admitted as much in a recent Spanish-language interview with Univision.

"Let's be clear," Rubio said. "Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen....First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence."

Rubio had it right in 2010 when he observed that "'earned pathway to citizenship' is basically code for amnesty." Such moments of candor are rare nowadays in Washington, where politicians and spin-doctors dare not speak the name "Amnesty."

Genevieve Wood is a vice president of The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion...211899961.html