If you like the RedState.com blog entry copied in its entirety below, please go to RedState.com and click the recommend button. You may have to be a registered user to to so, though. Here is a link to the blog entry at RedState.com: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/raider/20 ... nesty_bill .

Was the Senate's 2006 immigration reform bill, S.2611, an amnesty bill?
view edit
By raider Posted in Immigration — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
During the debate about S.2611, the immigration reform bill passed by the United States Senate in 2006, there was much discussion about whether that bill was an amnesty bill. The bill would have allowed millions of illegal aliens to obtain legal status and a path to citizenship.

It appears the United States Senate in 2007 may once again pass a bill that allows millions of illegal aliens to obtain legal status and a path to citizenship. As with S.2611, there will likely be debate about whether the bill ultimately passed by the Senate is an amnesty bill.

Sen. John McCain and Sen. Sam Brownback both voted for S.2611.

I believe that S.2611 was an amnesty.

Every illegal alien that unlawfully enters this country violates Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Code ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/t ... 8&sec=1325 ). Title 8, Section 1325(a) provides as follows:

a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Millions of illegal aliens that have deliberately violated federal law making it a crime for an alien to improperly enter the United States should not be rewarded with legal status and a path to citizenship.

Here is what Sen. David Vitter said about S.6211: "This is amnesty".

However, I can think of no better authority anywhere to substantiate my opinion that S.2611 was amnesty than Sen. Jeff Sessions. He is a former Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney and Alabama Attorney General. On April 5, 2006, he spoke on the floor of the United States Senate about S.6211: http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/rec ... ?id=253622. Sen. Sessions and a majority of Senate Republicans voted against S.2611. During his speech, Sen. Sessions mentioned the defintions of amnesty that several supporters of S.6211 had given including Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter and John McCain.

Here a few things that Sen. Sessions had to say about S.6211 and amnesty:

"This debate is often centered around whether we are dealing with amnesty here, and I believe this legislation, by all definitions, is amnesty."

. . .

"So in an effort to redefine this situation to mean what they want it to mean, they have said unless there is no condition whatsoever, you can't have amnesty. But people agreed that 1986 was amnesty and placed quite a number of conditions--some more significant than the ones in this bill--on those who were given amnesty.

Those of us who are familiar with the law world--I served as a lawyer the best I could for a number of years, and I know Madam President is a lawyer--we know what Black's Law Dictionary is. It is a dictionary lawyers use to define words in their legal context. Black's Law Dictionary, as part of its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' says this:

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for many undocumented aliens already present in the country.

Black's Law Dictionary, the final definition of legal words, says the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for people here. It had conditions on it. It had some conditions on it; it just didn't have many conditions on it. So everybody recognizes it as basically amnesty, and that is why they called it that.

Again, I am not trying to use a code word here. What I am saying is there is a systematic effort in this body to redefine the definition of amnesty so they can tell their voters back home that although they opposed amnesty, this bill is not amnesty, and that is why they voted for it. That, unfortunately, I would have to say, is where we are."

. . .

" I want to go over some of the provisions in that act [the 1986 amnesty] and compare it to the provisions in today's act. Let's talk honestly here. There is no mystery here. I would submit, as several of the proponents of this legislation have tried to do, that you only have amnesty if you put no condition whatsoever on the person who is here illegally--and they put some conditions on those persons. Therefore, they say, Oh, no, I know we promised not to pass amnesty, but this isn't amnesty because there are conditions on the people who are here illegally. So there is no way to do this but go over it truthfully and analyze it and see what the facts are.

This was passed in 1986. What did it require, this amnesty of 1986? It required continuous unlawful residence in the United States before January 1, 1982. That is 4 years before the passage of the 1986 act--more than 4 years, because I am sure it didn't pass January 1. So for more than 4 years you had to be here unlawfully before this act applied to you. That is a restriction, isn't it, on amnesty, under the definition of those who want to say the current act is not amnesty?

But what does the 2006 act say? Physically present and employed in the United States before January 7, 2004--employed in the U.S. since January 7, 2004; continuous employment is not required. So the key date here is that you have to have been in the country before January 7, 2004. So we are requiring under this bill that you have to live in the country illegally for 2 years before you get on this amnesty track.

Under the previous law, they required 4 years. So with regard to 1986, I think it is a tougher standard, I submit, than we have in today's standard. I don't think anybody can dispute that.

Then you have a fee. They say they are paying a fine, a big fine. Well, in the 1986 act, they say there will be a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 for each child, a $420 family cap. Now we have a $1,000 fine, but it does not apply to anybody under 21 years of age; they don't pay anything. They paid $50 per child back in 1986. They don't pay anything. I submit that is about a wash. There is a little difference in money. You had an inflation rate; what difference is $1,000 to $420?

Both of them say you should meet admissibility criteria. That means, I suppose, that you are not a felon. That is one of the main criteria. Both of them said that. Surely we are not going to be taking in felons into the country. In fact, regarding this bill to which Senator Kyl and Cornyn have offered an amendment--which apparently is being blocked by Democratic Leader Reid from ever getting a vote--they are contending that this criminality requirement is not in this bill. In fact, this bill is weaker than the 1986 bill on the question of that issue of whether you have a criminal record.

In 1986, people were worried about welfare claims and so forth, so they put in language that said you are ineligible for most public benefits for 5 years after your application. They said if you are going to come here to be a citizen of the United States, we do not want you come here to claim welfare. We are going to prohibit you from claiming welfare for at least 5 years. After that, if you get in trouble and you need help, we will help you. But you have to come here not with a desire to gain welfare benefits in our country which exceed the annual income of most people in a lot of areas of the world. So they put that in. There is no such requirement in our bill. None of that. You can immediately go on welfare, presumably, under the legislation that is before us now.

It does require a background check and fingerprinting, but presumably that was done in 1986, also. But it focuses really on the crimes a person may have committed while they were in the United States. I don't think it has a mechanism under this act to actually go back to the country of origin--whether it is Brazil or Canada or Mexico--to see if they have a criminal history there. That is a weakness in the system. But even if it does, those systems are so immature and nonexistent, it would not be very effective, I suggest.

This requires an 18-month residency period. This one authorizes immediately a 6-year stay in the country. So they said you have to stay 18 months before you make your application for adjustment to permanent resident status. In this bill, you have to stay 6 years, so that is tougher. And you have to work. What are people here for if not to work? Spouses and children don't have to work. People are here to work. It is only a minimal work requirement--not continuous employment--and the proof level is very weak. Regardless, presumably the people who are here want to work, and they ought to be able to prove that they have.

Then you adjust to permanent resident status. That is the green card. In 1986, it required English language and civics. So, in 2006, it is English language and civics, a medical exam, payment of taxes--really? Presumably the people are paying their taxes. And Selective Service registration. So you earn your right to stay in this country by coming into the country illegally and paying your taxes. Thanks a lot.

Then the final step is, in 1986, you paid an $80 fee, $240 for a family. In this bill, it is a $1,000 fee and an application fee.

All I am saying is, if you add those up, I don't think a principled case can be made that 2006, in terms of conditions of entry and amnesty in our country, requires any more stringent requirements on them than in 1986, which Senator Reid and everybody else, including ``Black's Law Dictionary,'' have concluded was amnesty."

Sen. Sessions was correct. S.2611 was an amnesty.

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.teamtancredo.org