What should be done about illegal immigration?

US senators reach compromise on immigration bill

Either the author is rather stupid, or has swallowed whole the propaganda being handed out by Senate staffers. Twenty years ago, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 took effect--this bill if passed, would constitute the only changes to immigration law for two decades.

As of Friday morning, here is a rough idea of where we are on the immigration bill. I have written my Congresswoman and both of my Senators re this issue and I hope everybody else has done likewise.

Immigration Bill Hit With Delays
Apr 07 9:52 AM US/Eastern

By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press Writer

Democrats and Republicans blamed each other Friday for problems stalling the progress of an immigration bill that would let millions of illegal immigrants remain in the U.S.

Votes were scheduled to break the logjam, but both supporters and opponents of the bill said that's not likely to occur until Congress returns from a two-week spring recess, if then.

"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

He said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that criminalizes being an illegal immigrant. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.

Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.

"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.

President Bush had applauded the Senate's efforts to draft a comprehensive immigration bill. "I would encourage the members to work hard to get the bill done prior to the upcoming break," he said Thursday.

The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.

It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.

Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.

The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.

Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.

The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."

The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.

But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.

The immigration debate has given the American public a glimpse of what may lay ahead in 2008 GOP presidential politics.

Frist, R-Tenn., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sought to establish more conservative credentials when he initially backed a bill limited to border security. At the same time, he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive bill _ adopting Bush's rhetoric _ and involved himself in the fitful negotiations over the past several days.
SOURCE

Questions I have for those backing the proposals:

What illegal is gong to report his accurate income so that he'll pay all the back taxes he owes? (That was a provision not mentioned in the news story but is a component of at least one of the bills out there.)

What illegal who wants to stay is going to say he hasn't been here for more than five years?

The stepped up border security I think most Americans will support. Requring employers to verify legal status of hirees is already on the books and has not been enforced for decades.

The only changes, Setanta? I'd have to go ask them, but it seems to me that the resident aliens, green card seekers and spouses of let-us-say 'certain persons of undetermined status' with whom I work or come in contact with every day are constantly complaining of immigration regulations being changed, reformed or otherwise governmentally screwed with.

Border crossings, whether into Canada or Mexico, international flights anywhere including those for a vacation and long 'visits' by relations all bring individual problems sometimes based solely on which line the family member is standing in when offering filled out paperwork. A friend of mine is throwing a big wedding for his daughter -in Guyana- . You thought you had problems. Try getting the travel status of a hundred or so friends and relations pre-determined so they can go to the wedding, have a good time and return to Nuevo York.

What is being considered at this point is how whacked out the system is and what can be done to remedy it.

Joe(it is whacked out)Nation

Double whammy: The IRS makes an estimated determination of income based on what you've got. (Hide the bass boat!!) So if you claim you've been here five years, you owe the five year estimate, been here less, you pay less, but you lose out on the 'guest worker' status.

They(the Congress) will wimp out and conclude that the visitors will only have to pay a couple of grand in fines and the taxes based on their most recent employment.

The question business is asking is "What about the Federal and State Laws regarding failure to withhold the proper amounts of SS, Disability and Medicare taxes to say nothing about the Income taxes that should have been withheld and sent in??? The fine in New York is equal to the amount not withheld plus 1.5% per cent per month based on the day the income was earned.


Let's see: eleven million workers making an average of $25,000 untaxed income dollars over five years is about 1.3 BILLION dollars of which TWENTY BILLION is owed the US government.


Joe(Let me check. No, I don't have that much on me.)Nation

Yes the system is whacked out mostly because the law has not been enforced and they're trying to devise something that keeps them from having to enforce it now. As testified by Harry Reid's 1993 bill posted earlier this week (and reintroduced by him seven months later), the Democrats were not pro-illegal-immigration at that time. But now it is politically expedient for them to essentially do nothing and let the GOP take it on the chin for anything that is actually constructive that is passed. Because the protest demonstrations do include some big numbers and are getting huge press while the millions of Americans who oppose any form of amnesty are getting very little press, the Democrats think, probably correctly, that they can make huge political hay out of the issue whatever bill is ultimately passed.

The conservative wing of American voters, however, are putting their elected officials on notice that they don't want Congress to wimp out on the issue. Senate and House members from border states with large Hispanic populations, however, are in a tight spot.

It almost never is an issue of what is the right thing to do anymore, but it usually comes down to what is the politically expedient thing to do.

Immigration bill hit with Delays?

Huh?

So what, i thought that clown resigned. Who cares if he and his family like it?

Working workers compensation claims recently, before I went back into business for myself, I dealt with lots of injured undocumented workers. Some of these guys have four, six, more aliases and as many social security numbers, and trying to track down medical histories, etc. through the doctors, hospital emergency rooms, etc. and work histories that they list is well....interesting. The immediate 26 weeks of wages history required from the immediate employer is less problematic but often produces a social security number that doesn't match up with anything else. So, I hire an interpreter, take a statement from the injured worker, and come up with a work and medical history and a mailing address that, for want of a better term, are highly questionable and generally unverifiable. Employers who hire illegals generally don't use application forms and don't keep employee files.

The work comp judge's position on it: if you can't prove he didn't get hurt on the job, then pay his bills and pay his compensation under the name he is currently using and don't bother me with it any more.

Workers in this category are frequently highly transient. If an employer decides he won't get stuck with back taxes, etc., all he usually has to do is deny the guy worked for him other than just recently and he's pretty well off the hook. Those who are paying the workers under the table have no worries at all.

There is no way that the government is likely to assign a say $25k annual minimum to calculate back taxes when most of these undocumented workers can produce a W-2 showing minimal income from somebody and can declare that's all they made. Many may deny they were working at all before their present job, but they want to now. And if the government requires verification of residency status, fraudulent document production is still a lucrative cottage industry.

More than a few employers are taking considerable advantage of the vulnerable status of these workers. Many are not offering permanent jobs to anybody but just call people in when there is work or pick them up at the unemployment office when they need them. I've seen payrolls that issued more than 50 - 75 W-2s but the company only has 4 or 5 people working at any given time.

At the same time, as testified in links I have previously posted, trying to make the employer responsible for verification of the worker's status has its own problems and, while that is still a law that is on the books, it has been poorly implemented and enforced not at all for some time now. When I was required to do that myself some years ago, it was a considerable burden when you needed an employee to start to work that afternoon but s/he couldn't come up with the required documentation that quickly.

I am 100% confident that American ingenuity can fix any problem no matter how badly we screw something up. I am confident they can fix this one. I am not confident we have the political will to do so.

Ebown, why is that I consider your thanks a dubious sign of gratitude?

While I agree with the notion that America is made up of many different cultures, each of which contributes to the nation and deserves respect, I do not agree that this is the common definition of multi-culturalism.

Admittedly, the term could, logically, be defined as you suggest, but I would argue that those who use it most mean no such thing.

For the moment though, let's forgo a debate on semantics.

Whatever terms are employed, I thinks there are clearly distinct, and widely held, notions of immigration and its effect on American society.

Putting aside the variations of xenophobia and aversion to change, there are two very different ideas framed around the idea that immigration is a positive influence on American society:

#1 The notion that external influences are positive providing they do not result in a process of Balkanization.

#2 The notion that external influences are positive, but irrespective of whether or not they are, the majority has no right to expect assimilation by the minorities.

The all too frequent charge that proponents of concept #1 are somehow motivated by racism is a specious and insulting Red Herring, and to label all anti-immigration positions as reflective of a White, European and Christian chauvinism is unfair.

Notwithstanding the publicized rhetoric of some so-called African-American Leaders, there is not a basic solidarity between Latino immigrants and African-Americans. For whatever unfortunate reason, African-Americans, in general, do not see Latino immigrants as brothers and sisters in a societal struggle, but as competitors.

America has long since passed from its original roots of Northwestern Europe. Undoubtedly there are some who possess this heritage who might like to preserve the influence of these roots as much and for as long as possible. That the rich and powerful in this country tend to be disproportionately represented by this ethnic group is undeniable but not unchanging.

It is also undeniable, however, that the historical great waves of immigration in America were marked by two key dynamic elements:

1) The societal and economic system of rewards and punishments drove immigrants towards assimilation

2) At their deepest core, immigrants wanted to become Americans.

I would argue that these two elements were absolutely essential to the enormous success of immigration in America.

To the extent that modern day immigrants are encouraged by a influential segment of American society to resist assimilation, and find it reasonably possible to do so, the benefit of immigration ventures perilously close to being a detriment.

It is not wild-eyed paranoia to fear that unchecked Latino immigration might result not in a beneficial contribution to American culture, but an usurpation.

Look at what Europe is faced with. While I believe their problems are more serious and acute, it would be erroneous to conclude that we could not find ourselves in the same boat.

Finn,

You are full of it.

1) Your anti-immigrant rhetoric is exactly the same as anti-immigrant rhetoric has been since the beginning of anti-immigrant feeling.

The Chinese Exclusion laws were passed more than 100 years ago because Chinese were said to be unable to assimilate. The racist groups opposing Irish and Italian immigrants were upset that as Catholics they would never be good Americans. My grandmother told stories of persecution of the recent German immigrants who were her grandparents at the turn of the century.

2) Immigrants today are the same as Immigrants have always been.

Look at how effective the 1986 IRCA amnesty was at creating Americans. Most of the people who became Americans in 1986 are now living productive lives. Most of them are fluent in English and nearly all of their kids are fluent.

You will correctly say that the 1986 law did little to stop people from coming. But, without question , it showed that the people who came are willing and able to become Americans in any sense of the word.

The marches that will take place next week have the slogen "Today we March, Tomorrow we Vote". This is not a message for the immigrants (who being immigrants are unable to vote).

The Latino community is showing that, as American citizens, are able to use their considerable political power to stop a policy that they feel is at it's core racist.

The Irish were able to assimilate after the 2nd generation. The Italians were forced into little Italy's and in Boston there is an area where Italian is still spoken on the street to conduct business. However the Italians, by the 2nd or 3rd generation are now as American as any of us.

3) White Christian "chauvanism" has always been a part of the immigrantion debate-- and it clearly still is. The Irish and Italians felt it because they weren't protestants. The Chinese and Latinos feel it because they aren't white.

Being a descendent of Irish immigrants and having a very large contingent of second-generation Italians in our family, I don't think Finn is 'full of it' at all.

We have written accounts of the "No Irish Need Apply" era in our family archives. It was not the Irish that threatened the "white Christian chauvenists' but competition for jobs that were scarce in a country that was still expanding and developing. Those same Irish went on to excel through hard work and determination and produced some pretty impressively credentialed folks. One Irish immigrant family produced a President of the United States; unfortunately we have been unable to establish a familial tie with that one though.

A large influx of Italian immigrants came during the end of our Great Depression or during the WWII years to escape Nazi or Facist oppression in Europe. Needless to say, jobs were again quite scarce and these immigrants were unwelcome in many places for that reason. Many took some of the least desirable work and most dangerous work, but they too carved a niche and made a place for themselves within the American culture.

Neither of these immigrant groups nor the Chinese nor any others prior to the last few decades had it easy and they were not given anything nor did they expect to be given anything. They nevertheless managed to learn English, assimilate into the American culture, and now they are as much American and maybe moreso than any European blueblood.

Now to Finn's point. All these people, plus many many other ethnic groups came here with no guarantee other than an opportunity to try. They came here LEGALLY--that is a concept that seems foreign to some these days--and they came here to be Americans. They didn't fly the Irish or Italian or Chinese flag, spit on the American flag, demand that signs and forms and schools use their native languages, didn't demand rights and privileges reserved for natural born and naturalized citizens, and they didn't despise American laws, customs, and culture.

The expectation that immigrants come into the country legally with the expectation that they will be Americans or will at least respect and embrace American values, laws, and culture is not an unreasonable expectation. If they don't want to be Americans or appreciate America, why don't they just stay where they were in the first place?

Foxfyre,



Do you really believe that past European immigrants (who happened to be primarily White and Christian) that you extol were morally superior or more law-abiding than todays immigrants?

You are basing your argument on the myth that "our" European immigrant ancestors "all" came here legally (not like the lawbreaking Latino immigrants of today).

Whether this ridiculous claim is based on racism, or just ignorance, is a question I will not address. It is certainly not based on fact.

In 1925 a INS report exclaimed that there were "millions" of illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol of this era were catching thousands. There was an argument about "Interior enforcement" and complaints that immigration agents couldn't find illegal immigrants once they blended into their communities.

Of course, like today, there were legal avenues for immigration. Just like today there were millions of immigrants, including our ancestors who were willing to break them to provide a better life for their families.

Once the quota system was fully established, people who got a visa came legally. But million, from Ireland, Italy, Greece and others either stowed away in ships. A common tactic was to come to Canada for agricultural programs and then sneak across the border.

Todays immigrants are the same as yesterdays immigrants. Those who could came legally. Many who were excluded for one reason or another found a way to come anyway.

Foxfyre, I don't know your family history, but there are 10's of millions of Americans today, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Greek and other, who descend from brave immigrant forefathers who were willing to break the laws to get here.

America is a nation of immigrants. It is not a nation of "legal" immigrants, or "illegal" immigrants-- just immigrants. Each immigrant who came here came for personal reasons, and each did what they had to to build a better life.

All of them contributed to our nation, and now many of us who descend from illegal immigrants don't even know it.

In my opinion it doesn't even matter.

Given that many of the "changes" to which you refer are policies of the Deparment of Justice (the governing authority for Immigration and Naturalization), or the result of executive order, and are legally promulgated on the basis of the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986--my statement stands.

There has been a lot of legislation since 1986.

The following compilation of federal immigration and naturalization statutes in the United States provides an overview of the legislative history of immigration to the United States. It is not exhaustive either for the number of bills enacted or for the specific points of law within each bill. This review of the federal legislative process fosters a general understanding of the major issues as they developed in the area of immigration and naturalization in the United States. The dates of enactment and Statutes-at-Large reference numbers are presented in chronological order; they provide a basis for further inquiry for more detailed information.

Legislation from 1790 - 1900

1. Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Statutes-at-Large 103)
2. Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Statutes-at-Large 414)
3. Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798 (1 Statutes-at-Large 566)
4. Aliens Act of June 25, 1798 (1 Statutes-at-Large 570)
5. Alien Enemy Act of July 6, 1798 (1 Statutes-at-Large 577)
6. Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Statutes-at-Large 153)
7. Steerage Act of March 2, 1819 (3 Statutes-at-Large 488)
8. Act of May 26, 1824 (4 Statutes-at-Large 36)
9. Act of February 22, 1847 (9 Statutes-at-Large 127)
10. Passenger Act of March 3, 1855 (10 Statutes-at-Large 715)
11. Act of February 19, 1862 (12 Statutes-at-Large 340)
12. Act of July 4, 1864 (13 Statutes-at-Large 385)
13. Naturalization Act of July 14, 1870 (16 Statutes-at-Large 254)
14. Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Statutes-at-Large 477)
15. Chinese Exclusion Act of May 6, 1882 (22 Statutes-at-Large 58)
16. Immigration Act of August 3, 1882 (22 Statutes-at-Large 214)
17. Act of February 26, 1885 (23 Statutes-at-Large 332)
18. Act of February 23, 1887 (24 Statutes-at-Large 414)
19. Act of March 3, 1887 (24 Statutes-at-Large 476)
20. Act of October 19, 1888 (25 Statutes-at-Large 566)
21. Immigration Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Statutes-at-Large 1084)
22. Act of March 3, 1893 (27 Statutes-at-Large 570)


Legislation from 1901 - 1940


23. Act of April 29, 1902 (32 Statutes-at-Large 176)
24. Act of February 14, 1903 (32 Statutes-at-Large 825)
25. Immigration Act of March 3, 1903 (32 Statutes-at-Large 1213)
26. Act of April 27, 1904 (33 Statutes-at-Large 428)
27. Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906 (34 Statutes-at-Large 596)
28. Immigration Act of February 20, 1907 (34 Statutes-at-Large 898)
29. White Slave Traffic Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Statutes-at-Large 825)
30. Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Statutes-at-Large 737)
31. Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (39 Statutes-at-Large 874)
32. Act of May 22, 1918 (40 Statutes-at-Large 559)
33. Quota Law of May 19, 1921 (42 Statutes-at-Large 5)
34. Act of May 11, 1922 (42 Statutes-at-Large 540)
35. Immigration Act of May 26, 1924 (43 Statutes-at-Large 153)
36. Act of May 28, 1924 (43 Statutes-at-Large 240)
37. Act of March 31, 1928 (45 Statutes-at-Large 400)
38. Act of April 2, 1928 (45 Statutes-at-Large 401)
39. Registry Act of March 2, 1929 (45 Statutes-at-Large 1512)
40. Act of March 4, 1929 (45 Statutes-at-Large 1551)
41. Act of February 18, 1931 (46 Statutes-at-Large 1171)
42. Act of March 17, 1932 (47 Statutes-at-Large 67)
43. Act of May 2, 1932 (47 Statutes-at-Large 145)
44. Act of July 1, 1932 (47 Statutes-at-Large 524)
45. Act of July 11, 1932 (47 Statutes-at-Large 656)
46. Act of June 15, 1935 (49 Statutes-at-Large 376)
47. Act of May 14, 1937 (50 Statutes-at-Large 164)
48. Act of June 14, 1940 (54 Statutes-at-Large 230)
49. Alien Registration Act of June 28, 1940 (54 Statutes-at-Large 670)
50. Act of July 1, 1940 (54 Statutes-at-Large 711)


Legislation from 1941 - 1960


51. Nationality Act of October 14, 1940 (Effective January 13, 1941 as 54 Statutes-at-Large 1137)
52. Public Safety Act of June 20, 1941 (55 Statutes-at-Large 252)
53. Act of June 21, 1941 (55 Statutes-at-Large 252)
54. Act of December 8, 1942 (56 Statutes-at-Large 1044)
55. Act of April 29, 1943 (57 Statutes-at-Large 70)
56. Act of December 17, 1943 (57 Statutes-at-Large 600)
57. Act of February 14, 1944 (58 Statutes-at-Large 11)
58. War Brides Act of December 28, 1945 (59 Statutes-at-Large 659)
59. G.I. Fiancees Act of June 29, 1946 (60 Statutes-at-Large 339)
60. Act of July 2, 1946 (60 Statutes-at-Large 416)
61. Act of August 9, 1946 (60 Statutes-at-Large 975)
62. Act of June 28, 1947 (61 Statutes-at-Large 190)
63. Act of May 25, 1948 (62 Statutes-at-Large 268)
64. Displaced Persons Act of June 25, 1948 (62 Statutes-at-Large 1009)
65. Act of July 1, 1948 (62 Statutes-at-Large 1206)
66. Central Intelligence Agency Act of June 20, 1949 (63 Statutes-at-Large 208)
67. Agricultural Act of October 31, 1949 (63 Statutes-at-Large 1051)
68. Act of June 16, 1950 (64 Statutes-at-Large 219)
69. Act of June 30, 1950 (64 Statutes-at-Large 306)
70. Act of August 19, 1950 (64 Statutes-at-Large 464)
71. Internal Security Act of September 22, 1950 (64 Statutes-at-Large 987)
72. Act of March 28, 1951 (65 Statutes-at-Large 28)
73. Act of July 12, 1951 (65 Statutes-at-Large 119)
74. Act of March 20, 1952 (66 Statutes-at-Large 26)
75. Act of April 9, 1952 (66 Statutes-at-Large 50)
76. Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952 (INA) (66 Statutes-at-Large 163)
78. Act of September 3, 1954 (68 Statutes-at-Large 1145)
79. Act of September 3, 1954 (68 Statutes-at-Large 1146)
80. Act of July 24, 1957 (71 Statutes-at-Large 311)
81. Act of August 30, 1957 (71 Statutes-at-Large 518)
82. Refugee-Escapee Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Statutes-at-Large 639)
83. Act of July 25, 1958 (72 Statutes-at-Large 419)
84. Act of August 21, 1958 (72 Statutes-at-Large 699)
85. Act of September 22, 1959 (73 Statutes-at-Large 644)


Legislation from 1961 - 1980


86. Act of July 14, 1960 (74 Statutes-at-Large 504)
87. Act of August 17, 1961 (75 Statutes-at-Large 364)
88. Act of September 26, 1961 (75 Statutes-at-Large 650)
89. Act of October 24, 1962 (76 Statutes-at-Large 1247)
90. Act of December 13, 1963 (77 Statutes-at-Large 363)
91. Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of October 3, 1965 (79 Statutes-at-Large 911)
92. Freedom of Information Act of July 4, 1966 (80 Statutes-at-Large 250)
93. Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Statutes-at-Large 1161)
94. Act of November 6, 1966 (80 Statutes-at-Large 1322)
95. Act of December 18, 1967 (81 Statutes-at-Large 661)
96. Act of June 19, 1968 (82 Statutes-at-Large 197)
97. Act of October 24, 1968 (82 Statutes-at-Large 1343)
98. Act of April 7, 1970 (84 Statutes-at-Large 116)
99. Act of August 10, 1971 (85 Statutes-at-Large 302)
100. Act of September 28, 1971 (85 Statutes-at-Large 348)
101. Act of October 27, 1972 (86 Statutes-at-Large 1289)
102. Social Security Act Amendments of October 30, 1972 (86 Statutes-at-Large 1329)
103. Act of October 20, 1974 (88 Statutes-at-Large 1387)
104. Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of May 23, 1975 (89 Statutes-at-Large 87)
105. Act of June 21, 1976 (90 Statutes-at-Large 691)
106. Act of October 12, 1976 (90 Statutes-at-Large 2243)
107. Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of October 20, 1976 (90 Statutes-at-Large 2703)
108. Act of October 20, 1976 Effective January 1, 1978 (90 Statutes-at-Large 2706)
109. Act of August 1, 1977 (91 Statutes-at-Large 394)
110. Act of October 28, 1977 (91 Statutes-at-Large 1223)
111. Act of October 5, 1978 (92 Statutes-at-Large 907)
112. Act of October 5, 1978 (92 Statutes-at-Large 917)
113. Act of October 7, 1978 (92 Statutes-at-Large 963)
114. Act of October 14, 1978 (92 Statutes-at-Large 1263)
115. Act of October 30, 1978 (92 Statutes-at-Large 2065)
116. Act of November 2, 1978 (92 Statutes-at-Large 2479)
117. Panama Canal Act of September 27, 1979 (93 Statutes-at-Large 452)
118. Refugee Act of March 17, 1980 (94 Statutes-at-Large 102)
119. Refugee Education Assistance Act of October 10, 1980 (94 Statutes-at-Large 1799)


Legislation from 1981 - 1996


120. Act of June 5, 1981 (95 Statutes-at-Large 14)
121. Act of August 13, 1981 (95 Statutes-at-Large 357)
122. Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of December 20, 1981 (95 Statutes-at-Large 1611)
123. Act of September 30, 1982 (96 Statutes-at-Large 1157)
124. Act of October 2, 1982 (96 Statutes-at-Large 1186)
125. Act of October 22, 1982 (96 Statutes-at-Large 1716)
126. Immigration Reform and Control Act of November 6, 1986 (IRCA) (100 Statutes-at-Large 3359)
127. Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of November 10, 1986 (100 Statutes-at-Large 3537)
128. Amerasian Homecoming Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Statutes-at-Large 1329)
129. Act of September 28, 1988 (102 Statutes-at-Large 1876)
130. Act of November 15, 1988 (102 Statutes-at-Large 3908)
131. Foreign Operations Act of November 21, 1989 (103 Statutes-at-Large 1195)
132. Act of December 18, 1989 (103 Statutes-at-Large 2099)
133. Immigration Act of November 29, 1990 (104 Statutes-at-Large 4978)
134. Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act of October 1, 1991 (105 Statutes-at-Large 555)
135. Act of December 12, 1991 (105 Statutes-at-Large 1733)
136. Chinese Student Protection Act of October 9, 1992 (106 Statutes-at-Large 1969)
137. Soviet Scientists Immigration Act of October 10, 1992 (106 Statutes-at-Large 3316)
138. Act of December 8, 1993 (107 Statutes-at-Large 2057)
139. Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of September 13, 1994 (108 Statutes-at-Large 1796)
140. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of April 24, 1996 (110 Statutes-at-Large 1214)
141. Welfare Reform Act of August 22, 1996 (110 Statutes-at-Large 2105)
142. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of September 30, 1996 (IIRIRA) (110 Statutes-at-Large 3009)
http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist/index.htm

How charming, Fox can cut and paste. Apart from noting that about three quarters of that waste of thread does not apply to the period 1986-2006, i'll point out that legislation which modifies the Act does not replace the Act.

ebrown, what I think about who obeyed laws and who didn't or individual prejudices of various groups toward other groups then or now is 100% immaterial to the principles of this discussion.

As you can see by my immediate preceding post, this is an ongoing issue with lots of affixed rewrites, bandaids, and regrouping that has spanned decades.

You call it anti-immigrant to expect those coming into this country to be a) legal and b) willing to obey American laws and assimilate into American culture.

Many--by the last polls more than 50% of us--call it pro-American to expect those coming into this country to be a) legal and b) willing to obey American laws and assimilate into American culture.

As you can see from the legislation already passed, as well as from rhetoric from previous administrations, the current issues before the present administration are by no means unique nor is the current administration anti-immigrant any more than previous administrations have been. If anything, the current administration is far more lenient and forgiving than was the previous administration and they are catching political hell from their base as a result of it.

No solution will be find from any kind of emotional feel good, smugly righteous, self proclaimed morally superior position. The only solutions will be found from looking at existing realities and making decisions on what will accomplish the greatest good.

That's nicely copied.

However, prior to 1855, ships carrying passengers to the United States simply left them at the wharf.
Only since 1855, when Castle Garden became the immigrant receiving center, the US government was enabled to register and to keep better track of its immigrants. :wink:

Perhaps the charming Setanta will note that the issue was not that the act was 'changed' but that the rules and regulations affecting immigration are regularly being changed which is precisely what Joe said.

And it is now 151 years since 1855. We do a whole lot of things differently now than we did then.