Meese: Plan is worse than 1986 amnesty
June 7, 2007| By Nathaniel Ward
The immigration plan now being considered by Congress “isn’t the 1986 amnesty deal all over again,” Heritage scholar Edwin Meese argues in today’s Wall Street Journal. “It’s worse.”
There are a number of serious problems with the legislation, writes Meese, who served as attorney general during President Reagan’s administration. These, “and the experience of 1986, should convince lawmakers that this bill will not resolve our illegal immigration problems, even as it diminishes the liberty and privacy of working citizens.”
Supporters of the immigration proposal now being considered by Congress have argued that it would increase security along the nation’s borders. But as Heritage’s Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow points out, “the Senate bill offers little border security protection beyond what is already provided in existing federal laws.”
In addition, it could actually worsen conditions along the border. “[T]he new proposal creates a set of conditions virtually guaranteed to spark a surge of illegal aliens crossing our borders the moment the new provisions go into effect.”
Meese penned an influential article in The New York Times during last year’s immigration debate that pointed out the similarities of that year’s proposal to the failed 1986 amnesty.
Take our poll: Congress is now considering a flawed immigration proposal. Should lawmakers consider other options?
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
