AMNESTY - New Dustin Inman Society

‘AMNESTY’ IS ANY ACTION THAT RESULTS IN THE REMOVAL OF THE ILLEGAL STATUS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.

DEFACTO AMENSTY IS ALSO THE REFUSAL OF ELECTED OFFICIALS TO ENFORCE LAWS AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL DESIGNED TO DRIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS OUT OF THE NATION AND INDIVIDUAL STATES.

__________________________________________

From the New York Times, July 18, 1989:

1986 AMNESTY LAW SEEN AS FAILING TO SLOW ALIEN TIDE – Here.

__________________________________________

See also “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and “immigration overhaul.”

___________________________________________________________

Center for Immigration Studies

A Bailout for Illegal Immigrants? Lessons from the Implementation of the 1986 IRCA Amnesty – Here.

On this page we will post a collection of items to educate those who may believe that a repeat of the “one-time” amnesty of 1986 will somehow solve the raging illegal immigration crisis in our nation. Legalization is not intended to stop illegal immigration or to secure American borders. Amnesty is intended to help the Democrat party with new voters and to make life easier for illegal employers. Amnesty only serves to encourage more illegal immigration.

__________________________________________________________

In Washington, there were efforts to pass another amnesty in 2005, 2006, 2007 and most recently in 2013. The Dustin Inman Society was heavily involved in stopping those legislative attempts at legalization of illegal aliens and illegal employers.

To get a basic education of that DIS has done, you can listen to a short interview with D.A. King on NPR’s ‘Morning Edition’ just after the pro-enforcement majority in America won the 2007 amnesty fight. Note: NPR abbreviated the print copy that accompanies the complete audio recording. We also note that because they cannot tolerate any dissent from their anti-enforcement narrative, since 2013 most of the media in Georgia has chosen to blacklist us in any debate on illegal immigration. We point to the Atlanta TV/radio news departments and cowardly, leftist media hosts depicted so well by “journalists” such as Bill Nigut at Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Essential knowledge

We have learned that it is necessary to constantly inform people that about half of the illegal aliens living and working illegally in the U.S. today dod not come over the border illegally. They came on legal, temporary visas and refused to leave when the visa expired. How many each year? It was 497,272 page V. according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the Fiscal Year 2019 Entry/Exit Overstay Report -page V. Don’t be fooled when you hear a politician try to avoid much discussion of illegal immigration and solutions say “we must secure the border first…” We must secure the border and we must monitor and control temporary visa departures.

An invaluable resource for anyone who wants to have detailed insight into the 1986 amnesty is here from the Center for Immigration Studies.
We hope you will read a short 1989 news report from the New York Times on the early signs that the ’86 amnesty was not stopping illegal immigration.

Below is a photo of one of the eight billboards we were able to put up in the 2013 amnesty battle. We were only able to do it with donations from average Americans.

Here are photos of pro-enforcement rallies we staged in Washington D.C in 2005 and 2007 against amnesty-again. We invite you to see all of the photos and videos of our pro-enforcement rallies on the original DIS site.

Center for Immigration Studies

DREAMers’ are just the bait; “citizenship for all 11 million, or however many” illegal aliens there are here is the hoo

By Andrew R. Arthur on November 17, 2022

On November 16, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) held a press conference in front of the Capitol in which he called for amnesty for “DREAMers”, aliens brought illegally to the United States as children. As he did so, however, he pulled back the curtain on his end game – to “get a path to citizenship for all 11 million, or however many undocumented, there are here”. The DREAMers are the bait, while a full and total amnesty is the hook.

DREAMers, In Brief. Amnesty legislation for aliens who arrived in their youth has a long, but not particularly successful pedigree. Here’s a brief recap.

In August 2001, then-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a bipartisan “DREAM Act”, which included 18 cosponsors. That bill would have granted amnesty to aliens unlawfully present for five years who entered under the age of 21, and who met certain work and educational requirements.

The timing of that bill could not have been worse, because less than six weeks later, the September 11 attacks showed how foolhardy such blanket amnesties were. Nonetheless, similar “DREAM Acts” were subsequently introduced in later Congresses.

One bears special note. In March 2009, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) offered up the “DREAM Act of 2009” during the 111th Congress.

At that time, Barack Obama was president, Democrats held an overwhelming majority in the House, and from September 24, 2009 (when Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the seat of the late Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy) through February 4, 2010 (when Republican Scott Brown was elected to fill Kennedy’s seat), Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate.

Obama’s fellow Democrats could have passed any bill they wanted – including and in particular the DREAM Act of 2009 – without any Republican votes at all. But that bill went nowhere. Cosponsor and then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) did not even bring it up for a vote in committee.

That said, two Republican senators – Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) – were cosponsors of the DREAM Act of 2009, so they probably would have blocked a filibuster even during the months Democrats only controlled a measly 59 seats in the upper chamber.

Obama blamed Republicans for the failure to pass a DREAM Act, but the fault really lies with him and congressional Democrats alone – DREAM Act legislation simply was not a priority for a party that held a hammerlock on the legislative process.

The popularity of legislation to “protect” the DACA population has been a key talking point for years (I was the punching boy for Democrats at a House hearing on the issue in March 2019), but let’s face it – if it really were all that popular, it would have been a shoo-in in the 111th Congress.

DACA. The failure of DREAM Act legislation led to a program called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or DACA. It grants quasi-legal status to aliens who entered the United States while under the age of 16 before June 15, 2007, who are currently under the age of 41, who meet certain educational standards, and have not been convicted of certain crimes.

DACA was not created by Congress, or even by executive order or executive action (for what that is worth). It’s the product of a memo issued by then-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012. In my considered legal opinion, Napolitano lacked the authority to create DACA (the Fifth Circuit ruled in October that the program is unlawful, but the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in), but in any event, it sets a bad precedent.

Want proof? Here’s what the editorial board of the Washington Post had to say when President Obama was considering expanding DACA to include parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents in 2014:

The president should think twice. Some of the same Democrats and pro-immigrant advocates urging him to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation would be outraged if a Republican president took a similarly selective approach to enforcing the laws — say, those that guarantee voting rights or prohibit employment discrimination.

Obama ignored the Post editorial board and created something called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DAPA proved to be a bridge too far for Texas and several other states, who successfully sued to block its implementation.

Despite all of this, DACA continues, and the Biden administration recently issued a new rule, effective October 31, “to preserve and fortify” the decade-old program.

A Sympathetic Population. The DACA population is admittedly sympathetic. The vast majority of the approximately 650,000 current DACA beneficiaries were removable a decade ago, but in the intervening years they have been living in a quasi-legal status thanks to some questionable administrative actions.

Even President Trump, in his 2018 State of the Union address, offered up a plan to legalize not just DACA recipients but also a total of 1.8 million “DACA-eligible” aliens – more or less the same individuals covered by the DREAM Act…. please read the rest here at the CIS website.