The Reagan Amnesty & Indiana

[jedi]

Being just a little lad when Regan signed the amnesty bill I'm curious about the following.

1) What party controlled Congress when Regan signed the bill?
2) The following 2 elections what party won the majority of the votes in Congress and White House.
3) What was the law that Regan signed exactly?
4) How did IN vote? & Who in IN voted Senator wise and 1st District of IN.

Thanks

 

[CarmelHP]

Here's some reading

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phil502]

House and Senate split majority. Republicans have the Senate.


99th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jedi]

Thanks for the links.
I have not been able to find out, however, how IN voted for the law.
Seems like the Library of Congress and the websites for the House and Senate don't have the roll call votes for BEFORE 1990. =( I can see the law and the total YES/NO votes for it but not the indiviudal votes. Unless I'm looking at the wrong places.

HOUSE votes:
Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives

SENATE VOTES:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes
(This one goes back to 1989)

=(

 

[irishfan]

From CarmelHp's link:
According to one study, the IRCA caused some employers to discriminate against workers who appeared foreign, resulting in a small reduction in overall Hispanic employment.[2] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[3]
The hiring process also changed as employers turned to indirect hiring through subcontractors. "Under a subcontracting agreement, a U.S. citizen or resident alien contractually agrees with an employer to provide a specific number of workers for a certain period of time to undertake a defined task at a fixed rate of pay per worker".[3] "By using a subcontractor the firm is not held liable since the workers are not employees. The use of a subcontractor decreases a worker's wages since a portion is kept by the subcontractor. This indirect hiring is imposed on everyone regardless of legality".[

From what I am reading it looks like Reagan helped to lower the wages of workers by implementing sub-contractors but did help foreigners get jobs because of it. What I really like is the last sentence...."regardless of legality."
Good old Ronny never cared about legality when he took 2A rights away when he was governor or president so who cares about those laws when it comes to other stuff as well. What a guy!!

 

[CarmelHP]

Good old Ronny never cared about legality when he took 2A rights away when he was governor or president so who cares about those laws when it comes to other stuff as well. What a guy!!

More Bull****. Don't like the guy, fine. Who gives a ****? But twisting and lying about history. The immigration law was a compromise, prior to it, the gates were wide open to illegals and employers giving them employment. The Democrats watered it down as much as possible to extract their pound of flesh on the deal because they held the House and could stop anything going forward.

Same with the '86 MG freeze, the Democrats insert a poison pill into a gun bill and it's Reagan's fault? Well, then the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of foreign military surplus guns brought in is Reagan's "fault" too, and the billion tons of ammunition the bill allowed to be distributed (prior to this, all ammo, even a cartridge case, could not be sold by mail, and had to go through a dealer and be signed for). Ammo prices were cut 75% within a couple of years, and it was Reagan's "fault." Reagan's "fault" revitalized the industry and reversed 20 years of gunowner legislative losses. In the late '70's, the National Committee to Ban Handguns was talking opening of a ban being implemented within a few years and it seemed likely, but Reagan's election stopped it. The ATF was nearly abolished, but would get considered by the split legislative branch, but got their wings clipped throughout the '80's.

Don't like compromise legislation, wonderful, who does? Get a super majority elected that thinks exactly like you. Until then, grown-ups will something have to swallow **** to get anything moved forward at all.

 

[Phil502]

From CarmelHp's link:
According to one study, the IRCA caused some employers to discriminate against workers who appeared foreign, resulting in a small reduction in overall Hispanic employment.[2] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[3]
The hiring process also changed as employers turned to indirect hiring through subcontractors. "Under a subcontracting agreement, a U.S. citizen or resident alien contractually agrees with an employer to provide a specific number of workers for a certain period of time to undertake a defined task at a fixed rate of pay per worker".[3] "By using a subcontractor the firm is not held liable since the workers are not employees. The use of a subcontractor decreases a worker's wages since a portion is kept by the subcontractor. This indirect hiring is imposed on everyone regardless of legality".[

From what I am reading it looks like Reagan helped to lower the wages of workers by implementing sub-contractors but did help foreigners get jobs because of it. What I really like is the last sentence...."regardless of legality."
Good old Ronny never cared about legality when he took 2A rights away when he was governor or president so who cares about those laws when it comes to other stuff as well. What a guy!!

One study, lol, who did the study La Raza?
So people found away around the law, big surprise, I locked my door today, if someone breaks my window to get in, it's the locks fault then right?

 

[jedi]

Guys can ya please stay on topic. Anyone know how P. Visckolgy and Lugar voted for the 86 immigration bill?

Does anyone know how the rest of the senate/house voted?

I'm working on a "theory" that the bill "benefited" Ds in the elections afterwards but still need some more data.

It looks like it did based on the numbers here:

99th Congress
SENATE
R - 53
D - 47

HOUSE
R - 182
D - 253

100th Congress
SENATE
R - 45
D - 55

HOUSE
R - 177
D - 258

101st Congress
SENATE
R - 45
D - 55

HOUSE
R - 174
D - 261

The Rs lost seats in 1987 in house and seante. Yet an R president still took over the white house (Regan -> Bush) so the # don't all add up.

In any case thanks for all the info so far.

 

[irishfan]

Lugar and Quayle voted YES here is a link for you:
GovTrack: Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]'s Voting Record

try this for the rest of the senate:
GovTrack: Senate Vote #738 (Oct 17, 1986)

 

[CarmelHP]

Lugar and Quayle voted YES here is a link for you:
GovTrack: Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]'s Voting Record

try this for the rest of the senate:
GovTrack: Senate Vote #738 (Oct 17, 1986)

That made it easy to find the House votes:


TO ACCEPT THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S 1200, A BILL TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TO EFFECTIVELY CONTROL UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES, CLEARING THE MEASURE FOR SENATE ACTION.
Number:House Vote #872 in 1986 Date:Oct 15, 1986
Indiana
Nay IN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
NayIN-3Hiler, John [R]
NayIN-4Coats, Daniel [R]
AyeIN-5Hillis, Elwood [R]
NayIN-6Burton, Dan [R]
NayIN-7Myers, John [R]
AyeIN-8McCloskey, Francis [D]
AyeIN-9Hamilton, Lee [D]
AyeIN-10Sharp, Philip [D]
NayIN-11Jacobs, Andrew [D]

 

[irishfan]

That made it easy to find the House votes:


TO ACCEPT THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S 1200, A BILL TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TO EFFECTIVELY CONTROL UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES, CLEARING THE MEASURE FOR SENATE ACTION.
Number:House Vote #872 in 1986 Date:Oct 15, 1986
Indiana
Nay IN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
NayIN-3Hiler, John [R]
NayIN-4Coats, Daniel [R]
AyeIN-5Hillis, Elwood [R]
NayIN-6Burton, Dan [R]
NayIN-7Myers, John [R]
AyeIN-8McCloskey, Francis [D]
AyeIN-9Hamilton, Lee [D]
AyeIN-10Sharp, Philip [D]
NayIN-11Jacobs, Andrew [D]

What?? I did something right?

 

[jedi]

Lugar and Quayle voted YES here is a link for you:
GovTrack: Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]'s Voting Record

No suprise there in terms of RINO Lugar.
Quayle is a mute point since he is no longer in office.
But suspect when "amentisy 2" comes along Lugar will vote YES be it is Rs control the SENATE or not.

That made it easy to find the House votes:


TO ACCEPT THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S 1200, A BILL TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TO EFFECTIVELY CONTROL UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES, CLEARING THE MEASURE FOR SENATE ACTION.
Number:House Vote #872 in 1986 Date:Oct 15, 1986
Indiana
Nay IN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
NayIN-3Hiler, John [R]
NayIN-4Coats, Daniel [R]
AyeIN-5Hillis, Elwood [R]
NayIN-6Burton, Dan [R]
NayIN-7Myers, John [R]
AyeIN-8McCloskey, Francis [D]
AyeIN-9Hamilton, Lee [D]
AyeIN-10Sharp, Philip [D]
NayIN-11Jacobs, Andrew [D]

Hum.. Visclosky's vote is a suprise to me. Would have though he being a D would have voted for it. Plus being that he is in a populated hispanic district (vs the others in IN) he did not "vote for his people" per say.

My thinking is perhaps the latino vote was not that great/big back then in 1986. Could be that the latinos did not want this amnesty (with the attached strings) since it really did not help them (in NWI where it's very little farmers type). Doubt it. Or perhaps Pete figured it was going to pass and could vote against it to show he was "tough on illegals". Hum...

 

[mrjarrell]

Good old Ronny never cared about legality when he took 2A rights away when he was governor or president so who cares about those laws when it comes to other stuff as well. What a guy!!

Carmel conveniently ignore the fact that Reagan signed the Mulford Act that to this day disarms Californians. Also ignored is the fact that Reagan signed onto the Brady Bill, (and no, he wasn't manipulated in his senility. He wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimers till over 3 years after that bill). He wasn't a true friend to gun owners, despite what his worshippers would have us believe.

 

[jedi]

Please stay on topic, almost there, almost there. =p
The Regan vs 2A debate is for another thread. I'm would like to focus on the effects (politically) of the 86 amnesty pre and post the signing of the bill.

 

[irishfan]

I would say that the latino presence plus their influence was a lot smaller in 1986 then it is today. If you look at California you will see how much they have increased their power and organization skills since then. Also, in 1986 you didn't see nearly as many latino politicians as you do today. If "amnesty 2" occurs then yes Lugar and whoever wins the other senate seat will vote for it regardless of Coats or Ellsworth. Finally, I believe a lot of Republicans will support any kind of amnesty agreement just as many Democrats will to help preserve their base.

 

[Phil502]

I am not sure that you could safely say that this one issue changed everybody into a Democratic supporter in 1988. The climate shifts all the time.

Visclosky often votes harder on the "amnesty" issue, if I remember correctly.
Check out NumbersUSA | For Lower Immigration Levels - For Lower Immigration Levels for a lot of facts on the reps.

 

[jedi]

Correct Phil502 that its a "simple broad generalization" that I made of if you voted 86 you got kicked. The data appears to not support that issue. Not unlike how I suspect that the data will support that those that voted for ObamaCare are being kicked out (not all of them now).

Just trying to understand the 86 vs "future amnesty" and see how the IN players will vote on it.

 

[CarmelHP]

Carmel conveniently ignore the fact that Reagan signed the Mulford Act that to this day disarms Californians. Also ignored is the fact that Reagan signed onto the Brady Bill, (and no, he wasn't manipulated in his senility. He wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimers till over 3 years after that bill). He wasn't a true friend to gun owners, despite what his worshippers would have us believe.

Reagan wasn't President in 1967, 1991 or 1994. When he was President, he did the right thing as much as anyone has in the office and the calumnies against him, on guns and immigration, are perverse. How long will you kick this corpse?

 

[dross]

Reagan wasn't President in 1967, 1991 or 1994. When he was President, he did the right thing as much as anyone has in the office and the calumnies against him, on guns and immigration, are perverse. How long will you kick this corpse?

Well, Ron Paul never made any of those compromises. His presidential record is perfect on all issues. If Reagan had been more like Ron Paul when he was president, he would have been pure, too. Just not ever elected.