We've all heard the saying: "If you can't beat them, join them."

Well, regarding the immigration issue, I decided to switch sides. The fight against it is just too hard – no one will listen and I'm rethinking my position on those poor undocumented souls that just want a better life.

So, now that I'm on the pro-immigrant side, I thought I'd better come up with my own immigration proposals that will be good for both sides – for the good and just left, of which I am now a part, and the rest of you Neanderthals.

First: There is no fighting it. Amnesty is going to happen, so we need to accept it and welcome our new brothers and sisters. But it won't be as easy as that. The "immigrants" must have lived in the United States for at least four years, and pay a fee. Let's say… $185. That sounds reasonable.

After they've met those two criteria, they must then demonstrate that they have a "good moral character." Only then will they be granted temporary legal status. After say… 18 months, they will be eligible for a green card, but they must learn English.

Okay – that takes care of that. Now what about the border? Well, we'll "invest" in new high-tech surveillance equipment and hire more border agents and staff to support them.

We will also crack down on those corporations that hire illegals by imposing penalties on employers that "knowingly hire or employ illegals." Employers must ensure that the immigrant's papers "reasonably appear to be genuine on its face." That should discourage would-be lawbreaking employers and will discourage newly arriving illegals from even attempting to cheat the new strict system.

So that's my plan. How do you like it? By the way – for those who remember, my plan sounds eerily familiar to another, namely the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

In fact, everything I proposed was from that pitifully weak piece of crap legislation.

As is typical of Washington, now as it was then, the original proposal looks nothing like the finished product.

As the bill moved from committee to committee, in both the House and Senate, it was tweaked and watered down to the point of being utterly useless. Ronald Reagan made the mistake of trusting and believing the Congress would do what they promised him they would.

The original bill did require a fee that was waived consistently. It did require them to learn English, but that was never enforced.

The original bill did have stiff penalties on employers and required hard proof of legitimate residency documentation before an immigrant could be hired. It was changed to the aforementioned "reasonably appears to be genuine" clause to make it easy for employers to avoid any penalty.

This was how Washington worked 28 years ago and it is a lot worse now.

The moral of the story is to demonstrate that if a bill seems suspect when it is proposed, you can bet, by the time it makes its way out of Washington, it will be 100 times worse.

Simply put, we must not trust anything the politicians propose regarding amnesty legislation.

As the "Liberal Lion of the Senate," Ted Kennedy said regarding the 1986 amnesty legislation, "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

Reagan shouldn't have believed Kennedy then, and we shouldn't believe any of them now.

Any politician who puts forth an immigration proposal beyond closing the border, and I do mean closing it up tight, is a liar and has a hidden agenda and he or she, along with his or her proposal should be jettisoned immediately.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.