WSJ: Immigration: What Would Reagan Do?

[SkinsHokieFan]

In light of the recent Arizona laws, a pretty good article from the WSJ, which I agree with

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282431263367708.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Immigration: What Would Reagan Do?

The Gipper repeatedly declared that openness to immigration represents a defining aspect of our national identity.

By PETER ROBINSON

In a television advertisement airing in Arizona, John McCain, running for a fifth term in the Senate, strolls through the desert near Nogales with Paul Babeu, sheriff of Pinal County. Beside the two men rises a section of the border fence that the Department of Homeland Security has been erecting to keep undocumented Mexicans in Mexico. "We're outmanned," Mr. Babeu tells the senator, who nods knowingly. "Of all the illegals in America, more than half come through Arizona."

Messrs. McCain and Babeu chat for a moment about Sen. McCain's "Ten-Point Border Security Plan." Then Sen. McCain, reciting one of the 10 points, delivers the line with which the 30-second spot climaxes: "Complete the danged fence."

John McCain, fencing off America. Would Ronald Reagan have approved?

Anyone who retains a high opinion of Reagan, whom John McCain himself has described as one of his heroes, can hardly help wondering. In 1986, Reagan signed legislation granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Instead of denouncing the undocumented, Reagan invited them to become citizens. If Reagan was right then, isn't Sen. McCain wrong now? To attempt an answer, I've listed what we know for certain about my old boss and immigration. Then I've done my best to figure out what each item tells us about where Reagan would have stood on the issue today.

What we know for certain, item one: Ronald Reagan was no kind of nativist. In a 1977 radio talk, for instance, Reagan dismissed "the illegal alien fuss," arguing that we need immigrant labor. "One thing is certain in this hungry world," he said. "No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."

Reagan's attitude toward the growing Hispanic influence in American life? When announcing his bid for the White House in 1979 he asserted plainly, "I favor statehood for Puerto Rico"—scarcely the position of an Anglo chauvinist. And Reagan again and again declared that a basic, even radical, openness to immigration represents a defining aspect of our national identity. Describing America as "a shining city" in his 1989 farewell address, for example, he said, "[a]nd if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here."

Click link for rest

[thebluefood]

Regan would sit down with both sides over some jelly beans, perhaps.

That's an interesting article, though. I didn't know that about Regan.

[Kosher Ham]

I won't say that Reagan was right or wrong, but it was a different situation then as well.

Reagan could pick and choose just like the rest of these guys.

[Baculus]

An interesting article.

Reagan would anger some folks in this day and age. Of course, Reagan's amnesty program has been completely forgotten by his adoring fans, just like his attitude towards nuclear weapons (which he wanted to eliminate).

By the way, I don't think the 2006 Bush amnesty law was totally unreasonable, either. At least it was an attempt to deal with the issue, in one way or another, without a black and white "all illegals are bad" sort of effort.

"Complete the danged fence." "Get off my lawn!"

[Destino]

Despite acting on illegal immigration being a low hanging fruit in domestic policy that enjoys tremendous popular support nearly no national leaders are willing to go for it. Republicans DID NOT and WILL NOT act on this in the direction their voters want. This is proven history at this point both in Reagan's time and more recently Bush's (which included a republican congress). Reagan pushed amnesty and no real border security, Bush promised increased security in order to push an even largest amnesty that failed.

The question I have is simple: Why is the above true? Why despite huge political support will they not act on this?

If you think it's for fear of the hispanic vote, you're wrong. Republicans don't enjoy a hispanic majority and illegal immigration isn't a hot button amongst the segment of the hispanic community from which they do receive support. So what are they seeing that is stopping them to the point where they risk their political careers?

[thebluefood]

You hear a lot about Regan from the Right, but I'm beginning to wonder if they really know their "hero."

I really should look into his political philosophy more. My mom LOVES Regan (the reason why she and my grandma are hard core Republicans).

[Teller]

If we must naturalize the 30 million illegal aliens who are here, I want assurance that the flow is stopped; to the extent possible.

Taking the approach that we're just going to say, "OK, y'all broke the law and now we're going to make that perfectly alright" every 30 years is not a solution. Sadly, no one in power, on either side, wants the problem solved. They're more concerned about the law breakers than tax-paying, voting Americans who want it fixed. It borders on infuriating.

[Jeeb]

What would John Quincy Adams do?

[thebluefood]

The Republicans haven't made JQA a demi-god. :pfft:

[Predicto]

Sadly, no one in power, on either side, wants the problem solved. They're more concerned about the law breakers than tax-paying, voting Americans who want it fixed. It borders on infuriating.

I don't think that is really true.

I think the people in power are more baffled by the practical difficulties of actually solving the problem, and they should not be concerned about appeasing the tax-paying, voting Americans who overwhelmingly demand immediate symbolic band-aids, draconian punishments, and other policies that really aren't very smart.

Watching John McCain abandon principles that he has strongly held for his whole political career to cater to angry nativists is really a sad thing to see.

[The 12th Commandment]

Why isn't there a bill in congress right now, with a dem president and a dem congress there's no excuse, to open up immigration policy allowing them to come legally? That is my number one beef with Obama and this congress. ****ing let them in legally. Let them be known, let them not have to have to die in the desert, let them get paid enough so that everyone else can compete with them in the workplace, let them pay taxes (and get acknowledged for it), let them be American's and not fugitives if that's what they want. IF they don't give them a work permit if they have employment lined up at a reasonable wage. It pisses me off I bet it would piss off Ronnie too. He would be a democrat today in many facets.

[Larry]

Recall reading a post here, 2-4 months ago, where some Senator had proposed an amnesty bill that would have given a path to citizenship to illegals if:

The illegal came to this country before age 16.

Has earned a High School diploma or a GED in the US.

And he has either:

Earned at least a 2-year college degree

Or served in the US military.

Seems to me that, if we're going to have amnesty, (and I don't think it's possible to do anything else), then at least this would give amnesty to the best kind of illegals. It sounded like a good start, to me.

[Predicto]

Why isn't there a bill in congress right now, with a dem president and a dem congress there's no excuse, to open up immigration policy allowing them to come legally?

Why?

Because the Democrats don't want to lose 200 seats in the House in November. Simple as that.

[Larry]

Why?

Because the Democrats don't want to lose 200 seats in the House in November. Simple as that.

I think that's a big part of it.

Folks, we just saw, a year ago, a situation where a Democrat Congress proposed slowing the rate of growth of Medicare, the Republicans filibustered it, and successfully painted the Democrats as evil for it.

You think that anybody who proposes opening up the US to more people from Mexico, isn't going to be crucified, politically?

Just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean your political enemies won't screw you for it.

----------

Although I have to admit: I still have this fantasy that, if a leader were to address the nation, and tell the voters that hey, we've got problems, and the problems need to be fixed, and we've been putting them off for decades, letting them get worse and worse and worse, because nobody wanted to take the heat.

Well, I've decided to take the heat. I'm going to propose that we do what we all know needs to be done. Frankly, I'd rather be attacked for doing what's good for the country, than do nothing and stick my successor with an even bigger version of the same problem.

I could see the voters getting behind a leader who did that.

But where would I find such a Man?

Why am I asking you?

[/movie reference]

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is really an interesting point to me. At the time, I recall being of the mind set that new blood is good for the country and that it would add something to the collective that would be much needed. Now, I don't share this view. Reagan granted amnesty to 4 million immigrants from Haiti, Cuba, El Salvador and all over and several other Central and South American Counties who were caught in Civil War at the time. There was also a great amount of pressure to grant this because of all the refugees we had taken in from Indochina in the 70s. The feeling was, if you would do it for them, why not us and I think Reagan had a hard time with that. Reagan did this for several reasons but I don't think he did it for political reasons like today. Both parties avoid the immigration issue because both parties want the immigration vote to be established under their respective party affiliations and that's the wrong reason to do this.

I have thought about this a lot in the past several years. We are in a different place in history today. I don't believe we can afford to grant amnesty to all of these folks. I think it will create many more problems then it solves. I he set a presidence that has now created a problem that is unmanageable. If we granted amnesty today, the number would be around 20 million and we can't even confirm that that number is accurate. I don't think we can continue to do this.

[thebluefood]

I think that's a big part of it.

Folks, we just saw, a year ago, a situation where a Democrat Congress proposed slowing the rate of growth of Medicare, the Republicans filibustered it, and successfully painted the Democrats as evil for it.

You think that anybody who proposes opening up the US to more people from Mexico, isn't going to be crucified, politically?

Just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean your political enemies won't screw you for it.

----------

Although I have to admit: I still have this fantasy that, if a leader were to address the nation, and tell the voters that hey, we've got problems, and the problems need to be fixed, and we've been putting them off for decades, letting them get worse and worse and worse, because nobody wanted to take the heat.

Well, I've decided to take the heat. I'm going to propose that we do what we all know needs to be done. Frankly, I'd rather be attacked for doing what's good for the country, than do nothing and stick my successor with an even bigger version of the same problem.

I could see the voters getting behind a leader who did that.

But where would I find such a Man?

Why am I asking you?

[/movie reference]

Heady Lamarr 2012

"That's Headly!"

[NavyDave]

An interesting article.

Reagan would anger some folks in this day and age. Of course, Reagan's amnesty program has been completely forgotten by his adoring fans.

Different era. It wasn't forgotten and of course the liberals in control back then didn't keep up their end of the bargain about securing the border, just like when taxes were raised they didn't reduce spending on social programs.

[Hubbs]

If we must naturalize the 30 million illegal aliens who are here, I want assurance that the flow is stopped; to the extent possible.

Taking the approach that we're just going to say, "OK, y'all broke the law and now we're going to make that perfectly alright" every 30 years is not a solution. Sadly, no one in power, on either side, wants the problem solved. They're more concerned about the law breakers than tax-paying, voting Americans who want it fixed. It borders on infuriating.

I get the feeling that "fear of illegal aliens' voting power" isn't the primary factor here.

[Hubbs]

I have thought about this a lot in the past several years. We are in a different place in history today. I don't believe we can afford to grant amnesty to all of these folks. I think it will create many more problems then it solves. I he set a presidence that has now created a problem that is unmanageable. If we granted amnesty today, the number would be around 20 million and we can't even confirm that that number is accurate. I don't think we can continue to do this.

How much do you think rounding up and deporting 20 million people would cost?

[Kosher Ham]

How much do you think rounding up and deporting 20 million people would cost?

Less than the war on drugs.

[Predicto]

Less than the war on drugs.

And it would be just about as effective. :pfft:

[Kosher Ham]

And it would be just about as effective. :pfft:

I know you are kidding, but I disagree.

I can not understand why people that are illegal have any right in this country. A right to a fair trial sure, otherwise...The word illegal says it all.

[Predicto]

I know you are kidding, but I disagree.

I can not understand why people that are illegal have any right in this country. A right to a fair trial sure, otherwise...The word illegal says it all.

I wasn't talking about "rights". I was talking about crafting an effective, realistic policy.

"Round them all up" is a great slogan, but it really doesn't work that well in a country this large and a society this open. There is too much economic incentive to come here and the border is too long.

What we need is a work permit program and a real path to citizenship that allows some of these people in if they prove themselves. The current system - where virtually no poor people can get in legally unless they have family here already - ensures that they will sneak in illegally and hide from the law.

Give them a real legal path to follow and they will do that instead. Then we can keep track of them.

[Larry]

And it would be just about as effective. :pfft:

I know you are kidding, but I disagree.

Perhaps I can paraphrase Predicto's position.

Kicking the illegals out will never prevent illegal immigration, for exactly the same reasons why the War on Drugs will never get rid of drugs.

Too many people want them. Those people are willing to pay to have them. And when people are willing to pay, people will be willing to sell.

(Same reason people will rob banks. That's where they keep the money.)

[DCsportsfan53]

Despite acting on illegal immigration being a low hanging fruit in domestic policy that enjoys tremendous popular support nearly no national leaders are willing to go for it. Republicans DID NOT and WILL NOT act on this in the direction their voters want. This is proven history at this point both in Reagan's time and more recently Bush's (which included a republican congress). Reagan pushed amnesty and no real border security, Bush promised increased security in order to push an even largest amnesty that failed.

The question I have is simple: Why is the above true? Why despite huge political support will they not act on this?

If you think it's for fear of the hispanic vote, you're wrong. Republicans don't enjoy a hispanic majority and illegal immigration isn't a hot button amongst the segment of the hispanic community from which they do receive support. So what are they seeing that is stopping them to the point where they risk their political careers?

The same thing that drives all political decisions and policies in America and has for the last 30 years....it's good for the corporate world. That's all that matters anymore so far as elected officials are concerned. A gov't by big business of big business and for big business.