Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Dec 13, 2006 | Edwin Meese III

[neverdem]

This is the fifth in an occasional series of exclusive articles in which leading conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration explain how they believe the principles of Reagan conservatism ought to be applied today and in the coming years. This week, Edwin Meese, who was Reagan’s first presidential counselor and then attorney general, addresses immigration.

---

What would Ronald Reagan do? I can’t tell you how many times I have been asked that question, on virtually every issue imaginable.

As much as we all want clarity and certainty, I usually refrain from specific answers. That’s because it is very difficult to directly translate particular political decisions to another context, in another time. The better way to answer the question—and the way President Reagan himself would approach such questions—is to understand Reagan’s principles and how they should apply in today’s politics, and review past decisions and consider what lessons they have for us.

Immigration is one area where Reagan’s principles can guide us, and the lessons are instructive.

I was attorney general two decades ago during the debate over what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. President Reagan, acting on the recommendation of a bipartisan task force, supported a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigration, including adjusting the status of what was then a relatively small population. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service was then in the Department of Justice, I had the responsibility for directing the implementation of that plan.

President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was.

Lesson of 1986

The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.

So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.

What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools—like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border—that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective.

One idea President Reagan had at the time that we might also try improving on is to create a pilot program that would allow genuinely temporary workers to come to the United States—a reasonable program consistent with security and open to the needs and dynamics of our market economy.

And what about those already here? Today it seems to me that the fair policy, one that will not encourage further illegal immigration, is to give those here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border—a combination of incentives and disincentives—will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.

Lastly, we should remember Reagan’s commitment to the idea that America must remain open and welcoming to those yearning for freedom. As a nation based on ideas, Ronald Reagan believed that that there was something unique about America and that anyone, from anywhere, could become an American. That means that while we seek to meet the challenge of illegal immigration, we must keep open the door of opportunity by preserving and enhancing our heritage of legal immigration—assuring that those who choose to come here permanently become Americans. In the end, it was his principled policy—and it should be ours—to “humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”

[Tim Long]

With his conviction, I always thought it was out of character for Reagan to declare amnesty for 3 million. If he were with us today, I don't think he would take the report that illegals murder 9,000 Americans a year lightly. Miss him. : (

[trumandogz]

I wonder if Edwin Meese would repeat his mistake of agreeing with the Baker Commission?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Excellent column by Ed Meese. He knew Reagan probably better than any of his advisers and if he says RR wouldn't do it over then he's probably right. So Hagel, McCain, and the rest of the open border RINOs can stuff it whenever they refer to 1986.

[kinoxi]

Quite a bit of speculation in this article. In my opinion of course...

[trumandogz]

If Edwin Meese knew Reagan so well, why did he sign his name to the Baker Report?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

If Edwin Meese knew Reagan so well, why did he sign his name to the Baker Report?

What does that have to do with how Reagan might respond today regarding the massive illegal immigration problem? To me it's apples and oranges...

[OldFriend]

Wonder what Meese thought of selling arms ( missiles ) to Iran in exchange for money for the contras.

[trumandogz]

The article in question states the opinion of Ed Meese as does the Baker Report.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The article in question states the opinion of Ed Meese as does the Baker Report.

True but Meese acted on his own behalf with the Baker Report. Even if he's wrong about that I still think he knew Reagan a lot better than Hagel or McCain or the rest of the open border RINOs who keep referring to RR in order to justify their position.

[Pelham]

bump

[BCrago66]

I hereby declare Meese to be a pumpkin-head twit, for helping to bring us a prescription for surrender in Iraq.

[Always Right]

Reagan did not want to turn away people who wanted to come to America and do hard work. Reagan would not buy into the arguement that Mexicans were stealing our jobs. Reagan would have definitely supported tightened borders and controlled immigration process. Reagan would have supported some kind of compromise, but would not have gone as far as the Pense plan.

[Freee-dame]

bump

[WatchingInAmazement]

What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools—like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border—that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective. One idea President Reagan had at the time that we might also try improving on is to create a pilot program that would allow genuinely temporary workers to come to the United States—a reasonable program consistent with security and open to the needs and dynamics of our market economy. And what about those already here? Today it seems to me that the fair policy, one that will not encourage further illegal immigration, is to give those here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border—a combination of incentives and disincentives—will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.

The open border minority will now crucify Ed Meese, who knew Reagan a LOT better than any of them. This should put the dumb question about Reagan to rest, but it won't just like they won't allow that border to be secured no matter how many facts and tragedies are thrown in front of them.

[janetgreen]

So Hagel, McCain, and the rest of the open border RINOs can stuff it whenever they refer to 1986.

BTTT

[Reagan Man]

I agree with Ed Meese.

As I've mentioned many times on Free Republic, President Reagan didn't support open borders. Reagan said: "A nation without borders is not a nation." The IRCA of 1986 was meant to be a one time only amnesty deal. Period. Roughly 2.7-million illegals were granted amnesty. If Reagan were around today, he would take a far different position on the illegal immigration issue then he did 20 years ago.

Today we have 15 million illegals and maybe more, who are living and working in the US, while they break our laws and steal from the American people. When you consider the number of illegals in the US today, the poor results from the IRCA of 1986, the ongoing problems with open borders and the events of 9-11, I believe Reagan would conclude its time to take serious action that finally solves the problem once and for all.

Reagan would not support another blanket amnesty for illegals. Nor would he support Bush`s path to citizenship, AKA. backdoor amnesty. Reagan would want to assure the borders were secured and employers were punished for their hiring of illegals in direct violation of US law. I'm confident, Reagan would even support building a wall/fence barrier along the border with Mexico. Dangerous times require serious decisions be made.

From: The Reagan Presidential Library : Remarks on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 : November 6, 1986

"This bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, that I will sign in a few minutes is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. It's the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings in the last three Congresses. Further, it's an excellent example of a truly successful bipartisan effort. The administration and the allies of immigration reform on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle worked together to accomplish these critically important reforms to control illegal immigration.

"In 1981 this administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and legalization. The act provides these three essential components.

"Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship. "

[gubamyster]

ping

[dennisw]

BTTT

[ZULU]

Ronald Reagan was a man. And far more of "Texan" than the transplanted New England wimp we have in Washington.