Posted on 05/25/2007 10:26:24 AM PDT by AuntB
Today is the official release date for The Reagan Diaries. Ronald Reagan was one of a handful of American presidents who kept a daily journal while in office. Historian Douglas Brinkley has gone through them and edited the volume that hits bookstores today.
No doubt there is something for everyone in there. But particularly timely is an entry from October 16, 1986, in which President Reagan wrote:
Thursday, October 16 Al Simpson came by to see if he had my support. After 5 yrs. of trying (during which I’ve been on his side) the House finally passed his immigration bill. They have one or two amendments we could do without but even if the Sen. In conf. cannot get them out, I’ll sign. It’s high time we regained control of our borders and this bill will do this.
Reagan did, in fact, sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. And, in case you didn’t notice, the bill didn’t exactly do what Reagan thought it would. “The 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem,” Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese acknowledged in the New York Times last year — for the benefit of the blind, I guess.
Commenting on last year’s version of the McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive” immigration package, Meese wrote:
In the mid-80’s, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, 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.
Beyond this, most 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.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants 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. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term “amnesty” in Black’s Law Dictionary, and you’ll find it says, “the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.”
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that’s the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today’s bill are both amnesties.
Twenty-one years later, Washington debates another immigration bill. Meese’s colleague Brian Darling, the Heritage Foundation’s director of Senate relations, warns: “This compromise is much more harmful for America than the ’86 amnesty. The Z-Visa and pathway to citizenship contain minimal fees and fines that don’t change the fact that this is a 1986 style Amnesty. The triggers new deportable offenses and border security are window dressing for the massive Amnesty Z visas. This is the 1986 Amnesty all over again on a massive scale.”
What would Reagan do? For a start, he’d probably look to history, and avoid making the same miscalculation twice.
I don’t think he would make the same mistake twice.
Agreed. He wouldn't make the same mistake twice. His Diary shows he was serious about the promise of border security which was what concerned him....
Confronted with the evidence that the other "partners" in the legislation would never keep their word, and that any Amnesty was a one-sided deal, he would never do that again.
I’m sure he wouldn’t.
The year is 1907, one hundred years ago......
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907."In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
“Twenty-one years later, Washington debates another immigration bill. Meese’s colleague Brian Darling, the Heritage Foundation’s director of Senate relations, warns: “This compromise is much more harmful for America than the ’86 amnesty. The Z-Visa and pathway to citizenship contain minimal fees and fines that don’t change the fact that this is a 1986 style Amnesty. The triggers new deportable offenses and border security are window dressing for the massive Amnesty Z visas. This is the 1986 Amnesty all over again on a massive scale.”
It’s obvious the government doesn’t take the simple steps to stop illegal immigration because they don’t want to stop it. The Republican leadership (notice I didn’t say rank-and-file Republican voters) want the lower wage costs for businesses this bill would produce.
What will happen to the wage level of truck drivers when 20 million formerly illegal immigrants will be able to legally get driver’s licenses and get jobs as truck drivers? Their wages will drop like a rock.
Normalizing illegal immigrants will allow them to compete in jobs and industrys they couldn’t before (such as trucking.) Lower wage levels may be good for business, but is it really good for the country as a whole?
The majority of Americans have no college education, and a significant number don’t graduate high school. These Americans compete directly with illegal immigrants for jobs. Now we’re going to make it easier for illegal immigrants to compete with them?
Ronald Regan said a rising tide lifts all boats. This bill will benefit industry, and the middle class (who won’t have to pay as much for food and other items due to the lower cost of wages built into them), but it will take people in the lower-middle class (such as truck drivers) and knock them in the lower class.
Is expanding the lower class (and the associated economic/social/political problems) really what we want? Regan would look for a solution that helped every American. Not just some Americans at the expense of others.
Reagan was in favor of hard-working people coming into this country. Reagan did want it controlled. Reagan did not view immigrants as stealing jobs from Americans.
Also in 1986, Reagan agreed to a tax increase, under the guise of tax and paperwork simplification, on the promise of the Democrats that they would cut spending two dollars for every one dollar tax increase. Of course they never intended to keep that promise and instead blamed Reagan for the increased spending and the resulting deficits. When he refused to sign some of the increased spending the Democrats shut down the government by cutting off the funding and blamed Reagan for that also.
The Democrats are crafty charlatans with zero morals.
BTT
Interesting ‘opinion’ in contrast to this article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1839593/posts?page=13
What a difference a century makes.
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.