Reagan on Immigration

The Wall Street Journal (Reg. Req.) ^ | May 16, 2006 | Editorial Staff

[LowCountryJoe]

[snip]During the same campaign, circa December 1979, the Gipper responded to criticism from conservative columnist Holmes Alexander with the following: "Please believe me when I tell you the idea of a North American accord has been mine for many, many years. I have seen presidents, both Democrat and Republican, approach our neighbors with pre-concocted plans in which their only input is to vote 'yes.'

"Some months before I declared, I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico. I did not go with a plan. I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas -- how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence." So much for those conservatives who think the Gipper would have endorsed a 2,000-mile Tom Tancredo-Pat Buchanan wall.

[snip]In his signing statement, Reagan declared that "We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans."

[Lakeshark]

Count on what?

Ah, yes......we have an instituted policy on astrological support that all Presidents must listen and adhere to since Nancy was in office....

*rolling eyes*

[Mo1]

He isn't pushing the Senate plan .. he is telling to Senate to do their job

[Personal Responsibility]

You are 100% correct. I do not know what spurred Washington to such urgency in the last three months but I am glad to see it, even if I do not agree with every move they make. Any step up is better than the status quo.

[cake_crumb]

"The Berlin Wall was designed to keep slaves of the communist IN; the US border fence will keep illegals OUT." "

OK, now repeat after ME: "the Berlin wall was to keep slaves of the communists IN and the evil capitalists of the West OUT. A fence will be to the slaves of the federales IN and to keep the slaves of the federales OUT."

What did you THINK the thing was for? If you're gonna kick and scream about the Bush administrations attempt since 2001 to BUILD the darned thing because Bush isn't CONSERVATIVE enough build a fence, at least know what a fence is meant to do.

It's like when you put a high fence around your yard: only good climbers can get over it. Or fly over it. And will. Like they did the Berlin wall. Funny thing about slaves: if they want to be free, where there's a will there is always a way.

[Always Right]

But don't forget .. At the time that was not what was being said about Reagan It wasn't till years later that many realized he was the great President many of us already knew he was When history is told .. the same thing will be said of Bush43

I know what was said about Reagan, and Reagan could take the media and chew them up. Bush will not go down as the terrible President that the media is trying to make him, but Bush's inability to excite people and to advance his agenda will not be looked on highly by historians. Bush was right on Iraq, but as long as the Middle East remains the mess it is, Bush will get no credit. Bush will get high marks for his handling of 911, and some will give him credit for his tax cuts helping the economy. Bush's judical appointments will get high marks by conservatives. I just don't see Bush as a great president. Very good in some areas, and weak in others. With a GOP Congress, it is unexcusable that Bush was not successful at getting the budget under control.

[Paul Ross]

Ronald Reagan was always for Legal Immigration, and according to all those close to him, regretted signing the 1986 Amnesty which was indeed foisted on him by the bill's RINO handlers who lied about the enforcement provisions they promised would accompany it...which they swiftly betrayed.

He also always said:

"A nation which cannot enforce its borders soon won't be one."

Joe, you have long ago admitted you are not a conservative, and not one who is really a constitutionalist, which is the creed of this Free Republic. Nor are you a friend of the Reagan revolution which made this all possible....you may not appreciate the accuracy of this...but you are more akin to the Rockefeller Republicans. Your neo-Richy-Rich mantras conform to theirs. And this colors and warps all of your perceptions and conclusions.

Your continued reiterations of the Wall Street misrepresentations of Reagan's immigration stance was yet again recently debunked, and therein it was accurately noted that the Wall Streeters were attempting to co-opt our party:

How the GOP Lost Its Way
By Craig Shirley
Saturday, April 22, 2006

The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.

The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders.

There is nothing new about this division. It is a 40-year-old fight that has its roots in the cultural, economic, regional and ideological differences between the two camps. Still, most conservatives felt that after the victory of Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994 their point was made and the country-clubbers would know their place. They were wrong. The Rockefeller wing is now attempting to reassert its control over the party and is openly hostile toward the Reagan populists who created the Republican majority in the first place.

Major Republicans have taken to attacking others within their own party as unsophisticated nativists. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie warned populists to cease and desist from promoting "border enforcement first" legislation. "Anti-immigration rhetoric is a political siren song, and Republicans must resist its lure," he said. And in a recent editorial, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol attacked populist Republicans for not recognizing the danger of "turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know-Nothing party."

Conservatives see this kind of rhetoric as inflammatory, anti-intellectual and offensive. Far from being driven by xenophobia and intolerance, conservative populists are motivated by a profound respect for the rule of law and by a patriotic regard for America's sovereignty and national security. Upholding the rule of law and protecting our country's borders is important to conservative populists and to most Americans.

To make their argument, some establishment Republicans are invoking Ronald Reagan's name. In fact, Reagan argued that it was our government's duty to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." Reagan was pro-legal immigration, pro-patriotic assimilation and in step with other populist conservatives.

The Republican Party is now unraveling. Sept. 11, 2001, and the war on terrorism stanched a lot of wounds inside the party, but resentment is growing over ballooning Federal control of education imposing unfunded liberal mandates, prescription drug benefits, a League of Nations mentality, the growth of government and harebrained spending, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the increasing regulation of political speech in the United States and endemic corruption. On top of all the scandals, it has just come to light that the RNC paid millions in legal bills to defend operative James Tobin, who was convicted with associates in an illegal phone-jamming scheme aimed at preventing New Hampshire Democrats from voting. In doing so, the GOP appears to sanction and institutionalize corruption within the party.

The elites in the GOP have never understood conservatives or Reagan; they've found both to be a bit tacky. They have always found the populists' commitment to values unsettling. To them, adherence to conservative principles was always less important than wealth and power.

Unfortunately, the GOP has lost its motivating ideals. The revolution of 1994 has been killed not by zeal but by a loss of faith in its own principles. The tragedy is not that we are faced with another fight for the soul of the Republican Party but that we have missed an opportunity to bring a new generation of Americans over to our point of view.

All agree that the Democrats are feckless and without a plan or agenda. But most Americans are now presented with a choice between two parties that are both addicted to power -- the Democrats to government power and Republicans to corporate and governmental power. Who speaks for Main Street Reaganism?

It was the populists under Reagan, and later under Newt Gingrich, who energized the party, gave voice to a maturing conservative ideology and swept Republicans into power. We would be imprudent and forgetful to disregard this. But it may be too late, because conservatives don't want to be part of the looming train wreck. They know that this is no longer Ronald Reagan's party.

Craig Shirley, of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, is the author of "Reagan's Revolution," a book about the 1976 campaign, and is now writing "Rendezvous With Destiny" about the successful 1980 campaign. His firm has clients concerned with immigration issues.

Now, More Than Ever.

[Laptop_Ron]

I'd have to disagree with that. No action would probably be better than this amnesty they're pushing (if they ain't sending them back, it's amnesty, no matter how you want to phrase it). Once you set down the rules for them to get citizenship, we'll get even more than we are getting now.

What's the current plan? Something like having to be here for 6 years before applying? Sure, then all I have to do is cross the border and not get caught for 6 years, and then I get rewarded. Is this hide and seek or what?

[Paul Ross]

Reagan did more to promote and advance conservatism than any person in the last 100 years.

Bump!

[TAdams8591]

marking.

[Always Right]

I know what I am talking about. Reagan was my Governor before he was my President. I liked him a lot, but Nancy did consult the stars and then passed on her advice to the President. Maybe you are too young to remember.

I am plenty old enough to remember. Reagan was a very religious man and was not into Nancy's psycic nonsense. Reagan just let her use that to influence his schedule, not his policy. And that was only AFTER Reagan got shot because he wanted to put Nancy mind at ease. Her husband escaped for his life by one inch, and Nancy needed it. Don't try to make it into something it was not. You memory is not as good as you think.

[Paul Ross]

Debunked.

[soccer_maniac]

With 20/20 precision we can all see how successful Reagen's no-wall policy worked.

We may have 12-15 million illegals in the country now.

Let's just say, this wasn't one of Reagen's better decisions. I understand, however, that he could not build a wall while he asked the Soviets to tear down their walls. Times have changed and the problem has gotten much much worse.

[Paul Ross]

I am plenty old enough to remember. Reagan was a very religious man and was not into Nancy's psycic nonsense. Reagan just let her use that to influence his schedule, not his policy. And that was only AFTER Reagan got shot because he wanted to put Nancy mind at ease. Her husband escaped for his life by one inch, and Nancy needed it. Don't try to make it into something it was not. You memory is not as good as you think.

BUMP! DITTO!

President Reagan checking out of the hospital, refusing to take a wheel chair...when he really could have used it. Note how tightly he is gripping Nancy's hand, and his daughter helping hold him up. This was courage on display for all to see who knew how to.

[Pessimist]

Wow! So 1979 = 2006, huh?

Can I have my $.50 pack of cigarettes now?

[Mo1]

With a GOP Congress, it is unexcusable that Bush was not successful at getting the budget under control.

I agree the GOP Congress needs to get their act together on the spending .. but it would help if the GOP in Congress actually worked with the President instead of always fighting him

With that said .. IIRC spending was high under Reagan too .. like Reagan, Bush had to build the military back up after a horrible Dem administration of cuts

[christynsoldier]

not all of them want to come here


Welll....according to a recent Pew Research (lefty, pro illegal crowd) about 75% of Mexicans surveyed DO want to come here! Seal the Border, Build a Fence Now.

[SQUID]

Reagan = Amnesty

[Paul Ross]

Funny thing about slaves: if they want to be free, where there's a will there is always a way.

Last I checked, Mexico was not a slave-holding tyranny.

[Personal Responsibility]

Once you set down the rules for them to get citizenship, we'll get even more than we are getting now.

We won't get more once we secure the southern border.

The very first thing that should happen is that the border should be secured. This should not be contingent on anything. It should happen without regard to the current legislation. Without a secure border all other steps are stopgaps and workarounds.

It may not get to 100% secure (think: NORAD) overnight. No one can expect that, realistically. However once we can begin stopping the thousands a day from coming across, we can address the other issues.

There will be far fewer, if any, who get across and make it here 6 years. While I agree that the best case scenario is that 0 people get in illegally, it is not realistic to say "If it does not stop them 100%, its useless!"

That kind of thinking would be like saying "Since we can't catch every criminal, we shouldn't bother trying to catch any!".

Secure the borders first. Then start "drying the swamp". It's the only way this is going to work.

[Mo1]

Correct and thank you for clearing that up