Ronald Reagan on Immigration (via Volokh Conspiracy blog)

What a load . . . .

Correction:

In between, Reagan pushed for his 1979 North American accord proposal (which eventually became the NAFTA treaty), and signed the 1986 immigration reform law that amnestied almost 3 million illegal immigrants in exchange for ~~relatively weak~~ enforcement measures that were weakly enforced and almost completely ignored.

FYI, Reagan was for legal immigration!
Read what he wrote in his personal diary during the 86 amnesty bill.

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.

HE WAS FOR CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS!

I have no problem with immigration. I think our legal immigration process is an abomination and needs to be streamlined greatly. My wife used to work for an immigration lawyer bringing highly-skilled technical employees like research scientists into the country to work...the hoops they had to jump through were mind-boggling.

But I don’t think even Ronaldus Magnus could stomach the thought of twelve million illegal immigrants sitting in America, refusing to assimilate, breaking the law, bringing violent gangs and Third World diseases into our country. The scale of the problem is far, far larger than it was in 1986 when he granted amnesty.

I know most of them are reasonably honest people just here to work and better themselves. And they do work hard, that’s obvious. I’d love to have those hard-working folks back...AFTER they are sent packing back across the border and they reapply LEGALLY, and IF they are willing to either assimilate toward American citizenship, or leave after a few years. That’s it. We simply cannot be a giant job provider for the entire world.

Immigration policy must be set for the betterment of the country as a whole. Not employers, not ethnic groups, the country as a whole. Right now, that means sealing the border, mass deportations and massive tightening of restrictions on employing illegals, denying illegals the right to any welfare or aid or schooling so they leave, repeal of the “anchor baby” loophole, and English as this country’s only official language. Then, and only then, with all that in place, can we turn around and let a large number of immigrants back in, with background checks and proper controls.

}:-)4

"So your recommendation is to whistle a happy tune as we are lead to the guillotine?It may improve the last five minutes......but the end result will be the same."

You forgot to add the little "happy face" at the end. :-)

OK, she could apply for one of those special new “36-DD” visas. Not guilty!

}:-)4

LOL! Thank you!

Tragically, I have not drunk his “Margarita mix” but if it involved that girl, I would like to very much. Pity I can’t stand alcohol but I might make an exception for that girl :-).

More than anything, I think illegals are being enterprising, trying to improve life for themselves and their families, and I think that’s something worth admiring. I think there’s a huge difference between defying our borders and committing a crime of significance.

I think of illegals defying the borders as being comparable to Americans disobeying speed limits. On the highway I travel to work, the speed limit is 50 and if I obeyed the limit I would be honked at by angry drivers who all want to go 70. So I go 70 like everyone else.

Should I go 50 and obey the law, because it’s the right thing to do?

Shouldn’t it be the right thing to do what the people on the ground want, and not what distant highway authorities and legislators want?

I believe that for things like speed limits, the consensus of people on the ground is the real law and it should control. I think speed limits should be adjusted to fit that consensus.

But I know I have about as much likelihood of changing that law as I do of going to the moon.

There is a delicate political balance here because there are people who like low speed limits and yet the overwhelming majority of the population doesn’t want to see them enforced. Why do I know this? Because less than one in ten drivers obey. They vote with their accelerators.

Likewise, I think most people benefit from having illegals and yet there is a small number of people feeling bitter hatred towards them. Politics is about the tension between the two groups.

Some people have mentioned that they will consider issues surrounding poorly run health care, lousy schools, etc when the borders are sealed.

I don’t think sealing the borders is possible or cost-effective. Why not spend that money that could be spent on the fence on better law enforcement, which would help against all bad people, instead of concentrating on a group of people who are mostly not guilty?

Our schools and hospitals were poorly run and shoddy long before illegals came and so blaming their problems on illegals seems to be putting blame in the wrong place.

Moose4, I thank you for your thoughtful comment. Why not just beef up law enforcement, throw out the bad ones and let the honest ones stay? What’s the point in making them go back to their native country only to return? That sounds like a big waste to me. If they’re welcome here, they should be welcome.

Has it occured to you that maybe one reason they don’t assimilate is that people like you and those in this thread are not friendly to them? Of course they wind up in their enclaves because that’s how they can find friends and not be exposed to people hostile to them.

There was an older, hospitable America, that really believed in welcoming people from other countries if they worked hard and did well. I liked that world a lot better than the “Deport them all!” world we have now. It seems so negative.

Ronald Reagan believed in being positive, in looking at the bright side, and I think when we think of illegals so negatively we lose what Reagan taught us. Why not consider the upside?

A bigger population means more opportunities, more jobs being done, growth and dynamism. These are values we should support, and that’s my point. I’d like to see someone address that section of my argument instead of narrow mindedly saying that they’ve defied our laws, since with speed limits most of us do that every single day of the year.

I am saddened by the fact that we can’t discuss this issue without getting personal. A lot of people here have told me I’m the worst thing since moldy bread because I don’t support the Free Republic consensus on this subject. I hope you will notice that I don’t stoop to personal attacks in my responses, because I think the issue is important, interesting and deserves to be debated fairly on its own terms.

D

I think of illegals defying the borders as being comparable to Americans disobeying speed limits.

Astounding.

I believe that for things like speed limits, the consensus of people on the ground is the real law and it should control.

Fine. 69% of American adults believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted.

I don’t think sealing the borders is possible or cost-effective. Why not spend that money that could be spent on the fence on better law enforcement, which would help against all bad people, instead of concentrating on a group of people who are mostly not guilty?

Part of "controlling the borders" IS allowing local law enforcement to target illegals, THEIR EMPLOYERS and landlords. That would remove a great deal of the impetus spurring the illegal border crossing.

Our schools and hospitals were poorly run and shoddy long before illegals came and so blaming their problems on illegals seems to be putting blame in the wrong place.

The "blame" is for overburdening a system not equipped to deal them. Whether or not they were poorly run or "shoddy" beforehand is not an issue.

Has it occured to you that maybe one reason they don’t assimilate is that people like you and those in this thread are not friendly to them?

Do you use a pole vault to leap to your conclusions?

Because I want secure borders and our laws enforced, I am unfriendly to immigrants on a personal level? You're about as far off-base as you could possibly be.

Ronald Reagan believed in being positive, in looking at the bright side, and I think when we think of illegals so negatively we lose what Reagan taught us.

Ronald Reagan believed in controlling the borders and misguidedly believed that the 1986 amnesty would accomplish this.

We have the benefit, 20 years later, of knowing he was wrong because our government is unwilling to do the job entrusted to it.

Your points have been addressed. You "feel" we should be more positive. You "feel" that unfettered immigration will bring more opportunities. You equate today's illegal immigrants with the largely legal immigrants of the past.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because the very activities that you seem to think are so "positive" I believe will accelerate the destruction of this nation.

As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon points out in this book (pg. 119),
Reagan proposed a treaty allowing for full freedom of movement
for all workers throughout North America in his November
1979 speech announcing his candidacy for the presidency.

That was a brilliant bit of politics.
The odds that the protectionists of Canada and the patrons of
Mexico would bite at that one were probably effectively zero.

And if they had, we'd probably have a real United States super-state
stetching from the Artic to the southern border of Mexico.

If Canada and Mexico ever go for real reciprocity, that deal might fly.

Until then, let's secure our border and fully document who is
coming in and our of our country.
And more fully ensure that those coming here have to play by
the rules.
JUST LIKE legal US residents.

A lot of people here have told me I’m the worst thing since
moldy bread because I don’t support the Free Republic consensus
on this subject.

Gosh, my perception is there is a broad spectrum of opinion here.
All along the line from free-market "tear up the immigration laws"
to "deport 'em all now" advocates.
And even middle-of-the-road folks.

Getting all the varying opinions has certainly helped me more
fully define my opinions on the illegal immigration situation.
I suspect there are very few forums on the net with this range
of opinions and fact-checking, as well as linkage to source articles.

I'm not negative about immigration. I am negative about ILLEGAL immigration.

Ditto. Word-for-word.

An "undocumented immigrant" is an unconvicted felon.

There is plenty of economic activity in this country that could not exist without the contributions of illegals. I believe that overall the nation benefits from this.

Sorry, believe what you want, but all studies prove you are wrong. If we didn't have 20 million aliens in this country, we wouldn't need all the JOBS, HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS, etc. that they use, would we?

Now as for trying to use Reagan as your excuse...forget that.

What Would Reagan Do? A look into The Reagan Diaries for immigration help.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839762/posts

I think Ed Meese knew Reagan a lot better than you and he disagrees with you completely.

[snip]"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.

Lou Cannon is an avowed lefty, who long really opposed Reagan. Sort of cheeky, for someone like him to do a Reagan biography. He always tried to exaggerate the supposed contradictions. And as for the '79 statement that was always intended to be a millennialist goal. As for the '86 Amnesty...his diary makes clear that in fact he had been promised cooperation on border security...and that was what he was really angling for.

And the '89 address actually is pretty inspiring,but also implies very clearly that the US is a challenge to get into..why would that be for Mexicans? Ergo...They have to become admitted, and become citizens.

Ronald Reagan was a liberal in 1952. He never lost some of his liberalism.

Do border, language, common culture or history mean anything to you?
What do you think we are "conserving"?

I think of America as a set of ideas more than a firm border.

Some of the ideas include that of hospitality to those outside of its borders, a long-standing tradition here.

I happen to find that tradition very appealing and find it very sad that many people speak so negatively of it.

I also appreciate another American tradition, one of defiance of rules many consider unjust, and using that defiance to change the rules.

Let me flip this over for a minute. I think you understand now why I like the idea of open borders - it is hospitality, and fair dealing with people who genuinely want to work. They want to help us out, doing jobs most of us don’t want to do, and in return all they ask is to be left alone.

I just don’t see anything bad about this.

So tell me, what’s so great about closed borders? Why is inhospitality, turning your back to people, so appealing to you? Why do you want to separate willing workers from employers which need employees?

Why not let people work who want to work?

I like to see a nation that grows, and a society that is open minded and receptive to all who do not threaten or oppose its core values. Many Muslims do oppose our core values, and I’m right with you in wanting to throw them out. But the hispanic immigrants who are 99% of this situation are Catholic, support our core values and just want the opportunity to work hard and succeed like Americans do.

Tell me why this is so bad.

D

(Please ignore the impact on the health and educational system. I’d like to hear what is wrong with having them here, not how their kids are educated or their health is treated. I want to understand about the principle of borders itself and why you consider it important. Frankly, I think if there was no impact at all on our educational or medical systems, you would still want to get rid of illegals, and I want to know why this is.)

America is not an idea. Have you actually thought of the consequences of your theory.
1. Anyone who holds your beliefs are American.
2. Any place where this is held is American.
3. Those who disagree with you are not American.
4. Any place where your views are not held is not America.

For you, most of our historic cities are not American, but parts of Australia would be.
For you 1/3 Americans are not American. Although, I wonder if it has occurred to you that many foreigners and their children fail to immigrate. The illegals you love are therefore turning American soil into non-America.
The logical consequence of your argument holds that illegal immigrants are a threat!

A country is based not only on laws but also on a culture. The Founding Fathers were all Anglo-American and their arguments fell along these lines.
No governing system is independent of the values of its citizens. In keeping with the ideas of the founders, we believe that only a virtuous country can remain free. The United States was founded by men who shared a common British heritage and Protestant values. This culture of liberty has been the thread that has held us together and has kept us from the fate of other Republics. The loss of these ideals virtues through a failure to transmit these to posterity and to assimilate immigrants is an existential threat to the United States greater than that of any foreign power. Our education and immigration policies must suit the needs of this nation and our posterity, not those of special interests.

I think of America as a set of ideas more than a firm border.

Please see http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000444.html

America: proposition nation?

There isn't much more inhuman in our national life than the notion that the United States is a "creedal" or "propositional" nation. We need something to hold us together, so it is said, and we don't have blood and soil, which sounds Nazi anyway, so we have to rely on our national creed - the proposition that all men are created equal. It is acceptance of that creed that makes us American, and since anyone can accept it, anyone from anywhere can become an American immediately simply by saying the magic words, while otherwise staying just as he is.

So what's wrong with the idea? Lots:

The more insistent people get that America is a propositional nation the more conclusions they try to extract from the notion of equality. Equality quickly becomes destructive, however, because all it can tell you is that nothing can have any quality that makes it different from anything else. A little equality may be good, as a restraint on other things and as recognition of certain respects in which we are indeed equal, but it becomes crushing and inhuman when made the sole basis of a constitution. It doesn't help to add liberty, since on the abstract line of thought proposed liberty turns out to be identical with equality--everyone has the same right to get his own way. (If the two weren't the same why would the ACLU be so strongly committed to diversity, inclusiveness, affirmative action and all the rest of it?)
If a nation is creedal the people can't be self-governing. The creed's coherence requires an authorized interpreter, and whoever the interpreter is gets to tell everyone else what to think and do, and no backtalk. Since dissent from the creed is a direct attack on the social order, the more the implications of the creed get translated directly into law the narrower the range of permissible opinion. If the creed is liberty and equality it will therefore turn out in practice to be a form of those things that is indistinguishable from servitude.
What happens to people who are born American of American parents, live in America, marry American, have American children, work for a living, obey the law, pay their taxes and mow their lawns, but decide they reject the creed? Do they suddenly become not American? What's so tolerant, inclusive and un-mean-spirited about that? Shouldn't there be an essential difference between a nation and a political movement?
Does anyone anywhere have the right not to be an American? If being an American is simply accepting human equality, and if accepting human equality is incontestibly right and refusing it is simply embracing discrimination, oppression and violence, then why shouldn't it be universally compulsory? If American government is based on a universal proposition and not on particularist claims and loyalties, then why doesn't whatever right American government has to rule America apply equally to Madagascar?

For all these reasons it's wrong to view America as a propositional nation. America is a particular group of people living together in one place under common institutions and joined together by their history as such, and by the beliefs, attitudes and habits, the loyalties and aversions, the personal and family ties, and even the distinctions and disputes that have grown out of that history. To reduce all those human realities to a proposition is unforgivable. It is certainly legitimate to propose that our life together be inspired by certain truths about man and the common good. The practical function of defining America as a propositional nation, however, is to foreclose discussion of just what those truths are. It is to abolish America as a human reality in the interests of America as the ideological project of a manipulative elite.

Posted by Jim Kalb