Thread: REPOST: Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake

Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake

Human Events
By: emeese
12/13/2006

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.

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.”

http://humanevents.com/2006/12/13/re...nesty-mistake/

Uploaded on Jun 5, 2008
Former President Ronald Reagan discusses immigration reform, amnesty, and the plight of undocumented workers.

Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010
The candidates are asked a question about the children of Illegal Immigrants attending public schools in 1980(!).

Watch how animated Poppy Bush is in his response to the question.

http://www.frumforum.com/reagan-was-no-tea-partier/
. . .
Reagan nostalgia is not at all new among Republicans, but is altogether understandable given the widely-acknowledged transformational nature of his presidency. He is a larger-than-life figure in American politics, due to his bringing together a wide swath of Americans as part of his “Reagan Revolution” electoral coalition, presiding over the end of the Cold War, and, notably, his charisma – even Democrats give him credit for being “The Great Communicator.” It is thus a no-brainer that Republican leaders would seek to venerate him, and in doing so, hope to capture some of his luster.

But the act of doing so, over and over and over again in the many years since the end of his presidency, has resulted in the blurring of his legacy. Reagan has become a blank slate upon which Republicans of all sorts project their most idealized hopes and wishful thinking.

While many in the GOP choose to remember Reagan as a doctrinaire conservative who might have supported the Tea Party movement, they conveniently forget the pragmatism that underlined his conservative principles. An avowed budget hawk, he nonetheless ran up huge deficits in order to finance a military buildup to intimidate the Soviet Union. The Americans for Tax Reform organization was founded in 1985 at his urging, and today a multitude of Republican candidates and officeholders sign their

“Taxpayer Protection Pledge’ to oppose any and all tax increases. Reagan, however, raised taxes at multiple points during his tenure as Governor of California – in order to balance the state budget – and as president – partly in order to both simplify and broaden the tax code.

Another reason he raised taxes as president, in fact, was to help pay for “government-run health care” in the form of Social Security: the Social Security Amendments of 1983 that he signed into law both accelerated an increase in the payroll tax and increased the proportion of benefits eligible as taxable income. The move arguably saved the program from fiscal insolvency, at least in the short term.

And yes, Reagan granted amnesty – read again, amnesty – to roughly 3 million illegal immigrants by signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law in 1986.

Why? Probably because he believed it was the right solution for a growing problem. “I am pleased to sign this bill into law,” he declared at the signing ceremony at the Statue of Liberty. “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.”

Reagan famously commended Republicans for “raising a banner of bold colors – no pale pastels,” but I daresay his achievements in office are colored by a streak of what some of today’s so-called conservatives might chide as something less than conservatism. Reagan might argue that the difference between rhetoric and governing can be measured by results.

http://www.frumforum.com/reagan-was-no-tea-partier/

The Human Events article by “emeese” is a good example of whywe have problems with immigration policies. Even those who say they are on our side to stop the alien invasion are busy adding caveats to weaken tough policies.

He proposes that we “…give those here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting. in line with everyone else.” No, a thousand times no. What should be proposed is this: if you are here illegally and we catch you, you never, ever get to come back here legally. That should be a far superior system to motivate self deportation (get out now before you get caught). It can be enforced with a finger print database for illegal aliens.

He also proposes that we “…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.” History has taught us that there ain’t no such thing as a “temporary” worker and even if it were possible what about anchor babies born here? What Mr. Meese should be proposing is legislation ending the abuse of the 14^th. Amendment and it’s misinterpretation. They want “temporary”workers? Make temps wear those ankle bracelets that track you everywhere you go.

The demographics of our nation has been artificially skewed to benefit Hispanic aliens. The policies that created this repopulation of America is inherently racists against Europeans. The politicians have“broken” our society now they must fix it. That means putting things back the way they were before being broken. Future immigration policies must be made to favor European immigrants and restoring the previous ethnic composition of our population.

We must push for hard-line, uncompromising policies. We must reject any fait accompli proposals. And we must end the racist policies that favor Hispanics aliens.

Originally Posted by csarbww

. . . They want “temporary”workers? Make temps wear those ankle bracelets that track you everywhere you go...

When they cut it off in the middle of the night and get on a bus for parts unknown where do you look for them tomorrow?