A Voice of Reason: Sane Views for a Crazy World

May 18, 2007

The Immigration Bill – What Would Reagan Say?

In the hubub for the GOP to take on the mantle of Ronald Reagan, one has to wonder what would The Great Communicator say about the bill being proposed about illegal aliens. I think he would have supported it.

This is from Otis Graham’s Reagan’s Big Mistake.

While I disagree with the title, I do agree with the facts.

Reagan did have a place in his mind and a rhetoric on the matter of immigration. His was the sentimentalist, Statue of Liberty conception so widely shared among assimilated Americans of his day who could not remember when immigration had been a problem. In one of the few references to immigration in his published state papers covering his eight years in the White House, Reagan displayed in 1984 the then-dominant language of diversity celebration when he told an audience of naturalizing immigrants that immigrants “enlivened the national life with new ideas and new blood,” and “enrich us” with “a delightful diversity.”

I guess The Gipper wouldn’t have minded some of the positive aspects of multiculturalism.

In May 1981, Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.), chairman the Senate subcommittee on immigration, sought to confer with the president prior to Reagan’s scheduled meeting with Mexican President Lopez Portillo in order to urge the administration to keep American options open on immigration. But the meeting lasted only 15 minutes. Reagan listened to Simpson’s views and limited himself to a broad promise of co-operation. Congress therefore assumed the lead in immigration reform, though Simpson, in, the words of a White House staff memo to Reagan, had “indicated his willingness to ‘carry the administration’s water’ on this issue.” They carried different water, as it turned out.

Simpson sensed from his early contacts with White House aides that cooperation with Reagan was shaky. To start with, the president’s newly appointed Immigration Task Force was leaning toward an expansion of legal immigration. One important bias appeared to shape the Task Force’s deliberations from the start. In the words of one White House staffer, “The President is himself a firm believer in a high degree of freedom in immnigration”.

This means that he wanted to “liberalize” immigration policy. If observers had expected a conservative government to shift the policy options toward firmer law enforcement while condemning liberal laxity, they were surprised.

Reagan’s own short message announcing these proposals could have been written by Ted Kennedy. He began with the ritual incantation that “Our nation is a nation of immigrants” which would always welcome more to our shores. But the “Cuban influx to Florida” required more effective policies that will “preserve our tradition of accepting foreigners to our shores, but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion … consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.”

Hmm… Ted Kennedy and Reagan. Ted Kennedy and Bush. Coincidence, I think not. Reagan and Bush were in many ways true progressives in that they understood that America stands for uplifting the human condition. Despite some of his views, which I disagree with profoundly, I would submit that in many instances, this view is more consistently found in Sen. Kennedy, and his staff, than in many of those current Republicans who think they model Reagan.

Ronald Reagan called himself a conservative, but on immigration, he was not. On this issue, conservative Ronald Reagan, in a moment of critical import, lined up with the liberals, and his historical reputation should reflect this.

As Reagan did, so does President Bush, and for the most part, on this issue, I agree. But maybe that bastion of liberalism the Cato Institute sums it up best.

“Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work. In a radio address in 1977, he noted that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. “It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do?” Reagan asked. “One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.”

Compare Reagan’s hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

Amen and Amen.

5 Comments »

  1. How romantic. Julian Simon would be proud. But the rest of us have to live in the real world. Do you really think we need more people in the U.S.? How many more? Is there a limit? Does every person in the world who could theoretically hold a job have a divine right to live in America? If so, should we not go get them and bring them all here? I’m just asking because you think being expansive and inclusive is so wonderful.

    Comment by Angel — May 19, 2007 @ 1:49 am | Reply

  2. Angel, There is a LOT of space in the US and a lot of room for the economy to grow.

    I don’t know if everyone in America has a divine right to live here, nor do I think that I or you have any such “inherent” right, as our being born here was a matter of luck. While we each have likely done things to make our lives better, the odds for us being born here were much lower than being born in some other place, which is not likely better.

    While I have concerns about the problem of our borders, I have concerns which are as great with the thin veneer that covers an underlying racism towards other people. Are there real immigration problems, yes, of course there are, and I would like to see better security for the border, and worry about enforcement. However, the extreme handwringing over this issue is sickening, and the drivel being spoken on many blogs – is borderline hateful.

    People of good conscience can disagree on this issue, however, it seems that emotionalism rather than objective thinking is taking pre-eminence in many minds.

    I also thought that since every Tom, Dick and Harry want to run with the mantle of Reagan that his actions and his record should be considered. He was much more progressive than the current climate, and our economy is growing at a faster rate than it was under his Presidency, so yes, I think there is still a lot of room in the US.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — May 19, 2007 @ 3:43 am | Reply

  3. That first comment wasnt me..btw…
    but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion …..the latest illegals are hardly controlled or orderly my friend!..good read~!

    Comment by Angel — May 20, 2007 @ 3:33 am | Reply

  4. I live in California. Record cropland loss occurs because population growth must be accomodated and population growth is due to immigration:

    http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_045190319.html

    California has also lost a greater % of our wetlands than any other state. Urbanization also degrades our California Floristic Province, one of only 34 biodiversity ‘hotspots’ in the world.

    avoice, don’t just look at room or space. Think of resources. People are pouring into the Southwest but how long can exponential population growth occur when the supply of water is finite?

    Population growth also creates even greater dependence on foreign energy. Aside from more pollution, this is a national security issue.

    Population growth has got to be the crudest instrument there is to marginally increase GDP. What about per capita GDP? My focus is what’s good for our land and what’s good for the average American. Not just now but going forward.

    Comment by Angel — May 20, 2007 @ 11:26 pm | Reply

  5. This is exactly what I don’t get. All of us conservatives looooooove Reagan and I love Bush too. And when it comes to immigration Reagan and Bush are twins but Reagan gets a pass and Bush gets crucified for it. I get that its a problem but don’t understand why Bush is the one to get all the flack for it. It seems totally unfair.

    Comment by Little Miss Chatterbox — May 21, 2007 @ 12:14 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: