Anti-Immigrant is Anti-Reagan?

[Taxman]

This errant strand of conservatism is dumb economics, dumber politics and decidedly un-Reaganesque. In his farewell address, President Reagan--who used to receive a third of the Latino vote that Tom Tancredo, Lamar Smith and other myopic Republican lawmakers are so eager to concede to Democrats--spoke about a Shining City that's "teeming with people of all kinds" and has "doors open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here." These pages, for more than three decades under the tutelage of our late editor, Bob Bartley, have promoted a similarly optimistic take on immigration and how it serves the country's interests. Our history as a nation of immigrants informs this view, but so do certain demographic realities on the horizon.

Foreigners have always served to enrich our culture, replenish our work force, keep us competitive globally and save us from heading where stagnant, immigrant-averse Europeans and Asians have already arrived. In the coming decades, a proper immigration policy will be needed more than ever. The sooner Republicans settle this intraparty spat and start listening to their inner-Reagan, the better off they'll be.

Full article here.

An "off-line" friend of mine gave this to me the other day and I was interested what others thought about it.

[TXNavy]

I absolutely concur. Reagan was pro-immigration and pro-free trade. The people who are against these things in the GOP are the same people who voted for Perot's populist BS.

[chris]

Was Reagan pro Illegal Immigration?Do any of you have a clue about the outlines he took with his drug czar about how to seal the border?July 1986

[Fuzzball]

BY JASON L. RILEY

Just who is this dufus?

I'm sorry, but as a conservative, I take exception to this jerk stating MY convictions as if he knows what they are.

I have no problem with LEGAL immigration. I have a problem with the border crossers because they have proven that they will break our laws just by being here.

If that makes me anti-Reagan, then perhaps I didn't know him as well as Jason Riley thinks he does.

Personally, I think Jason Riley is just a whiney liberal who see's an end to illegal immigration as a loss of votes for the Rats and he felt the need to whine in public.

[Fuzzball]

Originally posted by TXNavy:
I absolutely concur. Reagan was pro-immigration and pro-free trade. The people who are against these things in the GOP are the same people who voted for Perot's populist BS.

What is it about illegally entering this country that is somehow supported by the idea of Free Trade?

And to add to that, doesn't "Free Trade" imply a cooperation between two parties/countries? What the hell is cooperative about hundreds of thousands of people illegally crossing the border?

TxNavy, I don't often disagree with you on issues, but I think we are on polar opposites of this one. Can you justify allowing people to walk across the borders and become full fledged participants in what this country offers, especially when they arrive with empty pockets? At what point is it politically correct to cry uncle?

[Taxman]

There is a huge difference between your average illegal and drug runners. You are either ignorant of that fact or refuse to recognize it.

Beyond that, how many Italians or Irish snuck in at the beginning of the last century? Was that as evil as you suggest the current wave to be?

[Taxman]

There is a huge difference between your average illegal and drug runners. You are either ignorant of that fact or refuse to recognize it.

Beyond that, how many Italians or Irish snuck in at the beginning of the last century? Was that as evil as you suggest the current wave to be?

[TXNavy]

Originally posted by Fuzzball:

TxNavy, I don't often disagree with you on issues, but I think we are on polar opposites of this one. Can you justify allowing people to walk across the borders and become full fledged participants in what this country offers, especially when they arrive with empty pockets? At what point is it politically correct to cry uncle?

Of course not. But we're all trying to make generalizations here [img]smile.gif[/img]

For starters, no one is suggesting allowing anyone and everyone to just waltz across the border and absorb Social Security benefits. The President never said that, and I've never said that. What has been proposed is really just a new worker's permit. Not citizenship, a university education, free parking passes, or whatever it is that people believe this is about. Its a realistic solution to a lot of problems, but we've been through that N times already.

Getting away from the amnesty proposal though, and back into general terms, there are a lot of Ross Perot wannabes out there who would like to keep immigrant workers and foreign companies out of American competition. It simply doesn't work in the long term, and its not very conservative at all.

[Fuzzball]

TX, you already brought me around to your way of thinking on the issue of the amnesty. I saw your points and eventually agreed that they make sense.

That being said, I don't think dufus boy writing in the WSJ is only talking about that. When I read his words I read that he wants NOTHING done about illegal immigration, and therefore I MUST separate what he is saying here from the Amnesty debate.

This guy is finding a thin thread of agreement between peoples and politics and making superhighways out of them.

I don't see it is anti-immigration to expect people to enter this country lawfully, but this guy does.

End of rant!!

[TXNavy]

Well, okay, but I didn't get that at all from the article. I believe he was criticizing the Republicans who are against the President's amnesty proposal.

In addition to raising immigration quotas, President Bush wants to normalize the status of millions of hardworking illegals already here and making a contribution. The law-and-order tub-thumpers on the right denounce any such talk as amounting to an "amnesty" that ultimately rewards lawbreakers. That's a fair point, and their only legitimate one, but it doesn't suffice as an argument that advances the debate.

Our current illegal immigration problems result from a policy at war with the law of supply and demand, a war that pro-growth conservatives understand is as unwise as it is unnecessary. Short of mass alien deportations at gunpoint, which would damage the economy and aren't likely to fly well with the public, any transition to a more sensible system will involve some sort of decriminalization.

And the president is attempting to do just that--bring some sense to the system. Post-9/11, a guest-worker program that invites illegals to join the above-ground economy only makes us safer. It means less time chasing workers essential to our economic well-being and more time sorting through genuine terror risks.

I looked again, I just couldn't find anything in there saying "don't do anything about illegal immigration." He seems to only voice support for the amnesty program. But then, I'm also trying to get out of here quickly so I can get a haircut before the shop closes!