At Ronald Reagan Library, GOP Candidates Reject Ronald Reagan's Immigration Vision
“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Reagan said in 1984.

When Republican presidential candidates spoke about immigration and the border during last night's debate, they devoted little time to the very real ways immigrants benefit the country. Instead, they leaned into catastrophic rhetoric and harsh proposals.
"Every county in America is now a border county," claimed Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.). "Right now, Americans are not safe," said former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley during remarks about border crossings, proposing a "catch and deport" policy. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy went so far as to suggest a likely unconstitutional plan to end "birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal immigrants" here. "We want you here in this country to fill the 6 million vacant jobs we have, but only if you come here to follow the law," said former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, failing to explain just how difficult it is for willing workers to immigrate here legally. Haley and former Vice President Mike Pence both nodded to the need to fix the broken immigration system, but they never got more specific than that.
The overarching tone on the issue was disappointing—and it was downright contradictory, given the debate venue. Though the candidates spoke from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, their rhetoric had little in common with the way the 40th president talked about immigration.
"Unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world," said Reagan, calling the ability to attract newcomers "one of the most important sources of America's greatness." Immigrants help ensure that the U.S. remains "a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier," he continued. "If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost."
It was the last speech he delivered as president and it was, as some have called it, a "love letter to immigrants." And though he made no distinction between "legal" and "illegal," Reagan was broadly willing to treat immigrants with humanity.
"Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit?" he said during the 1980 Republican primary debate. Four years later, during a presidential debate with Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, he explained, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally." Reagan would follow through on that statement by signing an amnesty bill into law in 1986. Any immigrant who entered the U.S. prior to 1982 was made eligible for a pathway to citizenship, ultimately extending amnesty to nearly 3 million immigrants.
"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," Reagan said on the day he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). "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."
The IRCA had its carrots and its sticks: It granted amnesty, but it was also designed to penalize employers for hiring undocumented immigrants. The law "was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage," noted NPR in 2010. "The law also didn't include a mechanism to allow for the legal entry of low-skilled foreign workers," noted The Arizona Republic's Dan Nowicki in 2018, "so when the U.S. economy boomed in the 1990s and early 2000s, the labor demands were met by new undocumented immigrants."
There are plenty of reasons to criticize the IRCA and its intentions. Failing to establish a generous legal pathway for workers was a huge mistake. Still, the law provides important insight into Reagan's willingness to dignify both legal and illegal immigrants, and it helps highlight just how far the modern GOP is from his stance.
It's now more politically expedient for Republican candidates to call for mass deportations than to push for specific, meaningful immigration reform or talk as glowingly about immigrants as Reagan did in the 1980s. That's a shame—and as Reagan warned in that final speech, "our leadership in the world" could "soon be lost" because of it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Really subtle reference to 1984 - - - - - - - -
Hey Reason there is an impeachment inquiry going on. This time with real records like bank records, emails, phone calls, text messages, shell companies and business partners testimony, not some fantasy gotten from colluding with the Russians called the Steele dossier.
You might want to cover that.
Doesn't fit the agenda.
There is also a government shutdown looming and instead of that being a priority we had a 6-hour hearing where the Republican called witnesses testified that there is not evidence to impeach.
Must have slipped your mind:
https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1707440996047294786
The House can answer these troubling questions when they have finished their job of setting the budget.
...the Republican called witnesses testified that there is not evidence to impeach.
I think we both know you're being disingenuous.
No, what I am saying is that based on what evidence the committee has this meeting was wrong. Get the budget done and then you can have this committee meeting. At this point the House sole focus should be getting the budget for the country done, other things can wait.
Buy Old Gmail Accounts from ProMxs
Looking to buy old Gmail accounts? Correct Gmail login address, password, correct access to Gmail is provide. Gmail new account, google account
Replay and contact 24/7 Live Support
E-mail : promxs24@gmail.com
WhatsApp : +1(315) 514-9654
Telegram : @promxs
Skype : promxs
https://promxs.com/product/buy-old-gmail-accounts/
#Buy_Old_Gmail_Accounts
#promxs
#old_gmail_accounts
#new_gmail_accounts
#gmail_accounts
>>“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,”
okay, but Ronbo wasn't looking at 10,000 a day did you ask him about the increase in numbers?
Part we like to ignore: Reagan didn't offer illegal immigrants free healthcare and housing.
>>Reagan would follow through on that statement by signing an amnesty bill into law in 1986.
whaddya know? actual congressional function in 1986
Does she mention that Dems utterly failed to live to their part of that agreement?
^ Good point.
Are you saying Reagan wouldn’t approve of kicking 95 yo veterans out of nursing homes to house migrants?
Water, sewer, food, daycare, Wi-Fi, phones, cellular plan and taxpayers funding privately owned hotel rooms, sometimes 5 star, and best of all fluff and fold services.
Finally Reagan's dream comes true!
We don't ignore that, leftists like Fiona do.
Lol. If there’s one thing you can count on, it’s progs living in the past.
In later years Reagan expressed regret for having singed that bill. Which was supposed to put an end to what we are still experiencing today. This article is bullshit, and so is Fiona.
"Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people," Reagan said upon signing the legislation. "... Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."
Sure doesn't sound like he wanted open borders did it.
Absolutely.
Doesn't sound like it, because he didn't. Not at all. The whole point of the amnesty was to have a fresh starting point, but it devolved from there.
And it won't ever happen. The well was poisoned 30 years ago for Republicans, and Democrats certainly can't do anything about it because their rhetoric has been that anyone wanting to control Illegal Immigration is a Racist (so vote team D!). Not that they want to, they are still milking the Hispanic vote.
Why solve a problem when its very existence gets you elected?
One of the reasons Obama and dems rejected the 2007 bill with Bush was the fact it didn't include amnesty, but work permits. That is what Reagan actually endorsed. Allowances to work here with a job, but not live or become a citizen here just for crossing a border. On top of that the agreement was broken because it required a flip of the 86 bill requiring upgrades to the ALREADY AGREED to terms of the 86 in securing the border including a visa exit system to track over stays. Bush didn't even ask for much more in terms of security, just what the Dems already promised and reneged on in the 86 agreement.
"Fool me thrice... go fuck yourself for number four."
Yeah, this article is retarded propagandist bullshit.
Charlie Brown should have aimed the third kick at Lucy's head.
Yep, and the reindeer games over the 2007 immigration bill was one of the final nails in the GOP base's alliance with the neocons, who showed that they were so addicted to the concept of "compromise" that they'd essentially just cave in to whatever the Dems wanted, because the Dems actually possessed the will to power that the neocons never did.
IIRC, Bush, initially was going to go with amnesty, but the White House's phone lines melted down with objecting citizens.
At Ronald Reagan Library, GOP Candidates Reject Ronald Reagan's Immigration Vision
As did labor Democrats of the time.
Fuck Reagan, fuck Fiona, Fuck globohomo Reason, and fuck the invasion of our homeland.
All of those who are NOT Native Americans should go BACK to where they came from! Actually.... ALL humans should go BACK to Africa, where they came from! Else ye xenophobes are all hypocrites, so start packing yer bags for Africa! Humans are NOT from this that them thar here neck of the woods!
https://twitter.com/anglotradboy/status/1707420173353750746?t=zXVaSDwFaOi1mjLeazRdSw&s=19
Every single drop of American blood spilled in the last 120 years has been for absolutely nothing
[Link]
saw that. shitty.
Rough luck, but at least the Canadians gave two standing ovations to a real global WW2 hero- a fucking Nazi. Canadians care about WW2 veterans but only if they’re NAZIs.
Know who else is Canadian? I'll give you a clue. First name is "Mother's" and last name is "Lament".
Ideas!
Stop attacking leftists like Trudeau or sarc will be forced to provide more ideas!
Sarc just loves “classic “ Nazis.
That’s why he wants to go down on George sore-ass.
The guy was a decorated WW2 soldier……. For the Germans. So he was a hero to Hitler.
Good enough for PM Zoolander I suppose.
You mean prime minister blackface?
Yes!
We don’t currently have “leadership of the world” because of criminal aliens.
Reagan amnesty deal was a one time offer in exchange to secure and go after future illegal immigration. That was literally the deal. Dems never allowed the 2nd part of that deal.
Fiona, do at least a baseline amount of research on subjects you want to write about.
She’s just a half-wit propagandist.
Quarter wit maybe……
I am reasonably certain that Fiona knows what the other part of the deal was and just chooses to ignore it.
Just like the Democrats in the 80s.
She's either that ignorant or expects readers to be that ignorant. I really don't know if she's just stupid or evil.
Embrace the power of and.
C'mon Fiona. Everyone knows that illegals aren't human beings. They're illegal. They're on par with invasive animals like wild pigs, and they should be treated accordingly. We need to elect Trump so he can hand out hunting licenses for illegals. Put bounties on them. Pay by the scalp.
And sarc jumps to strawman arguments after having his idiocy refuted so may times.
These are the Ideas! Sarc wants more of here.
Oddly enough he only wants other people to pay for the costs and negative outcomes of his preferences. He has never donated a dime to helping an illegal immigrant.
A strawman is something that is set up and then knocked down.
You know, like when you make up what I believe and then argue against it.
The post you are replying to is what naturally happens when a group of people are declared to be an enemy and dehumanized. For most people it's not easy to kill another person. But if they're not viewed as human, well that's a different story.
We've got you, Nardz, GG and others (not to mention the former president) declaring that illegals are not humans. They're invaders. They're parasites. They're criminals. Anything but human beings. Why? To make it easier to kill them.
Except no one here says illegal immigrants aren't human (maybe Nardz, but I can't say for sure). That's the strawman.
In fact, the only people who I can recall saying that are the one's who argue against the anti-illegal immigration people. Old Mex use to do the same thing, namely try to paint anyone who disagreed with his stance on immigration as sociopathic xenophobes.
I'm not saying that everyone who has a hardon against illegal immigrants is a sociopath. Quite the opposite. My point is that dehumanization allows people to behave as if they were sociopaths. That's what makes it dangerous and something to watch out for.
Your point you attempt to claim here is nowhere in your initial lie of your opponents retard.
You created a strawman argument unsourced or cited because you continue to lose every argument involving illegal immigration. You've devolved into inserting attempted moral arguments to win an argument you are not intelligent enough to win.
I wasn't talking to you.
I was talking to a mind that discusses ideas, not the people with them.
Defend your assertion behind the strawman. Youre failing so far.
I think that most of us can agree that dehumanization allows people to mentally divorce themselves from the atrocities they visit on others.
I was just pointing out that the people you spar with on a daily basis here aren't generally doing that. Hyperbolic strawmen inevitably devolves the thread for no reason other than to tweak the other side (not that I'm not guilty of that myself from time to time).
Especially if there’s scapegoating going on. Show me some mass murder in the past, and I’ll show you some group that was blamed for the country’s economic and cultural woes. That group became dehumanized, regular people became complicit, and then terrible things happened.
So when you see this or that group being scapegoated and dehumanized, listen up. Be aware. Because human nature is the same as it ever was.
Show me some mass murder in the past, and I’ll show you some group that was blamed for the country’s economic and cultural woes.
Then do it.
Vegas shooting. Go.
I'm obviously talking about atrocities perpetrated by government and society, not individuals.
But you know that.
Manifest Destiny, Armenian genocide, Holocaust, Great Leap Forward, Killing Fields...
Man. Already backtracking on your broad assertions at the heart of your argument.
Fine. 100 years war.
Killing fields. Genghis kahn. Alexander the great. Roman conquest. Japanese unification.
I mean can can go through dozens of examples based on just economic, political, or territorial disputes having nothing to do as viewing someone as non human.
Your entire argument is straight ignorance.
That was a war, idiot. I'm talking about Stalin starving the Ukraine, or the Rwandan genocide where people were hacking up their neighbors with machetes. In all these cases you've got some marginalized group that is dehumanized, and then...
Back tracks even further. Lol.
Maybe if you keep backtracking you’ll form a cogent argument and finally realize it has zero connection to the debate surrounding illegal immigration, which was your initial strawman attempt.
This is pathetic sarc.
Stalin didn’t starve the Ukrainians due to a view they weren’t human you fucking retard.
Dehumanization refers to the denial of full humanity in others, along with the cruelty and suffering that accompany it. It is the viewing and treatment of other people as though they lack the mental capacities commonly attributed to human beings.1
Please show where Stalin thought the bolded.
Or course they were dehumanized. They were kulaks and wreckers. Saboteurs. Enemies of the State.
You defended your wrong assertion of dehumanization by making a political definition of the reasons?
Full retard achieved.
Even being given the definition for dehumanization you dont understand it. Weird.
Did the US view citizens of Hiroshima as not human too?
“the” definition? You must have looked hard for that definition. Because when I typed “dehumanization meaning” into google, I got this on the first try:
de·hu·man·i·za·tion /ˌdēˌ(h)yo͞omənəˈzāSH(ə)n,ˌdēˌ(h)yo͞oməˌnīˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: dehumanization; noun: dehumanisation
the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities.
“the consequences of systematic dehumanization of one racial group in a society can be horrific”
You’re not arguing in good faith. Fuck off.
They were kulaks and wreckers. Saboteurs. Enemies of the State.
Those are POLITICAL descriptors you retarded fuck. They are not descriptors pertaining to humanization.
You again prove you are too retarded to understand the words you attempt to use.
You’re not arguing in good faith. Fuck off.
Because I understand what words mean? LOL.
You started with an admitted strawman. Then switched to calling it hyperbole. Then demanded examples, when given you backtracked. More examples given, you back track more. Give an example incorrectly using a word, then get pissed off when it is pointed out you misused the word.
What good faith do you think you are doing here? I have answered each one of your retarded attempts at this argument.
Um, currently the people being blamed for our woes are white people by other white people. It's heavily promoted in government, schools and of all places corporations. It's actually hate talk that with "Slavs" and "Jews" replaced by "white people" could easily have been lifted from any of Hitler's rantings.
Different people have different scapegoats. So what you say is true, but not as a blanket statement.
Illegal immigrants are human.
They're also invaders, some more hostile than others.
Leftists aren't people.
Know your enemy.
Sarc. Who made the arguments you are claiming are made in your original argument? Still a strawman/appeal to ridicule even if you didnt knock it down as your intent is to attribute a ridiculous argument from your opponents.
A strawman doesn’t always require one to knock down the argument, but just make up an argument for your opponent that they didn’t make.
A strawman argument is a logical fallacy that involves distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. The argumentator strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light.2
The bolded part is your action intending to dismiss or knock down the argument.
The post you are replying to is what naturally happens when a group of people are declared to be an enemy and dehumanized. For most people it’s not easy to kill another person. But if they’re not viewed as human, well that’s a different story.
And here is your attempt at a knockdown of the strawman you created completing the effort.
You can't argue from intelligence so you attempt to debase your opponents.
Fine. If it makes you happy it was a strawman. There. Happy?
Now instead of focusing on me the person, what about the larger idea that I'm talking about? Dehumanizing and scapegoating being the prelude to mass murder. Not saying it is going to happen, but when it does happen those things come first. And that human nature hasn't changed.
Are you able to talk about ideas, or do you only seek to "win" arguments by attacking the people making them?
Your discussion point and attempt to reframe the argument is meaningless and inconsequential. It has nothing to do with the legality or economic argument around the issue. It is an attempt to redirect the argument to remove all the means of argumentation.
The fact you want to talk about this is inferring thr problem is one of xenophobia and not economics. An argument quite retarded. The blue cities were welcoming and open as sanctuary cities until the costs appeared. Which completely demolishes your inference.
Even to have the argument you want to have houd have to first prove that the dehumanization is even a large part of the argument, which you have failed to do in any manner. The entire basis of your argument is false.
Did showing you the inanity of your ideas and false basis for the argument make you feel better?
Blah blah blah, you you you. Can you try that again and argue against what I said instead of me as a person? I won't hold my breath.
I literally did retard.
What you said has a false basis as I pointed out. You want to assume facts you haven't validated as the basis for the conversation. Do it.
Your posts are meaningless drivel.
As usual you're deliberately missing my point. I can't explain it any simpler without using crayons.
My original post was hyperbole. As in exaggerated to make a point and not to be taken literally. But that is what you are doing. You focus on the hyperbole and ignore the larger point.
I don't know if you're stupid or obtuse. But it's tiresome. I'm done with you.
But if DesigNate replies you might see an instance of minds talking about ideas instead of the people with them.
Be clear and concise. In the discussion on illegal immigration what is the significance of dehumanization and is it the basis for the arguments for non open borders.
You haven't made a single actual point yet retard. You've simply attempted to declare your enemies as immoral people.
You’ve simply attempted to declare your enemies as immoral people.
No I’m not! That’s my entire fucking point!
Dehumanizing, or whatever word you want to use to paint people as less than people, is the first step towards moral people doing terrible things!
Over and out. You give me a headache.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0E0ynyIUsg
Dehumanizing, or whatever word you want to use to paint people as less than people, is the first step towards moral people doing terrible things!
Who is doing this? You haven't explained in any manner.
What portion of the argument regarding borders pertains to this argument? You haven't explained in any manner.
Over and out. You give me a headache.
Yes, actual intelligence making you look retarded hurts your head. Got it.
Plenty of people do immoral things even without dehumanizing them dumbass. As shown above. There are many ways to do it without dehumanization. Maybe buy a dictionary some day. Or a history book.
Good. Go away and never come back. Stick to abusing alcohol. Maybe your lever will give out that much faster, and the taxpayers in Maine can save a few bucks.
What did alcohol ever do to you? Don't force it to go with sarc.
Human nature doesn’t change. The people who committed atrocities in the past, in good conscience, are no different than people who live today. We’ve just got more toys. The prelude to past atrocities was the dehumanizing of the enemy. Goebbels was a master at this. Go back in our history an those Injuns were viewed as savages. Not human. So I’m wary when a group of people is viewed as subhuman. Because extermination often follows.
Some people did some bad things in thr past therefore everyone against illegal immigration believes illegals to be inhuman. Quite the stretch there.
My neighbor is human. I dont want him entering my house.
Your argument is that of a Freshman blue haired D student activist.
Calling illegals trespassers is a faulty argument.
Their landlords don't think they're trespassing. Neither do the guys giving them jobs under the table, or the stores where they spend their money.
Only if the entire country is owned by the government, not individual people, can they be called trespassers.
They are literally trespassing into the USA. The "landlords" of the USA have set rules to be allowed on the USA's property and illegal entry is a violation of the "landlord's" rules thus trespass.
Calling illegals trespassers is a faulty argument.
No. It isnt. They illegally crossed a border and didn’t follow the proper migration procedures all countries enjoy. That is not a faulty argument. It is an accurate modifier.
Their landlords don’t think they’re trespassing. Neither do the guys giving them jobs under the table, or the stores where they spend their money.
A) the majority dont have landlords retard. B) The landlords don’t get final say in public property uses, government and the public do. Use of those items is not up to landlords. C) I even gave you a libertarian essay on this very talking point I knew you wouldn’t read.
Show me one migrant that stays in a house never leaving. The vast majority in blue cities are now using public resources on the migrants. Landlords aren’t the deciders for the resources. Stop being retarded.
Only if the entire country is owned by the government, not individual people, can they be called trespassers.
The essay you chose to ignore addresses this very bullshit talking point.
Your assumptions of your arguments are false at the outset. They have a public cost. They have a social cost. No individual (landlord) can force those costs on others.
Do you need the essay again? We know you won’t read it.
Do you need the essay again? We know you won’t read it.
Is the link in the comments on this article? I'd like to read it. I can always use more ways to rebut this sort of nonsense.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
The last paragraph makes me think of Mike every time I read it. Lol.
Thanks!
The essay's entire argument can be summed up right here:
"In a world where all places are privately owned, the immigration problem vanishes. There exists no right to immigration. There only exists the right to trade, buy or rent various places. Yet what about immigration in the real world with public property administered by local, regional or central State-governments?"
Hoppe correctly identifies the real problem - the State. Immigrants are not the problem. The goal of all libertarians should be to minimize or eliminate "public" property so that immigration restrictions can also be minimized or eliminated.
He’s too disingenuous to debate in good faith.
Poor, pour Sarc.
He wants everyone to pay for him too. He’s most certainly on multiple forms of welfare. Isn’t he a street rat, in addition to his raging alcohol problem?
Poor, pour Sarc.
His arguments are just so pathetic. No wonder he drinks.
I think he sees himself as your archenemy. He certainly is obsessed with you.
Wish he was more lex luther than a random alcoholic homeless person.
The country has moved so far right in the last 40 years that Reagan sits to the left of Biden. And now supposed "libertarians" are screaming about brown people coming into the country. Free minds and free markets, indeed.
The country has moved so far to the right, that a woman can no longer be defined.
Try harder next time idiot.
He gets dumber and more radical every day.
Yep. He’s trying to convince people the Overton window has moved right.
A notion absurd on its face. Both parties have moved far to the left. The Tea Party, and now the outgrowth to MAGA are a backlash against that. All are anathema to Jeffy and his Sorosian leftist, pro pedophile agenda.
"The country has moved so far right in the last 40..."
Lol, you almost got me till I realized the J was capitalized.
But this is actually good parody, since Jeffie has argued that very similar to this.
Exactly. Obviously someone who knows their subject's writing style and argumentation.
Hey look! Fatfuck is back!
How was your NAMBLA convention Fatfuck? Did you and Shrike get a chance to bond over viewings of child mutilation videos?
Reagan's amnesty wasn't some left wing open borders position, it was a political compromise in return for tough immigration restrictions and enforcement; it was intended to end the illegal migrant problem. The problem is that it didn't work: the amnesty just encouraged more illegal migration, and the federal government was unwilling to enforce immigration law meaningfully. Reagan was a senile fool to do this.
You were absent 2 months and this was the best you could do on your return?
*applause*
The country has moved so far right in the last 40 years
This is so hysterically inaccurate that everything after it can be summarily dismissed.
Edit: That parody was so good I didn't notice the capital J. Well done, Tulpa.
Omegalul, amnesty was Reagans greatest mistake.
A mistake he later acknowledged.
* Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals, but he gave the middle finger to people who had come to the US legally: people who came to the US legally decades ago had to watch illegals who received amnesty celebrate their naturalization only a few years later.
* And his magnanimous gesture also gave California to the Democrats.
* And the promise of amnesty was that it was going to be coupled with strong immigration enforcement so that we would’t get into the same situation again; but what actually happened was that illegal immigration became worse.
* And the illegals who became naturalized have imposed a massive strain on the fiscal health of states and the federal government, as well as government services.
The history of Reagan’s immigration amnesty shows that such policies are unfair, ineffective, and harmful.
I’m glad that the current crop of GOP candidates is not going to repeat his insane mistakes.
Thank you, Fiona, for reminding us!
When Reagan said “It’s morning in America”, the nation had 100 million fewer people than today. We ran out of frontier a century ago, and population is now over 100 times as great as when the Constitution was ratified. Recycle America's immigrant success narrative a few more times, and our 100 per square mile population density will rise to levels of the sort already driving wholesale emigration to our shores.
Better Ellis Island reruns than escalating replays of last week's invasion of Lampedusa
Gamma-butyrolactone or γ-butyrolactone, is a hygroscopic colorless, water-miscible liquid with a weak characteristic odor. It is the simplest 4-carbon lactone. It is mainly used as an intermediate in the production of other chemicals, such as methyl-2-pyrrolidone. buy gbl online
Fuck off, Fiona. Just fuck right off.
President Reagan's Republican party was different. It was one of ideas. Whether you agreed or not it had ideas, today you have nothing similar. You have a Republican party that complains and does not govern.
Because today the Republican FINALLY (via Trump) is getting a hold of its roots/platform of LIMITED governing to protect Individual Liberty.
Only a treasonous P.O.S. like you see's value in MORE governing because your party think 'governing' = armed-theft to your benefit.
All fine and well, except there is nothing to suggest Trump and the MAGA movement is doing anything to promote a smaller government or personal liberty. People, yourself included, mistake the chaos of the Trump administration for liberty. A undefined unworkable immigration policy does not increase your liberty.
Stay in Mexico? De-Regulation committee? De-Funding the EPA?
Care to put a little context into your claim?
For simplicity let's stick to the topic of immigration and say the Stay in Mexico policy had no bearing on your personal liberty. The only people who can make the claim that their personal liberties were affected by immigration are natives. Were your liberties affected by the English, Irish, German, French, Swiss, Norweign and Italians that immigrated to this country? Study after study suggest that our country benefits from immigrants. So nothing in the Trump immigration policies benefited your liberties.
For simplicity? lol.... For you to cherry-pick you mean. And I just love (NOT) how you dismiss that $770 Billion going to immigration support as well as the massive welfare immigrants take statistically.
President Reagan’s Republican party was different. It was one of ideas.
This is just a glittering generality that shows M4E doesn't actually have an argument. Even his precious moderates in the Republican primary are bereft of them.
Agree with your point. There were no real policy ideas put forward. I did not watch the debate live, but see it reported as a free for all. I want to vote for a candidate with the best ideas and not the lesser of two bad choices.
The USA **already** has more immigration than any other larger nation in the world. The US Constitution specifically assigns the federal government to PROTECT the nation against invasion. It's perhaps the #1 reason a union of states even exists.
Illegal immigration is frankly illegal. I’m against illegal immigration and want to have a idea of who is coming into the country and why. At the same time government rules and handling of legal Immigration would be comedic if it didn’t affect real people.
Many people who want to immigrate are essentially forced to enter illegally. The process takes way too long, costs way too much. Then there is the matter of huge incentives of free handouts that is very real and needs to be dealt with.
I do believe that diversity is a strength, but adding too much diversity into a region threatens the stability of the region. The goal should be a melting pot not a hostile takeover. Sure there are people who are fearful and resentful of people who are outside of whatever the norm for the region is.
Building a little “insert country name” in a community is counter productive. I’m not advocating for isolating immigrants, but rather advocating much smaller pockets than what is currently occurring.
Amnesty is an attempted one-time method to solve the problem with illegal immigrants, but repeated amnesty is simply alternative rule.
Fix the current legal immigration process so it takes less time and cost less money. Fix the incentives and handouts, if you are illegal you should not be eligible for anything. Create another one-time amnesty process with illegal immigrants needing to to apply for legal status with a deadline. After the deadline, deport or incarcerate anyone who is illegal.
Open borders will not work, but banning immigration will not work either. The real problem is with government, governmental rules and processes.
The vast majority of immigrants or either type and simply decent people who are striving for a better life. Same is true with the of residents of border states who are stressed with the large influx of immigration.
I do find it illustrative that there are so many nimby blue cities who virtue signal that they are a sanctuary city, but when illegal immigrants are transported to their cities, they start complaining about the stress with the large influx of immigration. Sounds very much like the complaints coming from the border states for decades.
Personally even though bussing immigrants is a political stunt, the nimby blue cities who virtue signal that they are a sanctuary city deserve experiencing the stress of a large influx of immigration. Time for blue states to share the pain and get called on their BS virtue signaling.
I despise both parties, but have observed over my many years that Republicans may be apathetic and incompetent, but Democrats are the real authoritarians and much more racist at heart.
Another rousing meeting of Libertarians for Authoritarian, Bigoted, and Cruel Immigration Policies and Practices, featuring the usual collection of disaffected right-wing bigots in garish, unconvincing libertarian drag.
Reagan v Carter was the first presidential election I voted in. I recall those years and recall the promise that the amnesty was a ONE-TIME thing. They promised they wouldn't do again. I didn't believe it then and don't believe it will stop now if we do again.
As the OP says and then basically ignores the fact that amnesty was supposed to come with enhanced enforcement. The enforcement never happened. You want amnesty today? Great!
Deport at least half of the current crop of illegal aliens and we can talk. But no one who is an illegal alien should be allowed to become a citizen. Ever. Permanent resident? Maybe. Citizen? Never.
Birthright citizenship is NOT Constitutional.
No one is allowed to force citizens upon us by coming into the U.S. either illegally or as a “birth--tourist” and giving birth.
I agree with you.
Kamala claimed she was looking for "root causes". She need look no farther than birth right citizenship.
“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,”
The swarms that have invaded in the last 5 years have not put down roots. They need to go back.
This quote in the title is taken out of context. Ronald Reagan was arguing for a one-time amnesty in exchange for tightened enforcement of the border.
Reagan's one-time amnesty wasn't universally popular, but it was generally understood to be an acceptable trade for secure borders.
Of course, we didn't get secure borders.
The simple way to stop illegal immigration is to stop incentivizing it and eliminate the tools govt uses to rob people of the fruits of their labor in order to support illegal immigration.
Property taxes should be illegal and abolished. This would end the welfare state, as few would buy bonds to prop up people’s efforts to come here and collect benefits that states are handing out to illegals like candy. It would also put an end to individual welfare for those here who don’t want to work and have everyone pay for their poor life choices and churning out children for cash, housing and medical care.
The second move is to end the Fed and eliminate the ability of the Fed gov to print money do the same on their level…including printing it and showering the states with subsidies to fund individual and corporate welfare altogether.
"What about the dignity of real Americans..."
Goldilicks GorillaShit is a REAL AmeriKKKan, and that them thar illegal sub-humans can all be BURNED to ashes (after Goldilicks GorillaShit turns their hides into lampshades, that is). 'Cause America... World Police against that them thar ILLEGAL ferriners!!!!
Gives Not one single fuck about Americans, and by American I mean state, local and federal taxpayers, for decades, forced by a gun to our heads only to end up with American Marxism for the entire world.
And the other issue that needs to be addressed here is that invoking Reagan's name should not be a thought-stopping mechanism. The left and the center-right love to indulge in this stuff because they think they can jawbone the right into going along with what they're pushing by weaponizing "principle" to go against their own interests.
Reagan was a watershed politician, but he wasn't a holy figure, and what he said and did in the mid-80s needs to be balanced against what's going on now.
"Import the third world, become the third world."
That's a welfare state issue, not an "illegals" issue.
I'm convinced that SQRLSY is a writer that's been using AI for years to generate babbling nonsense, just to see what the commentariat would do.
Who else is going to build roads?
Let’s send SQRLSY there. Just set him loose deep in the jungle. It would be an exotic buffet of animal shit the likes of which he’s never tasted.
Yeah, but very few of them are stupid enough to stay there at this point. And the stupid ones don't really do much to uplift the locals.
Nah, it’s just a tweaker.
Not AI. It’s AS. Artificial stupidity.
Our government cares about Ukraine though.
According to cannibals, humans taste like pig.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LXwv6kXIThA
Just admit you know this from personal experience.
Sarc knows how both taste.
If you say so.
Only opportunity I had was to eat a clown, but I passed because they taste funny.
You know Woody Guthrie was a commie, right?
Duck off you loser pussy. You have no business here. Back to your piss soaked garbage can.
Right wing blacks can stop screaming about the illegals coming into their neighborhoods in Chicago.
Is there anything you are good at. Humor definitely not on the list.
You mean when you sucked off a fellow hobo, dressed like a clown, in your piss soaked alley in exchange for a bottle of MD 20/20?
He’d definitely love it.
You know that you’re a drunken piece of shit leftist, and a craven pussy, right?
Not gonna lie, that made me guffaw. And now my wife wants to know what is so funny.
China's doing it right now. I'm not being flip there, either, they're seriously one of the biggest infrastructure developers on the continent with their belt-and-road program.