Posted on 12/12/2003 1:00:50 PM PST by Wolfstar
President Ronald Reagan was the first president in history to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. On November 6, 1986, he signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, [PUB L 99-603]. In so doing, he set a precedent whereby the United States would not seek to deport illegal aliens, but to reward their lawbreaking by granting them full citizenship.
Following is a brief excerpt from lengthy remarks by none other than Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W-VA), speaking on the senate floor in July 2001 against proposals for another amnesty [DOCID:cr23jy01-105]:
Such an amnesty suggests that it is possible to gain permanent residency in the United States regardless of whether you are an alien who arrived here legally or illegally.
That is the message that was sent in 1986 when President Reagan proposed a blanket amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants based largely on the mere fact that they had lived in this country at least since 1982. I supported that amnesty, after accepting the arguments of the Reagan administration that such an amnesty would reduce illegal immigration when combined with tougher sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens.
What happened instead, was that the United States sent a message to the world that illegal immigrants could gain legal status in the United States without having to go through the normal processes. Consequently, illegal immigration jumped from an estimated 5 million illegals in 1986 to somewhere between 7 million and 13 million illegals today--and these estimates do not even include the 2.7 million illegals who were granted amnesty in 1986. [END EXCERPT]
The following paragraph is an excerpt from an April 29, 2002 editorial by The Eagle Online, further detailing the damage done by President Reagan's precedent:
President Reagan tried a similar status readjustment as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The idea that this might diminish the problem of illegal immigration by taking the onus off of law enforcement to seek out the illegals and deport them had such broad appeal, even Pat Buchanan liked it at the time. But these newly legalized residents brought with them new problems, while exacerbating the old ones. Not only did they desire reunification with many relatives who had not yet crossed the border, they raised hopes for other prospective border-crossers who assumed—correctly, it now seems—that they might get in on another amnesty sooner or later. [END EXCERPT]
I believe Ridge's trial balloon the other day was meant to see just how stiff the opposition might be. So the point of this thread is actually to encourage people to get off their duffs and ACTIVELY express their opposition now, while there is plenty of time to influence policy. Sitting around on FR posting mindless nonsense (e.g., Post #10) doesn't accomplish anything constructive.
No amnesty this side of the border!
For a discussion of immigration issues, see Immigration & The American Future.
And remember, also, when Reagan proposed the one-time amnesty, it was not coupled with increased Welfare type benefits, rather proposals to move in the opposite direction. Washington, today, is awash in incredibly expensive vote buying schemes, that Reagan would have had no truck with. These draw the worst class of immigrant, and place an ever increasing burden on the backs of Americans whose only active roots are in this land.
William Flax
Ronald Reagan established the precedent of amnesty. Even some diehard Leftists like Robert Byrd (let alone most of us on the Right) now see it as a huge mistake. Understanding that even the best of presidents can make such mistakes, rather than sitting around whining online, the wise voter will find a way to actively express his or her opposition now, while there is still time to influence policy. There are, of course, a variety of ways to do so, but I'm sure I don't need to provide you with a list.
I agree. Nothing I have posted should be misinterpreted as my agreeing with an amnesty policy.
The equation that every voter makes to determine how to cast their vote is highly personal. Nevertheless, the smart voter will weight the positives and negatives of a candidate's entire record, AND those of the candidate's opponent.
For myself, as a Californian, I'm adamantly opposed to any form of amnesty for illegals. At the moment, this policy is still in the trial-balloon stage, so I'm doing everything I personally can to try to influence the various politicians who might want both my vote and my campaign contributions. Having said that, I also will have no qualms whatsoever about voting to re-elect President Bush. In my opinion, the positives of his presidency far, far outweight the negatives.
I for one, haven't misinterpreted nothing you'e said, but its quite obvious why you posted this thread and worded it the way you did. You're making a preemptive move, in advance of any possible amnesty that PresBush may decide to offer illegal aliens in the future. I know it, you know it and now everyone else knows it too. One problem, it won't work. If PresBush offers amnesty to illegal aliens, it will not only tarnish his legacy, but could seriously jeapordize his re-election effort or at the very least, have a negative effect on the level of a voter mandate he may have received without offering amnesty. ;^)
If PresBush continues to press the envelope, he may find himself out of a job. After all, before 9-11, 80%-85% of American's were opposed to amnesty and I don't think thats changed in the last two years. Unlike CFR, the education bill, the farm subsidy bill and prescription drugs, Bush won't be stiffing conservatives if he extends amnesty. He'll be ignoring the vast majority of American's and walking on very thin ice.
About the medicare prescription plan. Did it occur to you that by allowing prescriptions there is a good possibility that hospitalizations, now paid for by medicare, may be avoided.
The plan is optional and it cannot be assumed that ALL seniors will want to take advantage of the offer. They may have better plans of their own.
Are you sure?
I disagree totally.
If Bush extends the Reagan granted amnesty he will remove the republican party from the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.