Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ronald Reagan on Immigration (via Volokh Conspiracy blog)
Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 05/25/2007 | Ronald Reagan

Posted on 05/25/2007 4:33:54 AM PDT by daviddennis

Ronald Reagan on Immigration:

Conservative Republican have been outdoing each other in claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Ironically, however, many conservatives are simultaneously outdoing each other in advocating immigration restriction - a stance Reagan would probably have abhorred.

As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon points out in this book (pg. 119), Reagan proposed a treaty allowing for full freedom of movement for all workers throughout North America in his November 1979 speech announcing his candidacy for the presidency. As early as 1952 - at a time when US immigration policy was still governed by the highly restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 - Reagan gave a speech embracing nearly unlimited immigration:

I . . . have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land . . . [A]nd the price of admission was very simple . . . Any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here . . . I believe that God in shedding his grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land for these people. (emphasis added).

Cannon, pg. 119.

Almost forty years later, in his January 1989 farewell message to the nation, Reagan struck a similar theme:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. (emphasis added)

In between, Reagan pushed for his 1979 North American accord proposal (which eventually became the NAFTA treaty), and signed the 1986 immigration reform law that amnestied almost 3 million illegal immigrants in exchange for relatively weak enforcement measures.

As his 1979 proposal and his support for the 1986 amnesty suggest, Reagan did not demonize illegal immigrants as all too many conservatives do today. He sought instead to enable them to legalize their status, and helped set many on the road to citizenship. In a 1977 radio address, he criticized "the illegal alien fuss" and suggested that illegal aliens may "actually [be] doing work our own people won't do."

While Reagan's rhetorical embrace of "anyone" who wants to come the US probably should be taken literally, it certainly indicates a generally positive attitude towards large-scale immigration from all parts of the world.

The fact that Reagan supported something does not by itself prove that it is right, or even that it is the right position for conservatives. Reagan certainly made his share of mistakes, such as the extremely grave error of trading arms for hostages with Iran. But as Cannon notes, Reagan's positive attitude towards immigration was not just an isolated issue position, but was integrally linked to his generally optimistic and open vision of America. I would add that it also drew on his understanding that America is not a zero-sum game between immigrants and natives - just as he also recognized that it is not a zero-sum game between the rich and the poor. Immigration could promote prosperity and advancement for both groups in much the same way that free trade benefits both Americans and foreigners. Reagan probably did not have a detailed understanding of the economics of comparative advantage which underpins this conclusion. But he surely understood it intuitively. Those who reject Reagan's position on immigration must, if they are to be consistent, also reject much of the rest of his approach to economic and social policy. Today's conservatives can argue for immigration restrictions if they so choose. But they should not claim the mantle of Reagan in doing so.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aliens; immigrantlist; immigration; reagan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last
To: rmlew

The national creed, in my view, is that all people deserve a chance, even those from other countries who are suffering under oppressive or incompetent regimes.

It follows that those people should be welcome here, assuming our economy can handle them.

So far the economy is grabbing all the immigrants it can get, so I don’t see a problem. It seems like a win/win.

Certainly it’s possible that our policies regarding medical care might have to change, or we need to find better ways to provide medical care to those who don’t want to pay thousands of dollars a day for simple diagnostics, and tens of thousands for treatment.

I see no justification in the costs associated with our current medical system, so if having illegals around causes us to look for alternatives that are more cost effective, well, that might benefit me too when I get sick.

When I went to the hospital on the insistance of my business partner to check some vague symptoms, and they kept me overnight after running various tests, the bill came to $8,000. Insurance reduced it to $3,000, which they paid. I think that’s just plain absurd.

It should not take $8,000, or even $3,000 to put me in a room less comfortable than a Motel 6, shared with another person who was woken up at 3am for his medicine. It should not take that kind of money to do about an hour’s worth of diagnostic tests on fancy machines. And yet the machines aren’t THAT expensive, I spent very little time with a doctor (maybe 1-2 hours max) and I receieved no treatment other than a patch which i think cost about $20.

So when hospitals say that illegals cost them $x thousand, I assume the illegals don’t have the skill in negotiating down bills insurance companies do. This means that the costs we see associated with illegals are inflated, probably at least two or three times, over costs that are already absurd.

After receiving that bill and seeing what happened to it, quite honestly I don’t believe a word hospitals say. They had better become more efficient or bust. And I live in an area where the percentage of illegals is probably 1% or less - we just don’t see them.

Illegals are not to blame for high hospital bills; an incompetent and inefficient system is. We have to fix the system instead of blaming people who have little to nothing to do with the situation.

I don’t love illegals but I don’t hate them, either. I know that I liked life a lot more living in Los Angeles, a dynamic place with lots of growth, including illegals, than I do living in Pittsburgh, where the population is shrinking and there are hardly any illegals at all.

If illegals give us growth, and dynamism, and an expanding economy instead of a contracting one, I don’t see why people concentrate so much on the negatives and ignore the positives of having them around.

If we kick ‘em out we get stagnation instead of growth. As you said, fewer schools, fewer hospitals, less of everything. I’m just confused as to why you would find that desirable.

Aren’t we supposed to be the party of economic growth and hope?

We’re acting like the party of shrinkage, stagnation and depression, of decaying buildings and depressed economies.

Is this really what we want? There had better be some really powerful gains from it, and I don’t see a single one.

D


41 posted on 05/27/2007 8:02:16 AM PDT by daviddennis (If you like my stuff, please visit amazing.com, my new social networking site!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'm not negative about immigration. I am negative about ILLEGAL immigration. Capice?

Capice. But I'm negative against immigration, legal or illegal, for two reasons. One, as long as we piously invoke the distinction between legal and illegal as the basis for our concern the pols will just work on a way to legalize the current invasion. Two, I have concerns that go beyond economics. Let's grant that, in the long run, liberal and legal immigration provides us economic advantages. There are still social and cultural implications that should be considered. We are inheritors of a political culture that goes back to the Magna Carta. We need our immigration policy to protect that inheritance by ensuring that new immigrants arrive in numbers that can be assimilated and that they have a mind to do so. I think if we shut down immigration now it could probably take 50 - 75 years to fully assimilate our current immigrants.

42 posted on 05/27/2007 8:47:19 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson