The Gipper & Immigration
Not sure if people saw Peter's excellent lead op-ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal on Reagan and immigration. Knowing the Gipper's views on both immigration and law, Peter asked where Reagan would stand today. And he believes that Reagan would still be for a welcoming policy toward would-be Americans while also coming down on enforcing the laws.
Now the possibilities for an immigration debate are endless. But I'd like to ask Peter to follow up on two points for the Ricochet audience. First, isn't it possible to in fact have the policy he believes Reagan would be for, by enforcing our borders and providing legal avenues for people to come? It's not clear the American people really oppose a pro-immigration policy, but it does seem clear that they are not open to *any* policy until the federal government regains control of our borders.
Second, Peter mentioned Reagan's awareness of the politics, that the GOP will have no future unless it can broaden its appeal to Latinos. That seems like a mathematical truth. But the question is, Shouldn't we have the right immigration policy, and, like all policies, use our talents to persuade Americans -- Latinos included -- of this? More to the point, if the general failure of the GOP to make serious inroads into the African-American community is any clue, isn't the real answer on the political side to find good Republican Latino candidates that people respond to? A black colleague of mine once said the Republicans are not, for example, going to get black votes by being for vouchers (though this friend is a strong advocate of vouchers). Ultimately it would take some good black Republican candidates.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
My basic view, Bill, is that Reagan would have been infuriated by the utter failure of the federal government to enforce the statutes already on the books, including the provisions of the 1986 immigration act he signed. He wouldn't have felt any animus toward immigrants, even illegal immigrants. To the contrary. He'd have admired all they were willing to go through to improve life for their families. But he'd have been beside himself--simply furious--with the sheer lawlessness of the federal government . The Gipper, I believe, would have insisted--just insisted--on restoring the rule of law first. In this, he'd have joined former Florida governor Jeb Bush, maverick California Democrat Mickey Kaus...and a certain senior senator from Arizona. Fix the borders first, reestablishing the faith of the American people in the ability of the federal government to do its job. And then, in time, the goodwill of the people, and the willingness of the great majority of immigrants to work hard and assimilate, would lead to some sort of sensible comprehensive immigration reform. But again: Fix the borders first. That's where the Gipper'd have come down, I feel certain.
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
"Shouldn't we have the right immigration policy," you write, Bill, "and use our talents to persuade Americans--including Latinos--of this?" Well, once you state the question in those terms, clearly, the only acceptable answer is, Of course. But that's just why I took a pop at McCain in my column yesterday. Take a look at this ad--I mean, just look at the darned thing. McCain walks along one of the most forbidding stretches of the border fence with a sheriff with a shaved head and the demeanor of a man who could scare border jumpers back to Mexico by glaring at them. "Senator," the sheriff says in the closing moment, "you're one of us." One white man to another. That's an attempt to appeal to Hispanics?
The Gipper would've understood the very point you make, Bill. He'd have worked to reach out. He'd have used to his talents to persuade. And if he'd seen McCain's ad, he'd simply have shaken his head in dismay.
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
Of course, McCain is doing this because he has zero credibility and is in an election battle. He used to use very harsh language about the people who have the same view he says he now has.
When I was at the White House, I had to ensure that the Latino couple who mowed my lawn were not here illegally. They weren't. But I greatly resented that *my family* had to ask to see their papers, a feeling I imagine many businesses share, because the government didn't do its job.
May '10
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
As I detailed in Diane's Ricochet thread, I basically agree with that two-prong approach, but believe some of the GOP's expressed goals are bit foolhardy.
There's a difference between getting latino voters behind border protection and coaxing them into the GOP. While Mexican immigrants do tend to have conservative values on issues like marriage and abortion, all cultures south of the Rio Grande lean toward socialism and statism to one degree or another. Our concepts of localized and limited government can be a tough sell.
To convince them on the border, the GOP must seem friendly -- most people listen only to friends ignore the words of enemies. Accomplishing this requires aiding latinos toward economic prosperity (via incentives, rather than welfare). Make the GOP appear as the party that enables immigrants to succeed financially and appeal to those family values. Then the GOP will have the trust necessary overcome the Democrats' demonization of border protectionists.
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
"To convince...[Latinos] on the border, the GOP must seem friendly -- most people listen only to friends ignore the words of enemies. Accomplishing this requires aiding latinos toward economic prosperity (via incentives, rather than welfare). Make the GOP appear as the party that enables immigrants to succeed financially and appeal to those family values. Then the GOP will have the trust necessary overcome the Democrats' demonization of border protectionists."
Aaron, that is just beautifully put--just beautifully. Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina should memorize every word.
May '10
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
Diane's thread has a lot of the same discussion, back and forth. I probably talked too much... but I am convinced that this issue is brought up by the Left, over and over, just to bring the "Minutemen" outn of the closet just before elections so they can scream about "AMNESTY!" for the cameras. And that ends up on TV commercials in Southern California.
May '10
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
Absolutely correct, Aaron. And don't forget there's also a strong sense that the rich should share their good with the poor, whether they like it or not.
I was once doing business in Mexico right after Prop 186 passed in California. A taxi driver asked me why Californians were so racists denying illegals education and medical services. When I turned it around and asked him if he thought all illegal Guatemalans (Mexicans and Guatemalans don't like each other) should get free health and education services in Mexico, his response was a very emphatic, "Ni modo!" (No way!) So I asked him why the U.S. should do that for the Mexicans. His answer was basically because the U.S. is rich.
May '10
Re: The Gipper & Immigration
haha, Felicia, that reminds me of how the people from El Salvador and Mexico get along (or, rather, don't) here in Houston. Latinos band together for shared political interests on the national scale, but they're often reluctant allies. I wonder if anything will ever force politicians to care about the particular traits of each heritage.