ShareThis Page
Reagan’s lesson on immigration: Enforcement before amnesty |

Reagan’s lesson on immigration: Enforcement before amnesty

| Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:00 p.m
President Ronald Reagan speaks during a news conference in October 1983 at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo)

President Reagan hailed it as the most sweeping immigration reform since 1952. But while the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 welcomed 2.7 million illegal aliens under the so-called “Reagan amnesty,” the portion of the law that was supposed to beef up America’s borders never amounted to anything.

In the years that followed, Washington showed little interest in the law’s border-enforcement provisions — to the point where border security under the Obama administration became a bad joke.

And three decades after the Reagan-era reform, illegal immigration in the U.S. has quadrupled.

Mr. Reagan’s experience is instructive for President Trump in what’s being presented as yet another quid pro quo on immigration: In exchange for citizenship for an estimated 800,000 “Dreamers” — illegals brought to the U.S. as children — Team Trump wants a 70-point immigration plan that focuses on reinforcing the U.S. border.

In the run-up to any meaningful reform — and before this football again is yanked away before the kick — immigration-law enforcement must come first.

That begins with realistic policies that define, instead of diminish, America’s borders. And rather than waste time and resources on a border wall that more than likely will be breached before it’s fully built, more attention should focus on fully implementing E-Verify, used to check the legal status of job applicants, along with harsher penalties for employers who hire illegals.

Trump can realize what Reagan envisioned if he sticks to his predecessor’s familiar dictum: “Trust, but verify.”

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.