Joseph Butson

The WSJ recaps “The Gipper’s” political ruminations on immigration, open immigration that is:

In 1980, according to the book “Reagan: His Life in Letters” (page 511), the then-Presidential candidate wrote to one supporter that “I believe we must resolve the problem at our southern border with full regard to the problems and needs of Mexico. I have suggested legalizing the entry of Mexican labor into this country on much the same basis you proposed, although I have not put it into the sense of restoring the bracero program.” The bracero program was a guest-worker program similar to the one now being proposed by President Bush. It was killed in the mid-1960s, largely due to opposition from unions.

Reagan took a view that the american dream existed because of immigration not because of the “blood and soil” legacy of Europe. To read his speech on the shining city on the hill try this link. 

The NY Times has an excellent section on the immigration debate so far.

But the NY Times sends a mixed message. It’s lead editorial stands on its head with simultaneous positive and negative support:

“That legislation is built around a solid core — a bill from Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy — but in recent months it has morphed into something that is far more complicated and problematic. It’s encrusted with new provisions intended to placate the enforcement-only hard-liners by ensuring that an immigrant’s path to legality would be anything but quick and easy. Some hurdles are innocuous time-wasters, but others are so onerous and cumbersome that they might put the whole business at risk.”

But the President is in a difficult position politically with a divided party and an opportunistic opposition that cares little for realpolitik and tackling the issue. So he is putiing the National Guard in position to support the Border Patrol. This is as superficial as the southern border is so pourous that not even all the troops in Iraq could protect this frontier.

There will be no legislation from a drifting congress and weakly led Senate. They will put off the dear expense of political capital before the election. And they will have less capital to spend as a result of their cynicism.

Many things can be said about the President’s leadership but he is showing true immigration reformers a way to compromise. There will be hoots and hollers from the talking heads, with many only mild in their critique of the proverbial pandoras box of illegal immigration. The President is being generous and Mexico knows it. Mexican officials have long acknowledged that migration, not immigration, ought to be the reality of Mexicans working in the US.
There are no easy ways to tackle the mess to please all, especially the ideologues on both sides of the spectrum. By refusing to call the path for illegal immigrants amnesty, the President is neither too cute or too political. He is being realistic. The same holds for border enforcement and detention. By beefing up both, real deterrent may stem the tide somewhat.

But the root cause is the weak, corrupt Mexican and Central American economies with insecure and unstable political systems. Mexico has squandered its opportunity for free trade under NAFTA. The Mexican people have suffered so much for so long under the elites greed and the systemic corruption of the former one party state. Mexico, a petro rich country, has seen its share of the US energy market shrink during a period of hyper energy demand growth. Contrasted against the booming Canadian energy producers, Mexican national productivity and overall gross national product [GNP] has only marginally improved while far away back-waters in the middle east have prospered.

I recently weighed in on a Iowa Senate candidate’s blog on what counts as scaremongering about Canada’s healthcare system.

It drives me to distraction to read and hear from those who have no experience with Canada’s low cost [yes you may have to wait sometimes!] universal system about how scary it is. Well, it isn’t fair to make either an apples to orange comparison or point out the deficiency in a system that covers everyone, is cheap to run and works, with a few exceptions. And guess what? It is moving toward the US model as dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

But if you want to read about Canada’s healthcare warts and all, don’t Google it from the US. You are going to get the scare stories vs. a “fair and balanced” view. Try www.google.ca [yes, a Canadian google!] It will get you some rosy coverage, I’ll admit, but it will include some of the warts too.

I get great care in the US and the cost is reasonable. I am little scared on the process because I don’t know it so well but you won’t hear me complaining. But I am glad that candidates are talking it up and I am all for reforming anything.

More on this later!