Across Florida
What's happening on other political blogs?


Rubio: Reagan erred in supporting 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants

by George Bennett | November 17th, 2009

STUART — Here’s something you seldom hear in a Republican primary: a candidate taking issue with Ronald Reagan.

It happened this afternoon when former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, who’s running in the GOP Senate primary against Gov. Charlie Crist, answered a question on immigration at a Martin County Republican Womens Federated meeting that drew more than 100 attendees.

Rubio delivered a six-minute discourse on immigration policy in which he brought up The Gipper’s support for the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to most undocumented workers who could prove they had been in the country continuously for the previous five years.

“In 1986 Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million people,” Rubio said. “You know what happened, in addition to becoming 11 million a decade later? There were people trying to enter the country legally, who had done the paperwork, who were here legally, who were going through the process, who claimed, all of a sudden, ‘No, no no no , I’m illegal.’ Because it was easier to do the amnesty program than it was to do the legal process.”

“If you grant amnesty, the message that you’re sending is that if you come in this country and stay here long enough, we will let you stay. And no one will ever come through the legal process if you do that.”

Rubio said the U.S. must first get control of its borders and its visa system, which often allows people to enter legally but remain after their visas expire.

“Only after you deal with illegal immigration in a serious way — seal the border and the visa problem — can you then create a legal immigration system that works. That still leaves you with 11 million people that are here illegally,” Rubio said.

While criticizing amnesty for those illegals, he also rejected the idea of a massive “police-state” roundup. He suggested requiring tamper-proof residency and guest-worker cards and fining employers who don’t verify that their workers are legal. That, Rubio said, would bring the 11 million figure down “dramatically by attrition.”

Asked later about about Reagan’s support for amnesty, Rubio said, “I think he did it for the right reasons, but I think it ended up working the wrong way.”

Rubio’s no-amnesty stance on illegal immigrants has drawn some criticism from immigration hard-liners who say Rubio didn’t advance the issue when he was House speaker and the collapse of federal immigration reform efforts led state legislators around the U.S. to propose a variety of state-level immigration measures.

Tags:

22 Responses to “Rubio: Reagan erred in supporting 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants”

  1. Ned Says:

    Ridiculous Rubio…I knew Ronald Reagan, Rubio is no Ronald Reagan.

  2. Brittancus Says:

    E-VERIFY OVERTIME CAN REDUCE THE 20-30 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN THE WORKPLACE BY “ATTRITION.” WE DON’T NEED DEPORTATION ON A MASSIVE SCALE AS THEY WILL LEAVE ON THERE OWN. POLITICIANS CAN ADD AMENDMENTS TO THE 1986 IMMIGRATION BILL, INSTEAD OF THE TRAVESTY OF FORCING A NEW ONE ON THE FINANCIALLY HURTING AMERICAN PEOPLE?
    Bloggers nationwide brought to the public attention the need to stop the infiltration of illegal immigrants in the workplace. Now the voice of –THE PEOPLE–are demanding sealing the borders tight and that every corrupt politician catering to corporate welfare–MUST GO, Starting with Sen.Harry Reid (D-NV) Special attention should be drawn to incorrigible governors, lawmakers, mayors judges and elected officials who have ordained policies of SANCTUARY STATES.

    Hopefully E-Verify will become a nationwide vetting system to remove illegal workers from your office or from your factory? It has shown its efficiency, because the open border organizations have moved heaven and earth to smash it? Now it is firmly entrenched in every American workers mind, that it can save their jobs. Even Sen.Harry Reid, who tried to table E-Verify failed miserably and now, is funded for another 3 years. This gives reputable politicians time to make E-Verification mandatory as it’s been evaluated as a good immigration enforcement instrument and it could be introduced for other purposes. As a national legal people’s identifier and combined with other data bases, it usages could be essential to recognize fraudulent drivers license, auto registration. Child support, health care and many other verifications of individual who think they are safe from government. But its main restrictions will to terminate foreign nationals appropriating US workers jobs.

    In the future this data base could be established at airport terminals for departures and arrivals. It will be an ongoing fight against the opponents such as US chamber of Commerce, ACLU, Council of Foreign Relations, business organizations, agriculture and other groups. It is certain to be a bargaining chip in shoving through another Comprehensive Immigration Reform package, that will devastate America. An overflow of poor, uneducated humanity, looking for free health care will start pouring into our nation. Around the world rumors are already flying that if you slip across the sieve of a border, you can get work as low income and get all your taxes back by lying on the tax form. Tax credits for non-existent supported children is an industry, that costs the US taxpayer billions a year. If Napolitano thinks that –ALL–Democrats will accept another trillion dollar budget deficit, cause by a new BLANKET AMNESTY.

    That bridge is still available in Brooklyn..? Very few Republicans will accept another AMNESTY? Not too much chance from Independents. Nor will legal immigrants or ethnic Americans who were born here, fought in four wars. Even people from South of the border are very reticent of allowing more people in, when there is 15 million unemployed. It means millions of low skilled workers would feel the crunch first, as already illegal immigrants who take their wages under the table, especially in Sanctuary States and undermine US labor?

    I know quite a few Democrats who signed onto the Obama Presidency that will fight against any travesty called Comprehensive Immigration Reform? The one in 1986 was a complete disaster and unable to handle the sudden in surge of millions of more destitute people, thinking they were going to collect welfare? Our country is overrun with every conceivable crime, that includes murder, child and female violation, document fraud, transporting of illegal aliens, welfare fraud, house invasion, burglary, robbery, spousal abuse, gangs and other heinous activities The biggest scourge is drunken driving, which is killing and maiming citizens and residents on the highways and streets in rampant numbers. Go to THE DARK SIDE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION site for statistics. The doors to America are wide open, but nobody in their right mind is going to accept the first surge of 2-3 million coming from the South when they hear Lady Napolitano proclaiming a new AMNESTY? Those who believe in America’s survival, without OVERPOPULATION as stated by the US Census bureau better read facts, not the lies at NUMBERSUSA. Those who want details of corruption in WASHINGTON and state government go to JUDICIAL WATCH. Overpopulation, traffic hell should go to CAPSWEB. Other sites of interest on Immigration enforcement is ALIPAC and AMERICAN PATROL. We the people have the ultimate power to throw out anti-sovereignty incumbent politicians. Call and command these do-nothings to–STOP–this facade at 202-224-3121.

  3. KB Says:

    Rubio’s got my vote!!!

  4. ScrewedFLVoter Says:

    Yes!!! Exactly!!! Hold employers responsible for who they hire. Let those who wish to come here – come here legally, stay here legally, and then be employed here legally. They are most welcome if they are here LEGALLY!

  5. ScrewedFLVoter Says:

    Thank God Rubio’s no Reagan – we don’t need another one. “Trickle down economics” my a** – something trickled down alright, but it wasn’t money, and the only thing it accomplished was to put the American taxpayer in the position of being both pissed off and pissed on at the same time!

  6. Delaware Bob Says:

    Yes, it was a big mistake to give amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens back then. They said that was just a one time thing. Yea, right. Now we got 20 million illegal aliens demanding amnesty. Well, I say “NO”.

    Illegal aliens have made America the dumping ground for all their illegal alien children, then we have to school them and give them free medical care.

    I for one, am sick and tired of these illegal aliens snubbing their nose at our immigration laws and the many other laws of this Country. If our Federal Government can not ENFORCE our immigration laws, and get these illegal aliens out of this Country, then let the States do it! One way or another, an end has to come to this illegal immigration, and not with AMNESTY! Amnesty will only encourage more illegal aliens to invade our Country and reward those who broke our laws and raped the American taxpayer in many ways…depressing our wages, taking our jobs, overwhelming our schools with their ILLEGAL ALIEN children, driving without a license or car insurance, all the crime from stolen identities to rape, drugs and everything else.

    It’s time for ZERO TOLERENCE with these illegal aliens. It’s time for them get out of this Country and back in their own Country where they belong. When we get rid of the illegal aliens, we will get rid of all the problems that go with them. THAT IS A FACT!

  7. Rubio: Reagan erred in supporting 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants – Palm Beach Post - www.CanadaOne.org Says:

    [...] source Tags: Canada Immigration, canada news, visa works [...]

  8. Rubio renews calls for debates, Crist camp begins push-back in GOP Senate primary | Post on Politics Says:

    [...] responded to the debate issue. But shortly after Rubio spoke, the Crist camp responded to Rubio’s remarks on immigration by noting a recent Miami Herald article that quetioned Rubio’s commitment to the issue while [...]

  9. steve Says:

    What is the arguement here? every single alien “BROKE THE LAW!” Our Government, past & present, Republican & Democrat, have allowed the invasion of 20 to 30 million criminals and uneducated peons which is the largest invasion of any Nation, at any time, by any means & in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution.

    This refusal to abide by our Constitution or enforce our Immigration Laws should be classified as Treason of the most foul kind, & as grounds for impeachment & trials for Treason!

    Not only have they allowed the invasion, they force American tax payers to pay Billions on Billions of dollars to provide Welfare, Prison cells, Educate the invaders numerous children, and free medical care, at the same time the invading horde break numerous laws and massive document fraud, & are destroying our schools, hospitals, communities, culture and standard of living while Robbing, Raping, Killing & Assaulting American Citizens WAKE UP PEOPLE!

  10. Poster Says:

    Ignorance is Bliss: Those who have NO CLUE or QUALIFICATIONS about Immigration are those who show their IGNORANCE :)

    There is NO SUCH WORD AS ‘ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT” in Blacks Law Dictionary, or In Merriam Websters Dictionary. Get Educated .

    “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that the claim by some conservative activists that illegal immigration is to blame for all of the state’s fiscal problems is ignorant and bigoted.”

    Arturo E. Ocampo of Tracy has been a practicing attorney since 1985, In the 20-plus years I have spent studying, lecturing and litigating immigration issues, two things have always amazed me. The first is the amount and intensity of hate spewed against undocumented workers. The second is the amount of misinformation that is published about them.

    On this second point, the quote from Mark Twain is illustrative. “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” I suppose this may be true in part because misinformation, like a lie, requires no accuracy, validation or research; all of which are time-consuming practices.

    The recent letters alleging that all undocumented workers are “criminals,” and specifically Veronica Suarez, whose plight was written about in the Tracy Press recently, is a criminal are factually incorrect.

    According to the facts (as stated in Sharon Franceschi’s Sept. 7 commentary) Saurez entered the U.S. on a valid visa, overstayed her visa when it expired, resulting in her unlawful immigration status. None of these acts, as stated by Franceschi, constitute a crime under federal or state law. Overstaying a valid visa under the Immigration and Naturalization Act is a civil violation of the law, not a criminal violation. Being in the U.S. in under undocumented status is not a criminal violation, but a civil violation of the INA.

    The facts, as stated by Franceschi, do not indicate that Suarez has committed any crime. To call her a criminal is erroneous at best, and libelous at worst.

    Furthermore, it is an Americanism that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So until Suarez (or any other undocumented person) is charged and found guilty of a crime, it would be inappropriate to call them “criminals.”

    It is important to note that there is a very large difference between civil and criminal violations of law. The distinction is so important that the law makes the erroneous allegation that one has committed a crime of slander or libel, (which means liability is automatic even without proof of damages). One who violates the civil law is no more a criminal than someone who has breached a contract or accidentally damaged another’s property.

    It is true that entering the United States without inspection is a misdemeanor under the INA. The misdemeanor is completed once an individual’s entry is complete. Suarez, according to Franceschi, did not enter without inspection; she entered with a valid visa. According to U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services statistics, about 40 percent of undocumented persons enter legally and overstay their visas (which, as stated above, is not a crime). Consequently, at least 40 percent of the undocumented population has committed no crime in regards to their immigration status.

    Therefore, one cannot assume that a person has committed a crime simply because they are undocumented.

    Franceschi is also in error in her allegation that getting married and having children while being undocumented in the U.S. is a violation of the law. It is not. Franceschi goes on to say that Suarez “apparently bought a house illegally.” It is unlikely that Franceschi knows exactly how Suarez purchased her home. Consequently, any allegation of illegality is, at a minimum, irresponsible.

    It is also important to note that the Immigration and Citizenship Services doesn’t consider all undocumented persons criminals. When the Immigration and Citizenship Services publishes information about its enforcement activities involving undocumented workers, it are always sure to make a distinction between “criminal” and noncriminal aliens.

    Another myth is that the term “illegal aliens” is a term of art or is legal jargon. This term is not found anywhere in the INA or in Blacks Law Dictionary. The INA refers to undocumented persons as either an EWI (entered without inspection) or as someone who has overstayed their visa. “Illegal aliens” is a term invented by anti-immigrant groups designed to put undocumented persons in the worst possible light and to instill fear in Americans. It is intentionally designed to associate undocumented persons with criminality.

    This xenophobic view that undocumented persons are “simply criminals” comes from the historical stereotype that the foreign-born, especially undocumented immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates. This misconception has deep roots in American public opinion and popular myth. This myth, however, is not supported empirically and has repeatedly been refuted by scientific studies. Both contemporary and historical data, (including U.S. governmental studies) have shown that immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

    The studies have uniformly shown that recent immigrants (including the undocumented) are less likely to be involved in violent crime, and that when there is an increase in immigration patterns, violent crime decreases. This has been shown to be true in large cities with heavy immigrant populations.

    In the most recent of these studies, The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation (2007), from the Immigrant Policy Institute, it was found that among men age 18 to 39 (who are the vast majority of inmates in federal and state prisons and local jails), immigrants were five times less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born in 2000.

    During the Proposition 187 debate, then-Gov. Pete Wilson published statistics that stated that
    12 percent to 15 percent of the state prison population had Immigration and Citizenship Services holds or potential holds. The Department of Corrections analyst who compiled these numbers said Immigration and Citizenship Services holds are placed on inmates who were born outside of the U.S. (therefore 12 percent to 15 percent of the prison population was immigrants). The immigrant population at the time in California hovered at about 25 percent, showing immigrants were much less likely to be incarcerated than the native born in California.

    In short, the data shows you are much safer if your neighbor is an immigrant.

    Franceschi owes Suarez an apology. I am also surprised that the Tracy Press allowed a commentary to run without checking the facts. Although commentaries are designed to allow for the expression of differing opinions, the First Amendment is not as generous with misstatements of facts — especially when the facts can be libelous.

    For the immigration debate to be a healthy one, we should strive for a debate based on facts, not myth or tired stereotypes. We should also not let our position on this topic strip us of one of the great qualities we possess as people — the ability to be compassionate.

    Arturo E. Ocampo of Tracy has been a practicing attorney since 1985, with an expertise in immigration rights and class action lawsuits on behalf of immigrants, including the way the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was implemented, Border Patrol’s raids and Proposition 187. He is director of diversity and equal employment opportunity for the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District.

  11. Ed Fulop Says:

    Poster — if you are trying to brag on your education, pay attention to the fact that “illegal immigrant” is TWO words, not one. Generally, dictionaries don’t define two-word terms. My parents immigrated to the US from Hungary in 1956, with an 11 year stop over in Australia. They came in through the front door, filed all the appropriate papers, waited the appropriate length of time, followed all the rules, and became citizens. What they did NOT do was sneak across the border unannounced, or apply for tourist visas and disappear. If your intention is to become a citizen of this country, you make your intentions known, you contribute to your community, you pay your taxes, and you follow the rules. Period. Anyone who does anything else is subverting the process — call them illegal, or undocumented, or whatever your PC demands, it doesn’t change the facts. They are here, and they shouldn’t be. I wonder if your position would change if an “undocumented worker” caused a car accident in which you were seriously injured. Hope the emergency room at the hospital they take you to isn’t filled to the ceiling with other “undocumented workers” waiting for medical care.

  12. Poster Says:

    Ed, Have you ever even read a immigration law book?
    AGAIN, you might have missed this, in my previous post,”It is also important to note that the Immigration and Citizenship Services doesn’t consider all undocumented persons criminals. When the Immigration and Citizenship Services publishes information about its enforcement activities involving undocumented workers, it are always sure to make a distinction between “criminal” and noncriminal aliens.

    Another myth is that the term “illegal aliens” is a term of art or is legal jargon. This term is not found anywhere in the INA or in Blacks Law Dictionary. The INA refers to undocumented persons as either an EWI (entered without inspection) or as someone who has overstayed their visa. “Illegal aliens” is a term invented by anti-immigrant groups designed to put undocumented persons in the worst possible light and to instill fear in Americans. It is intentionally designed to associate undocumented persons with criminality”

    About the Undocumented, Document them and they are now the same as You & Me, They Drive with Licences and will buy Insurance, :)

    NO HUMAN IS ABOVE ANY OTEHR HUMAN IN ALMIGHTY GODS VISION:)
    ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL :)

  13. COWBOY BILL Says:

    I’M THE BIGGEST REAGAN FAN YOU WILL EVER MEET! BUT REAGAN WAS WRONG BY GIVING 3 MILLION ILLEGALS AMNESTY! NOW WE GOT 12-20 MILLION ILLEGALS DEMANDIND AMNESTY! I AGREE WITH MARCO… REAGAN WAS WRONG! NOW LOOK AT THE MESS WE ARE IN! I THINK CRIST NEEDS TO WORRY MORE ABOUT HIM ENDORSING OBAMA AND HIS FAILED STIMULUS PACKAGE THAN MARCO DISAGREEING WITH REAGAN ON AMNESTY! JUST SAYIN…

  14. shecky Says:

    How is it that an anchor baby born to Cuban parents, who were afforded special immigration privileges by the US government because they were from Cuba, can turn around and oppose the same kind of treatment to today’s immigrants with a straight face?

    Rubio claims it was easier to do amnesty than go through normal immigration procedure to such an extent that applicants in line simply gave up and claimed illegal status. His screwed up logic says therefore, there should be no further amnesty, rather than see the real problem right under his nose, that the immigration process is so broken in the first place, people would gladly give up the bureaucratic runaround. Here’s a clue, Rubio: If there’s no bureaucratic nightmare for potential immigrants to navigate in the first place, there’s no need for amnesty programs at all. In other words, liberalize immigration procedure if you want to battle illegal immigration. Make it easier to immigrate.

    And c’mon… tamper proof ID? No such thing. Punishing employers? In this economy, does the government really want to start stifling job creation by insisting employers do a job that the government cannot or will not do? Punishing employers for paying people to work is the worst kind tax on initiative the job market.

  15. End Preferential Treatment for Cubans! Says:

    What does Rubio advocate for CUBAN illegals who crash Foridas shores?

    Aautomatic green cards, cash assistance and subsidized housing?

    Only when Rubio advocates abolition of the Cuban Adjustment Act, which grants any Cuban AUTOMATIC residency rights upon touching US soil, can this guy be taken seriously.

    Consider a boat clandestinely en route to Florida that is intercepted by the US Coast Guard. Onboard are nationals of Cuba, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and half a dozen other nations.

    ALL of these ppl would be deported…while the Cubans ALONE would be escorted to the immigration office to sign up for cash assistance, subsidized housing and medical care!

    How can Rubio with a straight face tell us he opposes ‘preferential treatment’ when he supports the CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT?

  16. race42008.com » Blog Archive » Rubio Moves to Right on Illegal Immigraton Says:

    [...] the Palm Beach Post; “In 1986 Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million people,” Rubio said. “You know what [...]

  17. Conservative ‘Purity Test’ Too Right Wing for Ronald Reagan | Evans Politics Says:

    [...] Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to most undocumented workers who could prove they had been in the country continuously for the [...]

  18. Jimmy Eller Says:

    When will the madness Stop! We need to Protect these illegal immigrants! SO let make ICE do their JOB and DEPORT all these poor illegal immigrants back to whatever country they came FROM. CONFISCATE ALL their WORLDLY POSSESSIONS and Sale their Possessions at Public Auction and use the Money to Help Deport more of these poor illegal immigrants Back to their Homeland Broke. That way it will discourage their Homeland People not to come to United States without PROPER PAPERS.

  19. Reagan Would Fail GOP “Purity Test” Says:

    [...] Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to most undocumented workers who could prove they had been in the country continuously for the [...]

  20. Reagan Would Fail GOP “Purity Test” Says:

    [...] Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to most undocumented workers who could prove they had been in the country continuously for the [...]

  21. The Dustin Inman Society Blog » THE AMNESTY BATTLE OF 2010 BEGINS TUESDAY Says:

    [...] Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, who’s running in the GOP Senate primary against Gov. Charlie Crist. HERE [...]

  22. Kris Says:

    I agree with Brittanicus. I’m a liberal Democrat President Obama supporter but I’m against illegal immigration and anmnesty and so is almost every Democrat I know.

Florida political tweeters
Video: Politics stories
Categories
Archives