War of Worlds: The Adverse Effects of Immigration in the Reagan Era
Story by Matthew Kim, Cover Photos by Library of Congress, Metlin Ozer, Mitchel Lensink and Tim Mossholder, Collage by Mallika Sunder.
“Government is not a solution to the problem; government is the problem” is a sentiment of former President Ronald Reagan’s that seems to suggest there is no solution to the government but to implode it. However, while the best solution to governmental issues might not be to destroy it, it is important to examine the issue on multiple levels to see why Reagan implies this. In terms of immigration, Reagan’s effect was certainly broad but that begs the question, “did it help the people it was meant to?” Reagan faced a response on cascading levels-- through the public perception of those affected by his immigration policies, how this affected other countries to change their own policies, as well as how Reagan era legislature has been echoed in the United States’ current immigration stance. Above all, the state of immigration policies in the current world are dire. At that point, the most objective solution is to look back on the past to gain insight for the future.
The first level to look at is how those outside of Reagan’s inner circle looked upon his immigration policies. Reagan’s immigration policies sparked widespread approval strictly contained to one facet of politics. In response to a proposal to reduce immigration to the United States and double the size of the Border Patrol, many prominent Republican Senators seem to have been in agreement, citing that “Immigration policies have virtually gone out of control. Fidel Castro and leaders of maybe a dozen other countries really have more to say about how many people we bring to this country, who they are and when they come than does the executive branch” (Pear 13). This has two implications. First, it shows how immigration policies have gone haywire and lawmakers see a unique incentive to fix this. Second, it highlights the massive supply of immigrants making their way to the U.S, not all of whom the U.S can solve. Thus, the reactions to Reagan’s immigration policy were rather positive, but divisively partisan.
However, aside from the U.S. partisan response, President Reagan’s immigration policies affected other countries in varying ways. In particular, Mexico criticized his proposals, saying, “they served the interests of United States employers and would institutionalize the inferior status of Mexican workers” (Pear 18). Indeed, the Reagan response was futile. Then-Attorney General William French Smith remarked that he “did not pay much heed to criticism of the Administration's program because it was all directed at individual elements and because the critics rarely offered a comprehensive alternative” (Pear 18). This displays the sour international response to immigration. A possible explanation could be the pre-existing perception of Mexicans in the workforce. Pear describes how the Reagan administration painted such individuals as “illegal aliens”, creating an aura of deceit and a negative connotation to accompany his immigration policies. A similar sentiment was echoed by Fidel Castro, the Cuban president at the time. Jo Thomas of the New York Times writes he was “Ready to accept the ‘olive branch’ from the United States, but expressed deep concern that Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy as a President would be a threat to Latin America and world peace” (Pear 9). This highlights a unified response from affected countries.
This unified response has been echoed in the United States’ current immigration policies today. In the 2016 election, Alicia Caldwell of PBS reports “Republicans say President Barack Obama’s immigraiton enforcement policies encourage more people to sneak into the country. Democrats blame Republicans for blocking legislation that would allow people already heer to gain legal status and create a path for future, legal immigration. Immigration experts say the problem took root at least 30 years ago, when President Ronald Reagan signed a 1986 immigration law that has become known as ‘Reagan Amnesty’” (Caldwell). The policy Caldwell is referencing is a law that was supposed to drive an idea then thought of as “modern immigration enforcement” through requiring employers to hire workers who have explicit, legal permission to work in the United States. However, Caldwell furthers that this “never actually materialized,” the impacts lost to history (Caldwell). This provides important insight on how Reagan’s immigration policies are being used today--as a historical precedent and an indicator that the issues faced in the present are identical to those from the past.
Thus, although the degree to which Reagan’s effect on immigration was highly debatable at the time, it is clear that the majority of people felt it had an adverse effect on the people it was meant to help. Although there is semblance between the overarching issues at play, both in past and present, there seems to exist a disconnect between how various sectors of society responded. For instance, a largely congenial response came from the progressive Republican party that President Ronald Reagan identified with. In contrast, Mexico and Cuba saw great deceit in Reagan’s intentions, foreseeing a marginalization of Mexican individuals which has certainly shown truth today. Even now, Reagan’s unique immigration policies are at play in the halls of government, whether in political campaigns or presidential debates. But regardless of the possible changing of the situation since then, Reagan’s proposals have paved the way for a politically innovative future, leaving an indelible mark on the United States’ domestic policy, acting as possible solutions for the problems that he created. Indeed, though government is a growing problem in quelling a mass exodus of needy individuals, and conversely, is not the universal magic bullet, it can certainly become one component of a solution that benefits all. It is a chance that can be taken without hesitation.
Works Cited
Caldwell, Alicia A. "Today's Immigration Debate Rooted in 'Reagan Amnesty,'
Experts Say." PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 23 Aug. 2016, www.pbs.org/
newshour/nation/todays-immigration-debate-rooted-reagan-amnesty-experts-say.
Pear, Robert. "Adviser in Mexican Government Assails Reagan Immigration Plan."
The New York Times [New York City], 5 Aug. 1981, sec. A, p. 18. The New
York Times Digital Archives, www.nytimes.com/1981/08/05/us/
adviser-in-mexican-government-assails-reagan-immigration-plan.html?searchResultPo
sition=2. Accessed 16 July 2021.
---. "Bills in Congress Seek Sharp Reduction in Immigration." The New York Times
[New York City], 25 Mar. 1981, sec. A, p. 13. The New York Times Digital
Archives, www.nytimes.com/1981/03/25/us/
bills-in-congress-seek-sharp-reduction-in-immigration.html?searchResultPosition=7
. Accessed 16 July 2021.
Thomas, Jo. "Castro Says Reagan Foreign Policy Will Pose a Threat to World
Peace." The New York Times [New York City], 18 Dec. 1980, sec. A, p. 1.
The New York Times Digital Archives, www.nytimes.com/1980/12/18/archives/
castro-says-reagan-foreign-policy-will-pose-a-threat-to-world-peace.html?searchRe
sultPosition=16. Accessed 16 July 2021.
