Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have mixed feelings on the refugee situation but it's always interesting how moderate Reagan was in reality and how his actions ran counter to many of today's conservative positions.
But thirty years later, the US of today is much changed. Just as the US was even more different a hundred years ago. We really don't have the room or the resources to welcome a 100,000 refugees that would be staying in the country pretty much permanently. America doesn't have enough decent jobs for its own citizens let alone jobs for Syrian refugees. So once they are here, most of them will need government support indefinitely in regards to housing, food and educating their children. And their children, once acclimated to living in the US will not want to ever return to Syria.
Economically, most Americans are struggling to live week to week. And any open land we have would be better utilized for farmland or conservation efforts. Maybe one hundred years ago, we could have taken in all the refugees, but the jobs just aren't there for them. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas.
Our money would be better spent trying to make Syria livable for them so that they could just stay put. And they should stop having babies while they are living in such a terrible situation.
Very few of the illegals amnestied in the '80s were "refugees", certainly not millions.
True, but that makes the point even further. Reagan offered amnesty to millions - both everyday illegals and refugees.
Again, I'm not taking Reagan's side on this because I think it's very complicated but it's interesting how the hero of conservatism acted on values that transfoemed our country but would get him rejected from the Republicans of today.
But thirty years later, the US of today is much changed. Just as the US was even more different a hundred years ago. We really don't have the room or the resources to welcome a 100,000 refugees that would be staying in the country pretty much permanently. America doesn't have enough decent jobs for its own citizens let alone jobs for Syrian refugees. So once they are here, most of them will need government support indefinitely in regards to housing, food and educating their children. And their children, once acclimated to living in the US will not want to ever return to Syria.
Economically, most Americans are struggling to live week to week. And any open land we have would be better utilized for farmland or conservation efforts. Maybe one hundred years ago, we could have taken in all the refugees, but the jobs just aren't there for them. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas.
Our money would be better spent trying to make Syria livable for them so that they could just stay put. And they should stop having babies while they are living in such a terrible situation.
The U.S. in the 80s was not much different. Like Obama, Reagan inherited a massive recession from the blunders of his predecessors.
Also similarly, the economic engine took time to get into full swing while Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegals and refugees who'd already settled here. Even worse, industrial manufacturing was moving overseas while Japanese imports were coming in, so the need for jobs was at least as great as it is today.
Reagan's amnesty was part of a deal with the democrats to close the border. Unfortunately only one side kept its word.
But the tighter crack down on employers was stripped out of the bill before Reagan signed it, and I agree with the other poster that neither Republicans nor Democrats have really solved immigration, so I'm not sure why you think it's partisan.
Businesses depend on cheap labor, which is more in the camp of conservatives to protect than the high salary and union loving Democrats.
People go around fences. Obama's removed the largest number of illegals of any president.
But the tighter crack down on employers was stripped out of the bill before Reagan signed it, and I agree with the other poster that neither Republicans nor Democrats have really solved immigration, so I'm not sure why you think it's partisan.
Businesses depend on cheap labor, which is more in the camp of conservatives to protect than the high salary and union loving Democrats.
People go around fences. Obama's removed the largest number of illegals of any president.
Actually the Obama argument is not quite right either. They changed how they counted the removal numbers. So while yes, the number removed is up, thats more of a reporting issue. He's about average that way.
But yeah, this isnt partisan, this is politicians unwilling to do their job as the situation benefits people they care about. E-verify-simple and easy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
