Note: For those receiving this via e-mail or RSS feed - you’ll have to go to the site to view the video. Regardless of your political persuasions, it’s probably one of the most captivating speeches of the 20th Century, and it’s worth taking a little more than 3 1/2 minutes to view it.
On June 12, 1987, President Reagan gave this speech at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin.
In viewing this speech, I can’t believe it’s only taken 20 years that we have gone from helping tear down walls that separated talented people from a better way of life to building them ourselves.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe via E-mail
13 responses so far ↓
1 Aaron // Jun 12, 2007 at 6:27 am
No No No Justin:
It’s the US/Mexican Border that we are building a fence on. Not the US/Canadian Border. So the majority of the “talented people” will still be able to cross the border. Good thing too. We wouldn’t want all those Canadian Doctors fleeing the Canadian Medical System to have to jump a fence…
2 LiberalNC // Jun 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm
You can build the highest fence ,the widest moat or dig the deepest ravine, if you don’t change anything about the reasons why people feel they have to come here in the first place, they’ll find a way to get here.
Heck, sometimes even our own soldiers bring them in.
3 Aaron // Jun 12, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Right now the only think bringing them here is money. Better wages, better education, better healthcare etc.
And why stay and work change your own country when there is a better one a few hundred miles away with a big “Help Wanted” sign on it.
I couldn’t agree with you more…
4 Justin Thibault // Jun 15, 2007 at 1:22 am
Aaron -
So Mexicans have no talent? There’s no demand for their services here?
LiberalNC -
Milton Friedman couldn’t have said it better.
5 Aaron // Jun 15, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Can your son pick up a baseball? If so, he can do one of the jobs that “Americans wont do.” I was picking vegetables on a farm when I was 4 years old…
6 Justin Thibault // Jun 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Aaron, so are you saying that all Mexicans can do is pick vegatables?
7 Aaron // Jun 19, 2007 at 12:30 pm
No, but this is the rhetoric that is being pushed down the throats of the American people by the political machine. The demand for their services rests on the extremely low price they are willing to do the jobs, not on the level of skill they possess.
I think that we will always have a need for immigration and I think that some of our policy is outdated. Clearly there must be some change. The border fence bill was supposed to be the beginning of that but they have built 2.5 miles in six months and have been moving slowly on purpose.
The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again, each time expecting different results… The political rhetoric over this bill is the same as the 1986 bill. The promises are the same too. The end result will be the same.
Cheap labor is at the heart of this issue and nothing more. The guest worker program attached to the bill is a testament to that.
8 Justin Thibault // Jun 20, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Shouldn’t the rate of pay have something to do with the level of skill? If someone is willing to work for minimum wage for a menial job - shouldn’t we let them?
I believe that some folks in Russia, the Baltic States, and some surrounding countries tried to remove differences in pay through government force in the past century - you may want to check to see how that worked out for them.
The 1986 bill focused on amensty - this bill focuses on enforcement first.
9 Aaron // Jun 21, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“The 1986 bill focused on amensty - this bill focuses on enforcement first”
I suggest you read the actual bill that is going before the senate before you say something like that.
I totally agree with you: There should be NO minimum wage law in the United States. Would you also say that there should be no Welfare or Medicaid in the United States? If you agree then we have more in common every time we speak. If you disagree and see a purpose in welfare or medicaid then ask yourself this:
If I make 1500 a month off of federal aid then why take a job that pays 1000 a month? That is the hypocrisy of this argument.
“We need workers,we need amnesty, we need this that this that and that”
And out of the same mouth:
“We need medicare prescription drug coverage, we need to secure social security, we need national health coverage, we need gasoline price controls”
So there are no Legal immigrants or natural born citizens out of work? There are no “moochers” collecting a check because it’s all they’re qualified to do?
Lastly, if my uncle offered you 650k per year to pick his blueberries for him, you’d turn him down???
10 Justin Thibault // Jun 21, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Having your favorite talk radio host doesn’t count as reading it.
Answer me this - which comes first: the construction of hundreds of miles of border fence and a new employment verification system or the awarding of “Z” visas?
If the requirements for keeping student visas were any indication, it’s easy for someone to lose certain types of legal immigration status.
A significant percentage of technology firms are started by people who weren’t born the United States. If, for every new nanotechnology firm, we have to tolerate 1000 free-loaders - it’s still worth it. If, for every Sun Microsystems (started in the US by foreign-born workers and powering the same Internet you’re using right now), we have to tolerate a million, I say bring ‘em in.
Of course, the ratios are nowhere near that (even in your Birth Of A Nationesque world). Statistically, the legal immigrants are employed more or less to the same degree that native-born Americans are. Even the illegals are. I agree that with the wheat comes the chaff and we should do more to separate it. However, it doesn’t mean we have to stop everything until we devise the “perfect” system.
I would not do it myself; but I would see to it that it got done. Actually, if that were the going rate for blueberry pickers - I would promise your uncle - and a dozen other clients - the best team of blueberry pickers anywhere. My staff of blueberry pickers would be highly-trained and efficient - moving from field to field making a living wage while I sat back and reaped the profit. Sound familar?
11 Aaron // Jun 21, 2007 at 11:42 pm
“Having your favorite talk radio host doesn’t count as reading it.”
I personally read both the old bill (617 pages) and the “new bill” (418 pages), you’ll notice Ted Kennedy’s signature on the upper right hand corner of this new bill. I think the new bill goes a little farther and some of the most shocking parts have been removed or, at least better hidden.
So, having Lindsay Grahm tell you what’s in it doesn’t count either.
To answer your question: Amnesty First and Third and Enforcement Second. See Page 2 of S-1639 (This page refers you to page 317 (section 601(h).Note lines 27-31)
The Congressional Budget Office has studied this bill and given it’s report (which I also read) which states that all the billions we will spend will only reduce the problem by 13%. Furthermore, their report also states that it will cost us an additional 29 billion the first year in Earned Income Tax Credits.
But here are some other intersting facts
Felons can stay S 1639 (pg 66)
Persons not eligible for “Z-nonimmigrant status” are not deported. (pg 310)
Illegals caught using forged documents to obtain employment cannot be fired if hired. (pg 129)
In terms of enforcement, even if there were an actual date to begin processing aliens consider these things:
It takes 180 days from entrance to graduation to basically train a border patrol agent. The average number of agents trained each year is 500. The bill calls for training 2400 per year. In order to train 2400 agents per year we would have to quintuple the size of their training facility There are no provisions for that or appropriations in the bill.
It calls for increase in bedspace for deportees and detainees but only 20,000 more beds(there are 12 million illegals in the US currently) That is slightly undersized. And there are no provisions for opening any new immigration courts. Although there are provisions for a bunch of nifty new task forces.
There is no magical database to check legal status and unless you and your fellow programmers and engineers quit your high paying jobs and go design a system on a civil servants salary there wont be one for at least 3 more years. Other than AFIS, which only covers felonies at the state level there is no other “biometric system” currently on the horizon.
And lest we forget that Z visa applicants are required to undergo a background check, one that must be completed in 24 hours. (pg 317)
Been watching the news lately? They are 3 months behind on passport background checks and they will be using the same system to check these 12 million people.
We are fighting a war on terror, but we can’t police our own borders. We are fighting a war on poverty and vomiting money to anyone who can “prove” they need it. And we are planning on providing a blank check to some of the most impoverished people in the world. If you are feeling really charitable, go ahead and hire a few dozen of them. Just keep my tax dollars out of it.
“I would not do it myself; but I would see to it that it got done. Actually, if that were the going rate for blueberry pickers - I would promise your uncle - and a dozen other clients - the best team of blueberry pickers anywhere. My staff of blueberry pickers would be highly-trained and efficient - moving from field to field making a living wage while I sat back and reaped the profit. Sound familar?”
In this hypothetical, the rate (650k) is for blueberry pickers, not union bosses, supervisors or even presidents, ceo’s or engineers, its for dumb as a rock blueberry pickers who require training in order to know how to put their fingers together and pull. Would you refuse to pick blueberry’s for 650k a year?
It’s OK, if you don’t answer, I’m sure you know where this is going…
12 Justin Thibault // Jun 25, 2007 at 4:42 pm
The original question was - what happens first: is “amnesty” granted OR then enforcement milestones met first?
The answer is that there are enforcement provisions that have to be met first and THEN the process for legalization starts.
Of course, you chose to obfiscate when faced with a direct question.
What problem? The number of people coming in? The number of people we don’t know about? The number of people voting for Sanjia on American Ido?
You can’t reduce a “problem” - you can only reduce a measureable amount of some known quantity.
They’re called contracts.
Ah, yes, the almighty “they”. I think you’re referring to the State Department. That’s who we citizens get our passports from.
And the government has never brought in additional resources to accomplish a task.
Hypothetical? It’s more of a non sequitur; but I’ll join you’re little fantasy world where blueberry pickers make $650K, my car floats on air on a Sterling Engine fueled by pixie dust and report for work to earn $325/hr to pick blueberries.
13 Aaron // Jun 25, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Last one first and work my way up…
Hypothetical? It’s more of a non sequitur; but I’ll join you’re little fantasy world where blueberry pickers make $650K, my car floats on air on a Sterling Engine fueled by pixie dust and report for work to earn $325/hr to pick blueberries.
So, if by that you are saying that there is a wage at which YOU would reduce youself from your current tech job with good working conditions and go out into a steaming field to pick blueberries, THEN, are there any jobs that Americans won’t do? Or are there just a whole hell of a lot of jobs that Americans wont do for $5.25 per hour? Again, you don’t have to answer that question either…
Next, The CBO used known facts based on ICE and Border Patrol estimates. Not exact numbers by any means but both agencies are closer to “ground zero” than anyone in DC.
“The original question was - what happens first: is “amnesty” granted OR then enforcement milestones met first?
The answer is that there are enforcement provisions that have to be met first and THEN the process for legalization starts.”
Wow, splitting hairs aren’t we?
If I say, “Hey Justin, you can stay at my place until my new privacy fence is built, and after it’s built… you can still stay…” What am I saying to you?
That’s what the bill does, plain and simple. Prvision 601(h) of Title VI.
As far as obfuscating, I don’t know how much clearer my comment could have been, I cited the pages in the bill where you could read it for yourself.
So no comments on the other provisions like 2400 border patrol agents per year? Allowing felons to stay? Not being able to fire a forger or one who utters a forged insturment?
Oh Yeah, this is a mighty sweet piece of legislation alright!
It’s pretty clear, all the folks who are against this bill really want is for the government to enforce existing laws. There is no need for this bill. The border fence bill was passed last year, that problem is “solved.” that bill had provisions for more border patrol and ICE agents. So did Simpson-Mazzoli.