From Ronald to Donald
Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 29 June 2025
by Jorge Durand (link to original)
(Mexico) on 29 June 2025
by Jorge Durand (link to original)
Translated from
by Stephen Routledge.
Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
The years and times we are living through in this fateful 2025 have made me reconsider my opinion of former neoliberal President Ronald Reagan, and even George W. Bush, one from California and the other from Texas, both neighbors of Mexico with a vision different from that of today's Republicans.
Ronald, unlike Donald, served as governor of California and knew his state had a significant Latino population. And his personal opinion on the matter was very clear: They are “… bold men and women, yearning for freedom and opportunity” and “I think the time has come when the United States and our neighbors, particularly our neighbor to the south, should have a better understanding and a better relationship than we've ever had […]. Rather than making them, of talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit.”
On the contrary, Donald Trump began his political campaign for the presidency in 2016 by saying, “I want nothing to do with Mexico other than to build an impenetrable WALL and stop them from ripping off U.S.” He then stated that "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best … They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.”
But Reagan went far beyond expressing a favorable opinion about Mexicans and his opposition to building walls. He was the architect of the 1986 amnesty law, called IRCA. "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. They believe in the American dream. And over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children, and for others. They give more than they receive […] They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America.”*
Indeed, Reagan signed the amnesty law proposed by Sens. Alan Simpson and Peter Rodino and approved by both houses. That law allowed for the legalization of 2.5 million immigrants without documentation, which led to the formation of a legal Mexican community in the United States. Previously, the Mexican-American community was predominantly made up of people from the annexed territories and families who remained in the neighboring country to the north.
This was because the successive mass deportations of Mexicans in the first half of the 20th century seriously affected Mexican communities, especially in the northern states. Later, the U.S. enacted a policy of temporary and male migration, either through the Bracero Program or during the undocumented period (1942 to 1986). Hence the significance of the amnesty law that Reagan signed in 1986.
In contrast, Democratic President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) passed one of the most punitive laws against immigrants, The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which, as its name suggests, focuses on prosecuting and punishing undocumented migration, classifying it as illegal.
Paradoxically, Republican President George W. Bush (2001-2009) of Texas said, “It is neither wise nor realistic to detain millions of people.” He complained about his own party which claimed that the solution was to deport all illegal immigrants and that any proposal to reform these measures was amnesty. I disagree. There are differences between an immigrant in the U.S. illegally who has just arrived and another who has worked here for many years and has a home, a family, or a positive track record.
As a good Texan rancher, Bush knew what it was like to cross the border and the hardships migrants had to endure. In one of his speeches, he pointed out, “Many undocumented workers have walked mile after mile, through the heat of the day and the cold of the night. Some have risked their lives in dangerous desert border crossings, or entrusted their lives to the brutal rings of heartless human smugglers […] When they are victimized by crime, they are afraid to call the police, or seek recourse in the legal system. They are cut off from their families far away, fearing if they leave our country to visit relatives back home, they might never be able to return to their jobs.”
And in fact, at the beginning of the 21st century, it was possible to think about and propose new immigration reform favorable to migrants with broad participation from Mexico, the “whole enchilada.” But that entire lobbying project collapsed on 9/11 with the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Statesmen like Reagan and Bush, who understood the border and its deep interconnection with Mexico for the benefit of both countries, no longer exist; the current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, is of the same ilk as Trump.
Paradoxically, the events in Los Angeles and Trump's arbitrary intervention have boosted the profile of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, the precise source of these quoted remarks could not be verified.
Ronald, unlike Donald, served as governor of California and knew his state had a significant Latino population. And his personal opinion on the matter was very clear: They are “… bold men and women, yearning for freedom and opportunity” and “I think the time has come when the United States and our neighbors, particularly our neighbor to the south, should have a better understanding and a better relationship than we've ever had […]. Rather than making them, of talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit.”
On the contrary, Donald Trump began his political campaign for the presidency in 2016 by saying, “I want nothing to do with Mexico other than to build an impenetrable WALL and stop them from ripping off U.S.” He then stated that "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best … They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.”
But Reagan went far beyond expressing a favorable opinion about Mexicans and his opposition to building walls. He was the architect of the 1986 amnesty law, called IRCA. "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. They believe in the American dream. And over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children, and for others. They give more than they receive […] They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America.”*
Indeed, Reagan signed the amnesty law proposed by Sens. Alan Simpson and Peter Rodino and approved by both houses. That law allowed for the legalization of 2.5 million immigrants without documentation, which led to the formation of a legal Mexican community in the United States. Previously, the Mexican-American community was predominantly made up of people from the annexed territories and families who remained in the neighboring country to the north.
This was because the successive mass deportations of Mexicans in the first half of the 20th century seriously affected Mexican communities, especially in the northern states. Later, the U.S. enacted a policy of temporary and male migration, either through the Bracero Program or during the undocumented period (1942 to 1986). Hence the significance of the amnesty law that Reagan signed in 1986.
In contrast, Democratic President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) passed one of the most punitive laws against immigrants, The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which, as its name suggests, focuses on prosecuting and punishing undocumented migration, classifying it as illegal.
Paradoxically, Republican President George W. Bush (2001-2009) of Texas said, “It is neither wise nor realistic to detain millions of people.” He complained about his own party which claimed that the solution was to deport all illegal immigrants and that any proposal to reform these measures was amnesty. I disagree. There are differences between an immigrant in the U.S. illegally who has just arrived and another who has worked here for many years and has a home, a family, or a positive track record.
As a good Texan rancher, Bush knew what it was like to cross the border and the hardships migrants had to endure. In one of his speeches, he pointed out, “Many undocumented workers have walked mile after mile, through the heat of the day and the cold of the night. Some have risked their lives in dangerous desert border crossings, or entrusted their lives to the brutal rings of heartless human smugglers […] When they are victimized by crime, they are afraid to call the police, or seek recourse in the legal system. They are cut off from their families far away, fearing if they leave our country to visit relatives back home, they might never be able to return to their jobs.”
And in fact, at the beginning of the 21st century, it was possible to think about and propose new immigration reform favorable to migrants with broad participation from Mexico, the “whole enchilada.” But that entire lobbying project collapsed on 9/11 with the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Statesmen like Reagan and Bush, who understood the border and its deep interconnection with Mexico for the benefit of both countries, no longer exist; the current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, is of the same ilk as Trump.
Paradoxically, the events in Los Angeles and Trump's arbitrary intervention have boosted the profile of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, the precise source of these quoted remarks could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "The Horsemen of the New Cold War")
Next article![]( "A Step Back*")