The last time we've elected an anti-amnesty POTUS was Nixon.

[RR1997]

As we all know, Obama, Clinton, and Carter are pro-amnesty.

As most of us know, Bush Jr was also pro-amnesty. It's why he won 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (Romney's Hispanic support was in the mid 20's). He campaigned on the fact that he was pro-amnesty and the base didn't care. The base didn't agree with him on this issue, but they still supported him. Now a days if a candidate is pro-amnesty, he is torn into pieces by the base, and the candidate would have no chance of winning. The base didn't care about amnesty 10-15 years ago. Now a days it's the only issue the GOP base even cares about. The base forced Jeb and Rubio to move right on the issue of immigration. It's like the GOP is devolving on issues like this. It's really sad.

Reagan was also pro-amnesty.
https://youtu.be/t0tRiy8EBWc
https://youtu.be/Ednq_vKPdQE

Reagan claimed that he supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Reagan also signed an immigration bill that gave amnesty to all illegal aliens who arrived before 1982. IIRC, Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, more than Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Carter/etc. The immigration revolution started with Reagan. Bush Sr. was also pro-amnesty.

Nixon was a anti-amnesty. This means that we haven't had an anti-amnesty POTUS in 41 years.

Will we have an anti-amnesty POTUS in 2017? Also, why does amnesty matter to the GOP base so much now a days? Why didn't it matter to them 10-15 years ago?

[Mehmentum]

Most likely not.  The Republican with the best chance of winning is Rubio, who'll probably try to pivot to the center on immigration in the GE. 

[Young Conservative]

As we all know, Obama, Clinton, and Carter are pro-amnesty.

As most of us know, Bush Jr was also pro-amnesty. It's why he won 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (Romney's Hispanic support was in the mid 20's). He campaigned on the fact that he was pro-amnesty and the base didn't care. The base didn't agree with him on this issue, but they still supported him. Now a days if a candidate is pro-amnesty, he is torn into pieces by the base, and the candidate would have no chance of winning. The base didn't care about amnesty 10-15 years ago. Now a days it's the only issue the GOP base even cares about. The base forced Jeb and Rubio to move right on the issue of immigration. It's like the GOP is devolving on issues like this. It's really sad.

Reagan was also pro-amnesty.

https://youtu.be/t0tRiy8EBWc
https://youtu.be/Ednq_vKPdQE

Reagan claimed that he supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Reagan also signed an immigration bill that gave amnesty to all illegal aliens who arrived before 1982. IIRC, Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, more than Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Carter/etc. The immigration revolution started with Reagan. Bush Sr. was also pro-amnesty.

Nixon was a anti-amnesty. This means that we haven't had an anti-amnesty POTUS in 41 years.

Will we have an anti-amnesty POTUS in 2017? Also, why does amnesty matter to the GOP base so much now a days? Why didn't it matter to them 10-15 years ago?

Amnesty is the one of the reasons I don't support Senator Rubio or governor Jeb, despite being a Floridian. Amnesty cannot be their policy or they won't win the base (me) or inspire turnout. They can win a general election, get a large chunk of the hispanic vote, and still be anti-amnesty.

[Türkisblau]

As we all know, Obama, Clinton, and Carter are pro-amnesty.

As most of us know, Bush Jr was also pro-amnesty. It's why he won 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (Romney's Hispanic support was in the mid 20's). He campaigned on the fact that he was pro-amnesty and the base didn't care. The base didn't agree with him on this issue, but they still supported him. Now a days if a candidate is pro-amnesty, he is torn into pieces by the base, and the candidate would have no chance of winning. The base didn't care about amnesty 10-15 years ago. Now a days it's the only issue the GOP base even cares about. The base forced Jeb and Rubio to move right on the issue of immigration. It's like the GOP is devolving on issues like this. It's really sad.

Reagan was also pro-amnesty.

https://youtu.be/t0tRiy8EBWc
https://youtu.be/Ednq_vKPdQE

Reagan claimed that he supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Reagan also signed an immigration bill that gave amnesty to all illegal aliens who arrived before 1982. IIRC, Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, more than Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Carter/etc. The immigration revolution started with Reagan. Bush Sr. was also pro-amnesty.

Nixon was a anti-amnesty. This means that we haven't had an anti-amnesty POTUS in 41 years.

Will we have an anti-amnesty POTUS in 2017? Also, why does amnesty matter to the GOP base so much now a days? Why didn't it matter to them 10-15 years ago?

Amnesty is the one of the reasons I don't support Senator Rubio or governor Jeb, despite being a Floridian. Amnesty cannot be their policy or they won't win the base (me) or inspire turnout. They can win a general election, get a large chunk of the hispanic vote, and still be anti-amnesty.

Are you really old enough to vote? lol

[dudeabides]

The less engaged old white men that are the tea party continue to believe that amnesty is anything that doesn't spend $140 billion to ship everyone here illegally across the border. President Bush and Senator Rubio support allowing those here illegally to obtain a pathway to citizenship, Governor Bush wants those here illegally to pay a fine and have a pathway to be here legally. Amnesty is making everyone legal without having to pay a fine.

[CapoteMonster]

The less engaged old white men that are the tea party continue to believe that amnesty is anything that doesn't spend $140 billion to ship everyone here illegally across the border. President Bush and Senator Rubio support allowing those here illegally to obtain a pathway to citizenship, Governor Bush wants those here illegally to pay a fine and have a pathway to be here legally. Amnesty is making everyone legal without having to pay a fine.

Dudeabides has a good point for once. Hysteria over these immigration policies being blanket amnesty is really unfounded considering all the requirements needed to become a citizen under Bush and Rubio's plans.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nixon was the last good President we had, so....

[Abraham Reagan]

You're forgetting that the amnesty bill Reagan signed was two-pronged. Yes, it gave amnesty to the millions of illegals that were here, but it also entailed securing the border. Obviously, that never happened, and now, we're having this same amnesty or no amnesty discussion, except with an even larger group of illegals. Any plan for a path to legal status MUST first begin with securing the border, or else the issue will never go away.

[dudeabides]

Nixon was the last good President we had, so....

Stop being a troll. Nixon gave us the EPA, Pat Buchanan, and he continued the war in Vietnam for years despite promising to end it.

I think it's ridiculous to compare immigration policies a decade or two ago to immigration now. The border is far more dangerous today than it was 10 years ago. In addition to amnesty under Reagan, let's realize he only supported it for those that came here before 1982. He didn't let everyone become citizens. I do not know why the base is so anti-amnesty. However, Paleocons and constitutionalists have always been against amnesty

Actually, that isn't the case. Consider this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flow-of-illegal-immigration-slows-as-us-mexico-border-dynamics-evolve/2015/05/27/c5caf02c-006b-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

[The Mikado]

I love how the OP apparently forgot that Gerald Ford was president.

[Badger]

As we all know, Obama, Clinton, and Carter are pro-amnesty.

As most of us know, Bush Jr was also pro-amnesty. It's why he won 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (Romney's Hispanic support was in the mid 20's). He campaigned on the fact that he was pro-amnesty and the base didn't care. The base didn't agree with him on this issue, but they still supported him. Now a days if a candidate is pro-amnesty, he is torn into pieces by the base, and the candidate would have no chance of winning. The base didn't care about amnesty 10-15 years ago. Now a days it's the only issue the GOP base even cares about. The base forced Jeb and Rubio to move right on the issue of immigration. It's like the GOP is devolving on issues like this. It's really sad.

Reagan was also pro-amnesty.

https://youtu.be/t0tRiy8EBWc
https://youtu.be/Ednq_vKPdQE

Reagan claimed that he supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Reagan also signed an immigration bill that gave amnesty to all illegal aliens who arrived before 1982. IIRC, Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, more than Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Carter/etc. The immigration revolution started with Reagan. Bush Sr. was also pro-amnesty.

Nixon was a anti-amnesty. This means that we haven't had an anti-amnesty POTUS in 41 years.

Will we have an anti-amnesty POTUS in 2017? Also, why does amnesty matter to the GOP base so much now a days? Why didn't it matter to them 10-15 years ago?

Amnesty is the one of the reasons I don't support Senator Rubio or governor Jeb, despite being a Floridian. Amnesty cannot be their policy or they won't win the base (me) or inspire turnout. They can win a general election, get a large chunk of the hispanic vote, and still be anti-amnesty.

Are you really old enough to vote? lol

90% chance no.

98% chance he's not out of college.

65% chance LGBT (Atlas and all)

100% chance doesn't know what he's talking about.

[wolfsblood07]

The conservative base has has decided that illegal aliens are the biggest threat we have to keeping the country from going completely socialist.  Ann Coulter has been promoting the idea that Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration law is why the electorate is now so favorable to left wing Democrats like Obama.  So if we don't deport them, we'll have Obamas in perpetuity.  Coulter is so convinced of this, she is supporting Trump because he is in agreement with her on immigration, and she said she doesn't even care what his stance is on things like abortion.  Trump wants to deport all the illegals and get rid of the anchor baby loophole.  Which are great ideas both. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its not that the issue was not around in the 1990's. In fact it was and the Republican congress passed a series of bills in the mid 1990's, including the ones that created e-verify after they took control over Congress in 1994.

1) Immigration has always been an issue of concern for varying elements in the Republican Party since it was founded in 1854.

2) Since the Party has become more heavily reliant on white-working class voters to keep the Party afloat as upper class suburbs and minorities have become less favorable, this mean the Party will reflect the concerns, real or imagined of the former group.

3) Wages have fallen in many sectors, and over population is easily connected with that in the minds of many voters.

4) One of the big changes is that previously you had Democrats who took this line and there were over a dozen Democratic Senators who voted against Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2007 for that concern and others. In 2013, all of them voted in favor. As one party becomes monolithic on an issue, those within that party holding the opposite view will gravitate towards the opposition party. It is therefore the nature of the two party system, that with the Democrats always going to be taking the lead in support of as much immigration as possible and its internal politics driving them to left on the matter of illegal immigration, polarization will push the Republicans in the opposite direction.

Nixon was trying to win over blue collar union Democrats in working class suburbs in places like Michigan as well as in the South. This approached was evident not only on policies like busing, but also on immigration. The Republican base was not impacted by low skilled immigration, because it was both narrow and upscale until the 1980's and 1990's, once you had massive registration shifts by working class voters to the GOP. Since then the issue has been increasingly at the forefront and what was once a pitch by Nixon to swing voters, is now a demand from the base.

[RR1997]

I love how the OP apparently forgot that Gerald Ford was president.

Was he pro amnesty?

I didn't forget him. I just couldn't find any statements about immigration from Ford, so I decided to ignore him. Besides, he wasn't technically elected POTUS either, so I'll change the title from "The last time we've had an anti-immigration POTUS was Nixon" to "The last time we've elected an anti-immigration POTUS was Nixon." Idk if Ford was pro-amnesty or anti-amnesty.

[dudeabides]

I love how the OP apparently forgot that Gerald Ford was president.

Was he pro amnesty?

I didn't forget him. I just couldn't find any statements about immigration from Ford, so I decided to ignore him. Besides, he wasn't technically elected POTUS either, so I'll change the title from "The last time we've had an anti-immigration POTUS was Nixon" to "The last time we've elected an anti-immigration POTUS was Nixon." Idk if Ford was pro-amnesty or anti-amnesty.

President Bush Jr. has never supported amnesty. President Reagan signed amnesty into law. But beyond those two, I'm not sure as to the positions on illegal immigration of prior Presidents. But I do know this: George W. Bush supported comprehensive immigration reform and won 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Mitt Romney took a hard-line stance and won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012. Donald Trump's fiscally irresponsible, anti-5th amendment approach to this issue will cause him to lose the Hispanic vote by an even larger margin than Mitt Romney.

[Redban]

President Bush Jr. has never supported amnesty. President Reagan signed amnesty into law. But beyond those two, I'm not sure as to the positions on illegal immigration of prior Presidents. But I do know this: George W. Bush supported comprehensive immigration reform and won 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Mitt Romney took a hard-line stance and won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012. Donald Trump's fiscally irresponsible, anti-5th amendment approach to this issue will cause him to lose the Hispanic vote by an even larger margin than Mitt Romney.

The bolded is untrue or unsound.

Bush Jr., who supported a pathway to citizenship, indeed won 40% of the Hispanic vote; and Romney, who opposed a pathway to citizenship, indeed won just 27% of the Hispanic vote.

However, you must also consider:

1). John McCain, who supported the same pathway to citizenship that Bush did, won a measly 30% of the Hispanic vote.

2). George Bush Sr., who helped write amnesty with Ronald Reagan, won around 25% of the Hispanic vote (worse than Romney).

3). Even Ronald Reagan during his landslide victories could only garner 35% and 37% of the Hispanic vote in 1980 and 1984, and he gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Clearly, you see that it's not that simple. Even if a GOP candidate supports amnesty, he or she is not guaranteed the Hispanic vote.