Obama on Immigration
This morning, President Obama gave his first speech devoted entirely to the topic of immigration reform. As usual, the President talked out of both sides of his mouth and avoided taking a firm stance on any one approach to solving the nation's immigration problems. Predictably, Obama blamed Republicans for being partisan, and perhaps unpredictably, he acknowledged that his approach toward immigration reform would mirror his predecessor's.
Over at The Corner, Mark Krikorian took a stab at analyzing the president's speech:
What was the news that came out of it?
Nothing. Bupkes. Zilch...No announcement of a new legislative package. No details on a bill about to be dropped. No unilateral grant of amnesty. The speech was just one more effort at stringing the open-borders folks along while trying to blame the Republicans for not helping the Democrats pass an amnesty. (Wait, don’t the Dems have majorities in both houses?) In a kremlinological sense, you might infer White House openness to a piecemeal approach to amnesty, since the only actual piece of legislation Obama mentioned was the Dream Act, but even that is pure speculation.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Obama on Immigration
This speech is almost intellectually incoherent. He opposes the AZ law because the AZ law puts too many burdens on local law enforcement and goverment.
Dear Mr President, if it places such an intolerable burden on the locals, why did the law pass with overwhelming support from the locals?
Re: Obama on Immigration
Tunku Varadarajan has a great opener in his column analyzing the speech, over at The Daily Beast:
Jun '10
Re: Obama on Immigration
He may not be trying to push legislation as much as he's trying to give some portion of America's 12 million "undocumented Democrats" a reason to risk voting illegally in November, the same way they risked crossing the border, or overstaying their visa. In many states it's very easy to accomplish. Many races will be very close. Am I being too cynical? I don't think so.
Jun '10
Re: Obama on Immigration
Emily Esfahani Smith: Tunku Varadarajan has a great opener in his column analyzing the speech, over at The Daily Beast:
Jul 1 at 11:17am
One interpretation of the poem is, it was more a pointed challenge to Europe's class system. People you (Europe) hold back from progress, people you consider wretched refuse by circumstance of birth, we allow to grow and bloom on the basis of their merit. It probably wasn't a call to send us every ex-convict and head-trauma case.
May '10
Re: Obama on Immigration
I would much prefer to see comments on this by someone like Linda Chavez, as opposed to Mark Krikorian. Mark would have sent Diane's (legally here and naturalized, I believe) mother back to Mexico as a symbolic gesture to complain about amnesty.
This is an issue where you must wave the sticks gently and discreetly, while offering some carrots, not constantly bashing in a xenophobic-appearing manner. Bush- and Michael Chertoff and Julie Myers- after initially messing up, ended up getting it right. Speed bumps on the freeway (physical fence, enforce current laws as far as possible given Supreme Court precedents, increase Border Patrol), and improved access (guest workers, increase quotas, etc.)
The devil is in the details, though, and we tend to do those horribly- anchor babies, chain immigration, etc.
May '10
Re: Obama on Immigration
Clearly we need to legalize illegal immigrants so they can do jobs that Americans like our President are unwilling to do, like cleaning up oil spills.
Re: Obama on Immigration
Marc Ambinder has an okay post that repackages some of the conventional wisdom which, I think, doesn't get to the heart of the matter:
Look: Mexico right now is in very bad shape. Worse shape than before NAFTA. Mexico is hemorrhaging good people. Its drug wars are worsening. Mexico veers toward failed statehood. Mexico's government is a failure. This is why illegal immigration upsets us. It shows us how the failures of our own government and our own state are dovetailing with Mexico's. It shows us we're getting Mexico's good people, who are running, not walking, out of their country, but we're getting the bad ones too. And the bad ones are getting worse and worse. Mexico is getting worse and worse. If we can't control our border now, how will we when Mexico gets worst?
May '10
Re: Obama on Immigration
I think there are two issues and we are divided on one of them and united on the other.
Americans equivocate regarding what to do with the illegals already here. They are both loyal nannies and day laborers and derelicts and gang members. Some are hard-working and eager to assimilate. Others are content to live in isolated social ghettos. Legalization feels generous and even fair in some cases, but also creates an incentive. They are a conundrum and represent a very difficult problem for the electorate.
On the other hand there is growing unanimity on securing the borders. Porous borders allow drug traffickers and worse to enter, they contribute to the growing problems associated with #1 above, and most would agree that securing the borders represents a clear responsibility of the federal government even ahead of providing universal health care or solving global warming.
The insistence that the two problems must be linked and that nothing can be done about the borders until the problem of existing illegals is solved is progressive dogma but far to the left (I think) of how most Americans see the issue (if polls and common sense are to be believed.)
May '10
Re: Obama on Immigration
Also, can one of our esteemed contributors write something pithy and profound about the co-option of the word "reform" by progressives and the President. Remember the good old days of "welfare reform" and "tax reform?"
Why do all the reforms today involve massive multi-billion dollar government programs?
Why can't reform mean dismantling massive multi-billion dollar government programs?
I think the R's should start referring to the dismantling of Obamacare as "health care reform." If nothing else we might have a laugh at the media's expense.