Opinion> Miguel Perez> Obama S Cheap Immigration Rhetoric

	22 May 2012 In Defense of Colombianas and Cartagena Working at a Manhattan jewelry store, the last thing my friend Claudia expected was confronting a new … Read More.
	15 May 2012 The Spirit of Ada Merritt Perhaps it was the times we lived in; the 1960s were special to almost everyone. Or perhaps it had more to do … Read More.
	1 May 2012 Supreme Setback Looms Ahead If the Supreme Court tea leaf readers are correct, if more than four justices decide to uphold Arizona's … Read More.

Obama's Cheap Immigration Rhetoric

President Obama's recent effort to resuscitate the immigration reform debate in Congress — after he allowed it to die and be buried for at least the next couple of years — shows he has little respect for our intelligence.

Apparently, the president believes that, when he runs for re-election, this kind of cheap rhetoric in the State of the Union will be enough to convince Latino voters that he tried to do something about immigration reform, and that we should vote for him in 2012.

And he may be right. Given the anti-immigrant venom within the Republican opposition, and the new and even more draconian measures conservatives already are promoting, a little rhetoric may be all the president needs to convince the overwhelming majority of Latino and other pro-immigrant Americans to vote for him next year. More than voting for Obama, we'll probably be voting against his opponent.

Even if all he gives us is rhetoric, Latinos and pro-immigrant Americans may have to vote for Obama simply because he could be the lesser of two evils because the alternative could be much worse for immigrants, Latinos and minorities in general.

But please, Mr. President, don't try to build false hopes and expectations when we all know that positive immigration reform has no chance of coming out of this Congress, not when it is now more heavily populated by immigrant bashers, not when even the light version of immigration reform — the DREAM Act — failed to clear the Senate during the more pro-immigrant lame-duck session.

As Obama spoke about immigration reform in his 2011 State of the Union, I couldn't help wondering what could have happened if he had been so bold a couple years earlier — at the time when he actually promised to do it!

"I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration," Obama told Congress last week. "And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult. I know it will take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort."

Isn't that special?

What makes it cheap rhetoric is that it comes at a time when the president knows comprehensive immigration reform has no chance of passing through a House of Representatives where conservative extremists, more than ever, are competing to see who can be more vicious and emerge as the new champion of immigrant bashers.

"Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens," the president told Congress last week.

"Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us. It makes no sense."

Of course, he is right. But what makes no sense is that he waited so long to make that case in a State of the Union speech. One can only imagine what could have happened if he had been so "prepared" to do this when Democrats controlled the House and had a supermajority in the Senate. Would we have had immigration reform now if the president had fought for it with the same energy and tactics he used to win the health care reform battle?

All we know is he didn't even try.

Oh, yes, we have heard his flowery immigration demagoguery many times before, but it's always completely hollow, without an outline of steps to be taken or a timetable for getting things done. Even Obama's major speech on immigration at American University last July was void of concrete commitments to fix our broken immigration system.

At that time, the president said this is an issue that "lends itself to demagoguery" and "has been held hostage to political posturing." He said his administration "will not just kick the (immigration) can down the road."

Yet isn't that exactly what the president did in his State of the Union?

Of course, there are many things he could do, by executive order, to ease the pain of the immigrant community. He could easily curtail immigration raids and deportations until Congress finally decides to act. He could order federal authorities not to persecute those DREAM Act students he says he wants to legalize. He could order his Justice Department to squash local discriminatory laws and vigorously prosecute hate crimes, including those committed by local law authorities and politicians.

Considering that Republicans are likely to nominate an anti-immigrant candidate, Obama is likely to win the majority of the Hispanic vote in 2012. The question now is whether he wins it by default, only through demagoguery, or he earns it by putting some punch behind his words.

To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

The illegal alien usurper “president” is the best friend “Latinos” have ever had and this is how Miguel Perez repays him for his generous stance toward Mexican reconquistadors, by playing the fickle lover to be wooed?

How short is the memory of Mechistas, who label him “the lesser of two evils!”

Did not Obama's Department of Justice try to enforce a double standard of selective enforcement of the law, in directly thwarting the will of the citizens of Arizona to protect the border, while at the same time failing to address the issue of intimidation of white voters at polling places by the New Black Panther Party?

Attorney General Holder, who labeled Americans “cowards” for failing to address issues of race, proved himself to be the greatest coward, for failing to address the hate crimes committed by the NBPP against white voters.

Americans were perfectly willing to discuss matters of race, particularly the blatant race war coming from Mexico, against an Anglo-Saxon culture.

Did not Obama run to Red China--the greatest human rights violator on the planet--to complain of the alleged “racism” of his country, which elected its first black president? Did he not also run to the United Nations, making a spectacle of himself, by attempting to put the world body in a decision-making capacity over the most powerful sovereign nation on earth?

These excesses of the Obama regime, ultimately led to the insane spectacle of eleven foreign powers--including Mexico as the aggrieved party--attempting to sue Arizona through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for that state's constitutional right to secure the international border from "La Reconquista."

On Mon., Oct. 4, 2010, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru joined Mexico in attempting to interfere in the American political and national security sphere of influence.

This unprecedented theater of the absurd, was the direct result of Obama's outright treason against the nation. It was a Mad Hatter's Tea Party, which provided the nation a direct contrast with and proper perspective toward the American Tea Party.

Barack Hussein Obama and Eric H. Holder tacitly joined forces with 11 foreign powers to wage war against one of the 50 States and by extension the entire American people who support Arizona's bid for border enforcement against the Mexican crime wave. Obama and Holder comported themselves as quislings in their attempt to support the Mexican incursion.

So the fact that Obama committed an act of treason against the nation, in order to support the special interests of a hostile foreign power actively engaged in annexation of American territory is not enough to convince Latino voters of his utter sincerity to their cause?

Obama engaged in far more than “cheap rhetoric,” as Mr. Perez contends.

“…Even Obama's major speech on immigration at American University last July was void of concrete commitments to fix our broken immigration system.”
Miguel Perez

America's immigration system is NOT “broken,” anymore than are the immigration systems of nations in the Eastern Hemisphere, which find themselves flooded with the ubiquitous “guest worker.”

The problem is NOT unique to Mexico and the United States of America. It is a global assault by the unwitting third world corporate shock troop known as “guest worker,” on industrialized nations of the world. The guest worker brings societal chaos to any nation foolish enough to host this parasite, by introducing “jihad” or “La Reconquista” as his “contribution.” He is a destroyer of culture who helps to pave the way for one world government, by reducing sovereign nations to human zoos, based on a United Nations paradigm of squabbling nationalities.

This “multicultural” paradigm is NOT in the national security interests of America and other nations, but plays marvelously well into the hands of the robber barons, who seek to subvert nation-states by diluting the fine wine of national culture, with sewer water from the Third World.

Given the fact that Obama himself is an illegal alien, who cannot produce valid birth and academic records, it has always been in his direct interest to support the Mexican incursion…until now, when the American people have finally said: “Enough!”

It is highly doubtful that Obama will be running for reelection, with ten states of the Union now drafting laws which make it mandatory for any candidate for high political office to produce valid credentials of American birth.

“He could order his Justice Department to squash local discriminatory laws and vigorously prosecute hate crimes, including those committed by local law authorities and politicians.”
Miguel Perez

Again, it is highly doubtful that the DOJ will be prosecuting so-called “hate crimes,” when the clear preference of the attorney general is to enforce a double standard--under color of authority-- in dispensing justice, whereby black racists receive preferential treatment and consideration.

Comment: #1
Posted by: T.H. Asgardson
Wed Feb 2, 2011 3:44 PM