In Appeal to Hispanics, Obama Promises to Push Immigration Reform
In the final week leading up to the midterm elections, President Barack Obama is encouraging Hispanic voters to turn their frustration over stalled immigration reform against Republicans on Election Day.
Hispanics make up a crucial voting bloc in several battleground states and Democrats are hoping to pick up voters turned off by anti-immigrant discourse.
In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Referring specifically to Republicans such as Senator John McCain, who are stressing border security and supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure, Mr. Obama said, “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”
In a pitch for Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, who locked in a dead heat with his Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, Mr. Obama warned voters that Ms. Angle “is completely opposed to comprehensive immigration reform.” He also denounced an ad encouraging Nevada’s Latinos to stay home on Election Day as “cynical.”
Democrats have put forth a number of proposals over the past year aimed at overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, but talks floundered after Senator Lindsey Graham, the lone Republican willing to work with them on the issues, walked away from the talks during a dispute over energy policy.
The Justice Department successfully sued Arizona over its immigration bill, arguing that it interfered with the federal government’s role in enforcing immigration laws. However, Arizona has appealed the ruling.
Comparing the immigration fight to African Americans’ decades-long struggle to gain civil rights, Mr. Obama said, “instead of us giving up, we just have to keep working until it gets done. I’m gonna keep my promise on immigration reform,” Mr. Obama said.
The interview was taped Friday in Los Angeles for a show hosted by Eddie “Piolin” Soltero. Mr. Sotelo’s radio show is immensely popular among California Hispanics. At the start of the interview, the Mexican-American comedian gave Mr. Obama “multiple” choices of what to discuss.
“A.) Immigration reform, B) Immigration Reform, C.) Immigration reform, D.) All of the above.” Mr. Obama took D. “Absolutely,” the president said.
SOURCE
Recent posts on the CIS blog below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Prospects Are Dim for More Data on USCIS' Immigration Appeals Cases
2. It's Not Illegal, But ...
3. Immigration Court Caseload Climbs – and Offers New Data Source
4. GAO's Shoddy Report on Border Patrol Operations on Federal Land
5. Court Case Illustrates Both Chain Migration and Enforcement Problems
6. Mayorkas to USCIS Staff: Just Say Yes – Or Else!
7. BIA Splits Hairs on Ski Resort Bribery Case
8. ICE's Mission Melt 4: Houston, We Have a Problem
9. President Obama's Silent Immigration Amnesty, Part II: The Consequences of Ignoring Broken Windows
10. Rare Occurrence: A Balanced Immigration Panel
11. The Use of Self-Created Ignorance as a USCIS Defense Mechanism
12. President Obama's Silent Immigration Amnesty, Part I: Ignoring Broken Windows
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment