The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

The Rundown

With Obama's Plate Already Full, Is There Room for Immigration Reform?

By Ben Pershing
Amid a withering attack on his administration's handling of the AIG bonus controversy, President Obama snapped back Tuesday at those critics who said he should tackle only "one problem at a time" and suggested, as he has before, that he is perfectly capable of handling multiple issues at once.

So as Obama navigates the ongoing AIG fallout and sells a budget plan that foresees sweeping health care and energy reform, Obama's schedule today raises another question: Can he handle immigration?

Later this morning, Obama is slated to meet with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus at the White House before he heads to California for two days. The primary topic on the agenda will be immigration, which has gotten relatively little attention from this administration so far. Think back to the two major domestic issues of George W. Bush's second term -- immigration and high gas prices. The sputtering economy has moved both topics out of the spotlight for now. Obama has still talked quite a bit about energy reform. But what about immigration? Obama said last month that he is "very committed" to making comprehensive reform happen and that he hoped to see legislation drafted "over the next several months." Will he be any more specific with the CHC, and is there really room on his plate for the issue this year?

Continue reading at Political Browser »

Posted at 8:30 AM ET on Mar 18, 2009  | Category:  The Rundown
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: POTUS Events: Off to the Golden State | Next: March Madness at the WH: Obama's Bracket


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



In Missouri some years ago Winston Churchill said "An iron curtain has descended...." He was, as nearly always, correct. It worked until 1991. Before Gorbachev, tens of thousands died trying to tescape the USSR. Millions upon millions would have walked, crawled, and otherwise traveled to escape the horror that was the USSR were there no fence.

We don't need troops every 10 feet, yet, but we do need at least one mile of buffer zone between the US and Mexico. Multiple fences on, in, and under the ground. Seismic sensors. Radar. Drones. Any and everything to stop this onslaught of ignorant, diseased, uneducated, unskilled, and unwanted people who have strained the resources of California beyond the breaking point. And are going to do the same to this country unless stopped in their tracks at the border.

I had an anthropology professor who honestly believed that all cultures are equal. He never did have an answer to this question: if all cultures are equal, then why is it that of all the places in the world there are to go to, America is the one that all but a few (by comparison to the whole) choose to come to and often die trying in the process?".

What are the failures of Latin American culture(s) that cause such desperation? There isn't time or space to enumerate them here. Suffice it to say that if you want that culture here, just let the wetbacks keep coming, and you'll have it sooner than you think. By 2050 it is predicted by the Census Dep't. that America will be 50% Latin American. People do not change their lifestyle and world views easily or quickly.

Amnesty for breaking the law? That was done in 1986 and we gained 3 million - probable at least twice that many - "new citizens". With a likely number of 25 to 20 million here now, just exactly how many are we going to allow next time? And after that? And Again?

Bangladesh has about 150 million people living on an area of the size of the state of Wisconsin. Is that what you want? No? Then get busy to your Congressional Reps and Sentaors. And your state people. And county. And city.

Yes? Then keep doing what you are doing. Which is either nothing or actively supporting this invasion. And you'll get what you deserve - another 3rd World rat hole.

Posted by: connerdsmia | March 19, 2009 3:24 PM

Ali4:

I assume you agree with me that the issue of securing national borders is Federal.
Which means Congress needs to fund border control.

Raising the amnesty issue is pre-mature. The issue of what to do with people who are here without legal status is moot if they're back at work at their jobs in the states 10 days after we deport them.

The Federal Government has the duty to secure the border first. I think this is where the president starts now. I think this is why he is considering sending the Natl Guard to the border.

The rest of the country should know that it took over 700 million dollars to send 1000 California Guard troops on patrol along the California border for 18 months. That was when Bush tried it in June 2006.
(http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/1023/)

If we can close the border to illegal traffic then we can talk about deportation or amnesty.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | March 18, 2009 11:24 PM

John Quinby wrote:"If not now, when?

President Bush was ready to move on immigration but his OWN PARTY led by people like Tom Tancredo torpedoed the plan.

The reason President Obama has to add this to his plate full of Republican leftovers is:

The GOP couldn't get it done."

Neither could the Democrats and they controlled Congress for the last two years of Bush's reign. Bush even sided with them and pressured members of his own party in an attempt to get it through. The fact is, plenty of Democrats, ME INCLUDED, do not want amnesty for illegal aliens. We were promised the amnesty to end all amnesties in 1986 in return for enforcement, and guess what, Congress lied. We've had no enforcement (until Bush recognized he wasn't going to get the 2007 amnesty) and several mini-amnesties such as 245(i) and TPS. Guess what? We've got at least four and more likely 6 times the number of illegal aliens who received amnesty in 1986 (then, about 3 million). The only ones who benefit from amnesties are illegal aliens and their employers (and special interests such as the Church and ethnic identity groups and lawyers and politicians).

Posted by: Ali4 | March 18, 2009 4:04 PM

liz4 wrote:"It is the best time for President Obama to tackle the immigration issue; he remains popular and has the ability to tackle a problem with confidence that conscience dictates should be solved.

I am a lawyer and there are laws created by constant use or practice. This is under equity that is very much a part of US law.

The government created by equity a rule that it would not enforce immigration laws, when many of these people came in. The reasons were numerous but cheap labor was one of them. Now to point a finger only at the immigrants and tell them they should go back because they have broken the law is illegal! Those who came in after it was clear the government had decided to enforce the law should be treated as having broken the law."

Ah, a lawyer. Just look at who created this mess. Lawyers. And who profits from it. Lawyers. Why should we believe anything you have to say about immigration? The one thing that I do remember from my college business law class is that when one goes to court seeking equity, one goes with clean hands. Illegal aliens DO NOT HAVE CLEAN HANDS. Furthermore, Congress and government have a duty and an obligation to protect the interests of U.S. citizens BEFORE ANYONE ELSE. When those interests conflict with illegal aliens, guess whose should take precedence?
Congress and the preceding Administration have chosen to look the other way at unethical and even criminal behavior that is just now coming to light. Does Bernie Madoff managing to escape discovery since the 1990s (even though the SEC and others have been told about him) mean that he has "equity" and is entitled to keep his ill-gotten gains?

Posted by: Ali4 | March 18, 2009 3:59 PM

If anyone wants to block "reform", embarrass a stimulus supporter by asking them this question on video:

http://24ahead.com/ask-stimulus-bill-question-illegal-aliens-taking-jobs-us-cit

Then, upload their response to Youtube. If you can't do that, then form a local group that will select someone else to go out and ask that question. If you can't do that either, write major bloggers and urge them to promote that plan.

Having an impact on the career of even just one national politician over this issue will send a message to the rest.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 18, 2009 2:11 PM

It is the best time for President Obama to tackle the immigration issue; he remains popular and has the ability to tackle a problem with confidence that conscience dictates should be solved.

I am a lawyer and there are laws created by constant use or practice. This is under equity that is very much a part of US law.

The government created by equity a rule that it would not enforce immigration laws, when many of these people came in. The reasons were numerous but cheap labor was one of them. Now to point a finger only at the immigrants and tell them they should go back because they have broken the law is illegal! Those who came in after it was clear the government had decided to enforce the law should be treated as having broken the law.

Posted by: liz4 | March 18, 2009 1:28 PM

Obama is a total fool if he pushes amnesty for illegals at a time when the national unemployment rate is approaching 9 percent. It will be the signing of his own political death warrent. Americans do not want amnesty for illegals and no amount of pro-illegal propaganda pushed out by the failing, johnny-one-note newspaper industry will change that fact.

Posted by: MaryJessel | March 18, 2009 11:19 AM

If not now, when?

President Bush was ready to move on immigration but his OWN PARTY led by people like Tom Tancredo torpedoed the plan.

The reason President Obama has to add this to his plate full of Republican leftovers is:

The GOP couldn't get it done.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | March 18, 2009 10:56 AM

Chiding Obama for "doing too much" is a cheap GOP talking point...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | March 18, 2009 9:11 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company