« From His Lips To Our Ears | Main | We've entered the era of nothing »

President Obama Kills Immigration Reform

Yahoo! News is reporting: "Obama takes immigration reform off agenda":

Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama's major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.

The president noted that lawmakers may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue -- climate change -- is already on their plate.

"I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.

Immigration reform was an issue Obama promised Latino groups that he would take up in his first year in office. But several hard realities -- a tanked economy, a crowded agenda, election-year politics and lack of political will -- led to so much foot-dragging in Congress that, ultimately, Obama decided to set the issue aside.

With that move, the president calculated that an immigration bill would not prove as costly to his party two years from now, when he seeks re-election, than it would today, even though some immigration reformers warned that a delay could so discourage Democratic-leaning Latino voters that they would stay home from the polls in November.

I was pretty surprised to read this, since the Democrats have been working so hard on the racism meme these past few weeks. Why would they voluntarily give up another opportunity to tar Republicans as racists and fascists? I find it hard to believe that they would let the current "crisis" in Arizona go to waste.

But perhaps hard reality has actually trumped politics in this case. According to a new Angus Reid Public Opinion Poll, 71% of respondents supported the arrest of aliens who are in America illegally. Further, 64% believe illegal immigration has hurt our economy, 58% believe illegal immigrants take jobs away from American workers, and 45% support the termination and deportation of undocumented workers.

These numbers seem to jive with a Rasmussen poll released a few days ago that reported 60% of respondents favoring the Arizona law. Also, in the Rasmussen poll 77% of Republicans, 62% of independents, and surprisingly 50% of Democrats supported the Arizona Law. The same survey also showed that 70% of Arizonans support the new law. And apparently Arizona Governor Jan Brewer got a "bounce" in her approval rating as a result of signing the law.

Brewer's sudden popularity shouldn't startle anyone. The new Arizona law exists because Arizona has a unique problem with illegal immigrants. In 2007, illegal immigrants in Maricopa County made up 9% of the county's population, yet accounted for 19% of those convicted of crimes and 21% of those in county jails. During the same period, illegal aliens in Maricopa County were responsible for:

  • 10% of sex crimes convictions
  • 11% of murders convictions
  • 13% of stolen cars convictions
  • 13% of aggravated assaults convictions
  • 17% of those sentenced for violent crimes
  • 19% of those sentenced for property crimes
  • 20% of those sentenced for felony DUI
  • 21% of crimes committed with weapons
  • 34% of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale or transport of drugs
  • 36% of those sentenced for kidnapping
  • 44% of forgeries
  • 50% of those sentenced for crimes related to "chop shops"
  • 85% of false ID convictions
  • 96% of smuggling convictions

And Arizonans aren't the only ones having a problem with illegal immigration. It's simply common sense to expect that blue collar union workers are going to be very concerned about anything that could potentially contribute to higher unemployment. Illegal immigration is certainly such an issue. And one of the worst-kept political secrets (though it is generally ignored by the media) about the African-American community is its long-running and deep-seated antagonism toward Hispanics. Today -- in spite of the pro immigration rent-a-mobs led by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- with the unemployment for inner city black males approaching 50%, the relationship between these two prominent racial minorities is probably very tense.

On second thought, when one takes all of this into consideration, the "racism" meme just doesn't work. As clever as David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel are, there is no way they could smear blacks, union workers, and 50% of registered Democrats as "racists" and hope to achieve any sort of political victory. I also have to wonder if President Obama's own blatant appeal to racial demography this past week actually ended up dividing, rather than uniting, the Democrat base. If the White House's own internal polling reflected the same things I just discussed here, then undoubtedly they know that immigration is a losing issue right now.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38920.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Obama Kills Immigration Reform:

» Rhymes With Right linked with About Those "Law-Abiding" Illegal Aliens

Comments (23)

Ha ha ha ha ha... Lame duck... (Below threshold)
914:

Ha ha ha ha ha... Lame duckiness is showing.

Reading this has also cause... (Below threshold)

Reading this has also caused me to channel Nelson Muntz.

Their internal polling prob... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Their internal polling probable showed that the immigrants coming in from Mexico have more solid conservative values than liberal [lack of] values.

Guess Gibbs lied. They do ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Guess Gibbs lied. They do look at poll numbers. Wonder how the Latino's feel about being "used"?

' "I don't want us to do so... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

' "I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.'

It would indeed be tragic to falter now and ruin an otherwise perfect record of legislation that to this point has been incredibly effective at solving problems.

"President Obama Kills Immi... (Below threshold)
914:

"President Obama Kills Immigration Reform"

Whats he gonna do for an encore? Kill the economy?

I don't believe it. <... (Below threshold)
davidt:

I don't believe it.

How many times were we told ObamaCare wouldn't be pursued?

It's a trap!... (Below threshold)
Admiral Akbar:

It's a trap!

"It's a trap!"... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"It's a trap!"

Well, I don't know if it's a "trap" - but it could be a head fake -- given Obama's fondness of basketball.

As a Progressive, I think the actions taken by the Arizona GOPers is the best news we Dems could get.

And it seems to me that if there is a sudden push on the Federal level to reform Immigration now then other states are more likely to sit back and not replicate Arizona's efforts.

So by declaring Immigration reform dead Obama may be hoping more GOP states will display their racist ways and pass lousy legislation that exposes their inherent racism.

Just a thought...

"So by declaring Immigratio... (Below threshold)
914:

"So by declaring Immigration reform dead Obama may be hoping more GOP states will display their racist ways and pass lousy legislation that exposes their inherent racism."

You throw that word around a lot Lee. Its not racist to adhere to the law. Unless you call me racist for not wearing a seatbelt, jay walking, speeding,calling you an asshole.

Re: "Well, I don't know if ... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Re: "Well, I don't know if it's a "trap" - but it could be a head fake -- given Obama's fondness of basketball."

Ah yes, the old "black people like basketball" racist drivel from Lee Ward.

Whats Barry gonna do next? ... (Below threshold)
914:

Whats Barry gonna do next? create a job?

Well Barry, Lee Ward would fit comfortably in your pseudo cabinet.

So nice to see Lee has move... (Below threshold)

So nice to see Lee has moved on from utterly unprovable accusations of LYING!!!! to utterly unprovable accusations of RAAAAACISM!!! The old one was getting tiresome.

Lee, the Arizona law in question doesn't change a thing about the requirements of the law. It just allows -- actually, requires -- that the Arizona police enforce the laws the federal government has been ignoring. And it has strict protections to prevent "racial profiling" or other alleged police abuses.

So, if you got a problem with the new law, you're saying you got a problem with the existing law, and were just fine and dandy with the law not being enforced. Why don't you just come out and say that the standing law regarding non-citizens is RAAAAACIST and you want it repealed?

Oh, yeah. Because then you'd have nothing to make up shit about, and you'd have to find a new bullshit charge to toss around.

Have you officially admitted that you can't cite a single example of when I was LYING!!!!!, or do I have to keep hounding you to cite specifics?

I don't mind, really. It's almost fun.

J.

So Lee's still accusing 51%... (Below threshold)

So Lee's still accusing 51% of Arizona Democrats of being racists?

uhm....how many times did w... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

uhm....how many times did we hear that Health reform was dead?

"And it has strict prote... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"And it has strict protections to prevent "racial profiling" or other alleged police abuses. "

Actually, Jay, that's a lie. It's a common lie being repeated everywhere,but a lie nonetheless.

What the law says is that race will not "solely" be used.

Of course, racial profiling can still be used, it just can't be the sole reason.

So if a Hispanic asks a police officer for directions then ascts nervously the police offer could conclude that (1) this person isn't from here, and (2) they are acting suspiciously, and (3) they are Hispanic.

Bingo! Show me your papers time.

And if the person was a white Canadian do you think the officer would have asked for his papers?

Of course not. This is a race-based, racial profiling law.

Hey! His race wasn't the "sole" reason! The guy asked for directions then acted nervously.

Or he picked his nose and wiped it on my shirt.

Or he looked suspicious.

Or he jaywalked.

Or he littered.

There are lots of ways racists can use the law to practice racial profiling - they just need to be able to lie and claim that race wasn't the sole reason.

Racists find it easy to lie, don't they Jay? You can lie about pretty much anything. "Hey, he spit on my shoe".

Prove it didn't happen.

So, Jay - did you know you were lying or is this just another of your many "mistaken assumptions"?

Oh, Lee. You've stopped ign... (Below threshold)

Oh, Lee. You've stopped ignoring me. I feel so much better. I was positively fading from the neglect.

The law in question was just revised from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." There was nothing wrong with the initial phrasing, but in the (vain) hopes of shutting up at least one or two of the whining gits like you, they changed it to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

Which means they have to have a prior reason besides "that brown guy looks hinky" to approach the suspect. The immigration check has to be secondary. In legal terms, it's not a "primary offense."

Yes, some cops can fudge that if they want to. Just like a cop can always find a reason to pull someone over on the highway.

The question is, do we really think that enough cops are "rogue" enough to fake reasons to "stop, detain, or arrest" just on the chance they might be an illegal alien that we should restrain them all?

Yes, cops can lie and spread bullshit on occasion. Look at the police who turned out their riot squad at the Tea Party folks who showed up to protest Obama in Quincy, Illinois. They issued a press release about the "incident" that was utterly at odds with videos taken at the scene -- but at least Obama was protected from hearing that there are some Americans who agree with most of what you wrote about him when you were still giving Hillary that tongue-bath during the primary.

OK, that's an exaggeration. You were positively racist and xenophobic at the time; we just disagree with his positions and actions. But it's positively delightful to see you giving Obama that tongue-bath after you spent so much time and venom spitting on him.

I'm going along with the Arizona law as an experiment in what can be done when the federal government abdicates its responsibilities to the several states. If it doesn't work out, they can simply change the law back. And I'm fully confident that the organized left in this country will have legions of lawyers on hand to make absolutely certain that each and every illegal alien caught by this law gets every single legal right they can find or make up.

Oh, and Lee, here's something that really ought to stick in your craw: this law did not make anything illegal. It simply expanded the number of legal authorities authorized to enforce existing laws.

So no, despite your endless hysteria and temper tantrums, you have YET to catch me in a single "lie." Nor I you -- but then again, I'm not obsessed with making bullshit accusations that I can't begin to back up. That's your schtick, and I'd never even dream of challenging you for that title.

But you do remain delightfully entertaining, Lee. That's why I've extended my "protection" over you from my colleagues here, going out of my way to keep you from getting banned for your predilection for making venomous accusations that you refuse to back up when challenged. Your temper tantrums and are simple assertions of your absolute impotence to enforce your petty dictates, your hit-and-run tactics demonstrate your rank cowardice and inability to prove any of your wild accusations, and your constant returning shows that you are utterly helpless to leave and stay away, because can't admit that you're hopelessly outclassed and outmatched at each and every single turn.

Sooner or later I might end up banning you, Lee. But it won't be out of fear or anger or as an admission that you've outmaneuvered or outsmarted me (like THAT could happen); it'll be a form of euthanasia, putting you out of your misery and sparing you further psychological harm.

But that's a long, long way off, Lee. Because, at the core of the matter, is the simple fact that I don't like you. I never have, and never will. And while morally I probably should pull the plug on you and end this abusive relationship we have, I find that I really, really like kicking you in the face, publicly, over and over again. I relish each and every time you come storming back in, spittle flying from your lips, and I calmly hand you your ass, time and time again. Smacking you around never gets old.

And you never, ever, ever seem to learn the simple causality of the situation: you show up, you start talking shit, I'm going to pop up and cram your shit right back down your throat.

And without once having to use my authority or power as an editor to back up my actions. No, I meet you on level ground, commenter to commenter, writer to writer, smart guy to asshole, and pound you into the dirt.

J.

"So if a Hispanic asks a... (Below threshold)
914:

"So if a Hispanic asks a police officer for directions then ascts nervously the police offer could conclude that (1) this person isn't from here, and (2) they are acting suspiciously, and (3) they are Hispanic"

They could conclude that if they were "racist", or, for heaven's sake, they may have pulled him/her aside for being an Obama plant.. If your going to be biased?/ You must not leave room for a rebuttal= rebuke.

"The law in question was... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"The law in question was just revised from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

Well, then thanks for proving my point.

If the original law didn't enable racial profiling there wouldn't have been a reason to change it, would there?

This proves that the criticism of the law is valid.

The question is -- did the changes made ("Oops, we lied - racial profiling was possible - quick, let dress up the language") actually do enough to stop racial profiling?

The same critics who were lambasting this law as flawed before say no, racial profiling is still enabled by the Arizona legislation.

The same proponents who lied before and said racial profiling was prohibited are not to be believed. They lied before, and the chances are good they are lying now.

That's the way liars work, right Jay? Just keep repeating the same lie over and over, saying that it prohibits racial profiling and after he lawsuits start to mount and you realize you've been caught in a lie - as in this case - when you're caught lying - you make some changes and start lying again.

You know that, Jay. And yet, you can't admit it.

Say, how's that "Democrats beat up the New Orleans couple" lie working out for you? Got any proof yet?

Of course not. You've crawled into a dark corner and pretended to forget all about that lie.

And certainly your use of sock puppets is another example of lying too, isn't it Jay?

Or are you going to lie again and claim that you didn't use sock puppets?

I ignore you because you're a boor, Jay. Look it up, there's your mug shot right next to the definition.

And do pardon me if I ignore you some more. Having you spend countless minutes repeating the same bullshit you've repeated on other threads brings me pleasure, and ignoring you always causes you to boor some more.

lol...

"I ignore you because you'r... (Below threshold)
914:

"I ignore you because you're a boor, Jay. Look it up, there's your mug shot right next to the definition."

bears repeating.. YOUR AN ASSHOLE!

lee ward - "As a Progre... (Below threshold)
Marc:

lee ward - "As a Progressive, I think the actions taken by the Arizona GOPers is the best news we Dems could get."

WOW lee, with polls in state saying 70% support this bill that seems to indicate you believe Arizona is comprised of 70% "GOers."

True?

more lee weirdness - "So by declaring Immigration reform dead Obama may be hoping more GOP states will display their racist ways and pass lousy legislation that exposes their inherent racism."

Inherent racism? You proof is what?

And here's lee's final mistake in that comment - "Just a thought..."

Everyone suffers when you think.

Aw, Lee. You're back to you... (Below threshold)

Aw, Lee. You're back to your old stunt of "you're all a bunch of lying liars!!!" when you got nothing else. Meanwhile, you're doing your own lying -- by selective quoting.

The change to the law was a CLARIFICATION. The lawmakers INTENT did not change; they just made a slight modification to emphasize their meaning because of gibbering dolts like you. A futile move in that direction, but still an improvement on a phrasing that could be considered ambiguous to a nit-picking asshole -- such as you.

Which I spelled out in my prior comment, that you so carefully edited:

The law in question was just revised from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." There was nothing wrong with the initial phrasing, but in the (vain) hopes of shutting up at least one or two of the whining gits like you, they changed it to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

(Emphasis added for the part you found inconvenient to quote)

As for your accusation (quick, change the subject!!!!) of "sock-puppetry," let's define the term. Here's Wikipedia:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sockpuppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one's self, allies or company."[2]

The one time I did that was when you wrote a piece praising Glenn Greenwald, himself and infamous sock puppeteer. I then posted several comments under several of Greenwald's known aliases, all praising each other, in such a style as to make it instantly obvious they were all written by the same person. Further, I also made certain that my own e-mail was attached to both. In short, I was mocking both you and Greenwald, with no intention of deception.

A foolish attempt. I should have remembered you're an utterly humorless prat.

As far as what you call "sock-puppeting" -- the use of alternate identities to evade your capricious and malicious and abusive bans of those who disagreed with you or made you look like the ass you were -- I decline comment. I neither admit nor deny.

But back on topic... in the other Arizona thread, you say that we'll always have criminals with us. True enough. Pity you can't extend the thought to realize we'll also have misbehaving cops, and you can't write a law to utterly eliminate that chance. You can minimize the chances for abuse, but you seem to think that if you can't make a law absolutely abuse-proof, why bother?

Now let's play your gotcha-game for a moment.

If the original law didn't enable racial profiling there wouldn't have been a reason to change it, would there?

This proves that the criticism of the law is valid.

Well, then, now that it's been fixed, then there's no reason to criticize it any more, is there? By your logic, if it "enabled racial profiling" before it was clarified, then the revision took care of that, so it's just fine now? Or are you just a LYING LIAR who can't stand the actual thought of the federal laws being enforced, and are "bitterly clinging" to any slender reed you can grasp to continue your jihad against it?

Bleah. That felt gross.

I've been meaning to write another followup to the New Orleans case. Thanks for the reminder.

I'm also thinking of another piece that -- be still, your heart -- will be about YOU. Well, you and a few others, and just who is welcome around these parts and who isn't. Spoiler warning: you're not on the "don't go away angry, just go away" list. Even though I can tell you're trying like the dickens to get me to ban you, so you can claim some kind of "victory" in that I had to resort to "abusing" my power to silence you.

Sorry, Lee. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

J.

The use of banquets has bec... (Below threshold)

The use of banquets has become a popular way of holding such large events as a wedding reception. When you are beginning to plan for the big day, one of the first items on the wedding plan is finding the right banquet hall for the reception. There are many questions you will have such as large a hall do you . Some people like the absolute white wedding dress,it realy well. but i prefer to the casual clothing.need? Once you have settled on the size, you will need to know what services the hall will provide to make your wedding day memorable and glitch-free.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy