The Republicans Should Call Obama’s Bluff On Illegal Immigration

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

The Republicans Should Call Obama’s Bluff On Illegal Immigration

Written By : John Hawkins

Today, Barack Obama gave a speech on immigration that was solelymotivated by politics . Keep in mind that even the Democrats admit that they don’t have the votes in the House or the Senate to pass a comprehensive immigration bill. So, what is Obama saying?

Seeking to inject urgency into the push for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, President Obama on Thursday called on Republicans to join the effort, telling them he can’t pass a bill without them.

After pushing through an economic stimulus bill and health care with barely any Republican support in the first 16 months of his administration, the president said this issue is too dangerous to tackle — for Democrats and the GOP — without having both parties involved.

“I’m ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward, and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem,” Mr. Obama told about 250 immigration-rights advocates in a speech at American University in Washington.

The Republicans should call Barack Obama’s bluff. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell should each pledge to deliver most of the votes from their caucus on immigration — as long as it’s for a security only bill. Let’s finish up the fence. Let’s add more border patrol agents. Let’s crack down on crooked businesses that are knowingly hiring illegals. Let’s increase interior enforcement. Let’s crack down on people who overstay their visas. Let’s seal the border in Arizona. Heck, while we’re at it, let’s even try to fix the ridiculous wait times, red tape, and bureaucracy that makes life so hard on all the good people who follow our laws and try to come here the right way.

Republicans say they want all those things to happen. Democrats claim to want all those things to happen. The overwhelming majority of Americans want all those things to happen — so let’s make it happen. What’s the hold-up?

Didn’t the Obama administration deny, “Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl’s claim that President Barack Obama told him privately that he would not work to secure the border unless it was part of a comprehensive immigration reform package”?

Fan-tastic! Let’s give the Obama Administration an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. Moreover, haven’t the Democrats been claiming that the Republicans won’t work with them? Well, let’s work together on some much needed, common sense legislation, that would be wildly popular with the American people.

So, what do you say, Dems? How about a security first bill?

ATeaPartyPatriot

YES WE CAN'T: “our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols.”

Time to replace the incompetent community organizer and get somebody that can actually do the job of protecting America.
baoxian

The speech was pure community organizing tactics. Allow a situation to deteriorate so badly that people are outraged enough to accept any solution that changes the status quo. Alinsky 101.

Obama has no interest in a rational approach to fixing the problems. He wants to create yet another crisis, then offer an anti-US-citizen Amnesty Bill as the one and only solution.

Oh noes! We can't close the border! We can't deport the illegals! We can't possibly solve this problem unless you support my magic cure-all super bill! What does it say? Specifics don't matter…we have to do it, it's the only way!

It's flimsy and transparent emotional exploitation of a fabricated problem, and the GOP should be calling out Obama for these cheap tactics while offering their own real solutions.
http://www.facebook.com/michael.spurlock Michael Spurlock

I agree up to the “Heck” point.
We give them NOTHING until security is a settled issue.
The GOP's reputation as the Stupid Party is well-deserved only at the top.
Every time the RINOs in Washington try to be “clever” or conciliatory, they get screwed, either through Democrat duplicity or their own cluelessness and lack of planning.
HammerNH

How about an enforcement-ONLY bill?
Give the Marxists NOTHING until the enforcement has a chance to work.
THEN we can discuss how to deal with the illegals that stayed anyway.

btw – this does NOT mean round them up & ship 'em.
It means CLOSE the borders.
It means punish the employers until they get the message and shut down the jobs magnet.
Most will self-deport if facing no income.

Think we cannot get rid of 30 million illegals?
Why?
Mexico did it.
Pork_Soda

This is bullsnot of the highest order. Bammy knows he can't get any shite done in this department from here until November. I think it's a political ploy to see if it'll send the other side down a bunny trail for a while and keep 'em preoccupied off of the economy.

Gust Avrakotos: As long as the press sees sex and drugs behind the left hand, you can park a battle carrier behind the right hand and no one's gonna f**king notice.
Sammy

What is there to discuss? The illegals that stayed anyway deserve no special consideration just because they proved more difficult to rid out of our country.
Sammy

Why should we give them something AFTER security is a settled issue (which it never will be by the way). Amnesty is a failure at whatever stage we are at on border security.
UFKA_Smithwick

Why won't the republicans be all bi-partisan and stuff and just do whatever Obama orders them to do?

It isn't fair, the dems won they shouldn't even have to vote or debate on this kind of thing. I'm going to stamp my feet and scream until I get my way!

(Obamas idea of bi-partisan leadership).
huckupchuck

I'd go with a security first bill, if the Republicans would include in this bill guarantees of a comprehensive reform program (such as the issuance of an unlimited number of legal visas up to what the labor market will sustain, that family reunification be given priority consideration and guaranteed visa allocation barring no blemishes on an applicant's record, and that there is streamlined path to citizenship for those undocumented in our country who want citizenship and are willing to pay a fine and go to the end of a much more efficient line to get it, DREAM act provisions, etc.) that will kick in automatically only if and when certain security benchmarks are reached. Think that's a fair deal? Think that's something Republicans should agree to? A bill signed by everyone in which guaranteed security first threshholds must be reached before comprehensive reforms can follow; but an ironclad bill that guarantees both.
huckupchuck

Well, Sammy, I guess you've given me an answer to the offer I mentioned in my other comment posting. And this lack of good faith compromising on the immigration issue, even when giving you the security first conditions you want, (an attitude that I think is shared by many conservatives) is why we'll be stuck with the unsustainable status-quo ante and why talk of immigration reform is nothing but bluster and empty rhetoric.
Mr. EMT

If a man broke into your home to get something he really wanted, would you ask him to pay you something to have it?
Mr. EMT

Right because compromising with democrats is sooooooooo productive.
Oh wait, we are the worst recession since WWII and there is no way to recover the jobs lost on the path they are taking us down according to YOUR leaders.
Mr. EMT

I think this has just been taken out of Obamao's hands.
Wanna know how to piss off a Texan? Shoot at the city hall building lmao!

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15411359?sou…

Abbott said in a letter that the seven shots that hit City Hall in El Paso were an example of the violence that is plaguing the border area and that sending 1,200 National Guard soldiers to the entire U.S.-Mexico border is not enough.
TheDarkKnight

Here here. I second that motion…
gfchicago

No more chain migration.
mightysamurai

One problem. The left would never let it happen.

That's the real problem here. Conservatives could probably be persuaded to allow even a full-on amnesty program if we could be guaranteed that the border would be secured first. A bill that requires a secure border before any amnesties can be issued would go over pretty well on the right, IMO. But the left would never allow it. There are too many open-borders fanatics on the left to let it happen.

Conservatives aren't the problem here. Liberals are.
UFKA_Smithwick

Why should dealing with a criminal problem come with the prerequisite that we first make things as pleasant as possible for the criminals we are trying to get under control?

There is no right to be here illegally. There is also no guaranteed right to immigrate here legally. We aren't obligated to grant citizenship to every foreigner ever born.
huckupchuck

Chain migration? Do you mean undocumented migrant streams? Not sure what you mean, but if it means what I think it does, wouldn't a security-first policy that really works end this? And what does it matter where migrants who come here legally under a more efficient and generous work visa program come from? Please clarify what you mean by chain migration and how a security first, comprehensive reform after bill wouldn't address it.
huckupchuck

Maybe the left would raise a ruckus; but I'm on the left, and I even lean towards a much more open border arrangement, and yet I'm willing to cut such a deal. But just take a look around at the number of conservatives posting on this thread and what they are saying about any kind of compromise. About half of them are intransigent that no compromise be made and the other half really haven't expressed an opinion on a compromise. All of which leads me to think that, even though some liberals might be part of the problem, some conservatives are, too. Which is why I think this is going nowhere. Result: stuck with what we have, which is a broken and dysfunctional system, which satisfies no one, and which infuriates just about everyone in some way.
UFKA_Smithwick

You know, I think we're being unfair on this. I actually think Obama is doing quite a bit to end illegal immigration.

Consider this: why are illegals coming here? Mostly for jobs right?

Well who has done more to eliminate jobs in this country than Obama?

If republicans would simply step out of his way and let him do as he pleases then not only will he end illegal immigration in to this country, he'll actually reverse the trend with Americans fleeing to Mexico for jobs!

There's your comprehensive immigration reform.
mightysamurai

Maybe the left would raise a ruckus; but I'm on the left, and I even lean towards a much more open border arrangement, and yet I'm willing to cut such a deal.

Yeah, until you actually have to back up your words and secure the border.

The American people have danced this dance before, Huck. We've tried trading amnesty for secure borders and it's the open-borders-left that always welshes on the deal, not the right.

Even if your hypothetical bill were to be passed, it still wouldn't work. The left blindly would fight against any effort to actually secure the border and the work would never get done. And all the while more and more illegals would continue to slip over the border, until one day their numbers are so great that the left declares that immediate amnesty is the only solution. Again.
Trench_Raider

The speech was pure community organizing tactics. Allow a situation to deteriorate so badly that people are outraged enough to accept any solution that changes the status quo. Alinsky 101.

Lenin said it best” “Worse is better”.
The problem for our “friends” on the left, is that this tactic works both ways.

TR
happi

comprehensive yada-yada – government speak for “big boondoggle that isn't going to work and will be filled with lots of pork”
HammerNH

Good question. How about we discuss the amount of jail time for unlawful entry?
I would offer 20 years & the marxists would want none.
Compromise at 10?
There ya go – real working compromise!
gfchicago

If you give 20 million illegal aliens amnesty, then that means what 50 million more. So you by giving amnesty to people who broke our laws then you have more people that are essentially getting a free pass because their relatives broke the law.

It's not right. I would take it one step further and say no more anchor babies.

Children that are born to diplomats in this country are not given citizenship, so why should we give citizenship to children born to illegals?