What is old, is new again. It’s not like Liberals actually care what you think. They just want to force you to think their way.
In his speech, Obama referred to “immigrants” six times and “immigration” seven times and said the United States is a “nation of laws.” But he did not use the words “legal” or “illegal” in his speech.
“It can be tempting to think that those coming to America today are somehow different from us,” Obama said. “And we need to not have amnesia about how we populated this country.”
Obama said we should “look at that migrant farmer and see our own grandfather disembarking at Ellis Island, or Angel Island in San Francisco Bay,” he said, “and to look at that young mother, newly arrived in this country, and see our own grandmothers leaving Italy or Ireland or Eastern Europe in search of something better.”
Notice the Orwellian use of language (or lack of it- like legal and illegal). Classic Orwell.
Notice, that Ellis Island was Legal Immigration and crossing the border without permission, documentation or any kind of screening at all, is made to be the equivalent.
Illegal Immigrant= Immigrant. Not distinction.
So if you think there is one, it must be because of race. 🙂
So when did you stop being a racist? 🙂
And you can never, ever be too hyperbolic if you’re a liberal…Case in point:
The public relations campaign for President Obama’s latest revival of “immigration reform” makes one thing crystal clear: This is not, and never has been, about homeland security. This is not, and never has been, about economic security. It’s about political security, plain and cynical.
In conjunction with Tuesday’s renewed White House push in Texas for a “new pathway to citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants, disgruntled Latino activists are ratcheting up their radical anti-enforcement rhetoric. Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez — a persistent critic on Obama’s left flank — lambasted federal workplace enforcement raids this weekend. On Sunday, he repeated his hyperbolic attacks on homeland security agents “terrorizing” neighborhoods and ripping babies from the breasts of nursing moms. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made no public effort to defend her employees.
On campuses across the country, unhappy ethnic college student groups have turned up the heat on Democrats to resurrect the “DREAM Act” nightmare for the 12th time in a decade. The legislation — persistently rejected by a bipartisan majority on Capitol Hill — would provide illegal aliens (not just teenagers, but students up to age 35) federal education access and benefits, plus a conditional pass from deportation and a special path toward green cards and U.S. citizenship for themselves and unlimited relatives.
Obama argues that his comprehensive amnesty plan would boost America’s bottom line. But the open-borders math doesn’t add up. The Congressional Budget Office score of the last DREAM Act package estimates that “the bill would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021.” And that doesn’t include the costs of the unlimited family members the millions of DREAM Act beneficiaries would be able to bring to the U.S. A separate cost analysis by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies concluded that the illegal alien DREAM Act bailout would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year and “crowd out” U.S. students in the classroom.
To help gloss over those sobering realities and blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration, Obama summoned Latino celebrities such as actresses Eva Longoria and Rosario Dawson. The starlets — deemed important “stakeholders” in the immigration policy debate by the celebrity in chief — have served as glamorous distractions from the vocal complaints of Southwest governors, ranchers, farmers and other victims of continued border chaos. These are the real stakeholders whose lives and livelihoods are at risk. But none had a seat at the Hollywood-filled table.
While proudly emphasizing her ethnic loyalties, Dawson (an outspoken critic of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law) insists immigration reform “isn’t just a Mexican” or Latino issue. But for more candid liberal strategists, the illegal alien amnesty bandwagon is nothing more than a tool to motivate current and future Latinos to protect the Democrats’ grip on power. Eliseo Medina, secretary treasurer of Obama’s deep-pocketed backers at the Service Employees International Union, laid out the stakes in an interview with MSNBC:
“Clearly with immigration reform and any other kind of reform that would benefit the Latino community, we have to make sure that our voices are heard in the ballot box. There are approximately 23 million Latinos that are eligible to vote, yet only 10 million voted in 2008.”
SEIU’s goal: “If we increase the turnout from 10 million to anywhere between 12 and 15 million, we’re going to have an outsized impact on the election in 2012.”
If, as widely expected, Obama fails to deliver amnesty through the legislative process, there’s always amnesty by executive fiat. White House insiders first floated the idea in June 2010 to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. This administration has accomplished its major policy agenda items through force, fiat and fraud. Immigration will be no different.
Unfortunately for the law-abiding, there is no Hollywood-Washington-Big Labor lobby to speak for them. While Obama’s homeland security officials hang their “mission accomplished” banner over the border, the feds have barely made a dent in the three-year naturalization application backlog or the 400,000-deportation fugitive problem.
Meanwhile, law enforcement witnesses told a House subcommittee last month that border smuggling has grown so out of control that federal prosecutors are simply declining to pursue cases. Cochise County, Arizona, Sheriff Larry Dever testified about the feds’ so-called “Turn Back South” policy — which includes lowering thresholds for drug and smuggling prosecutions, and permitting border-crossers at least seven strikes before being charged with immigration misdemeanors. And just last week, the General Accounting Office reported another massive 1.6 million illegal visa overstayers backlog — a problem exposed by five of the 19 September 11 hijackers who benefited from systemic failure to enforce visa regulations.
So much for “never forget.” (Michelle Malkin)
There’s a lot of wrestling today over what Barack Obama’s immigration speech means. I would submit it means about the same thing it did the last time he gave it— in July 2010.
Here is the transcript of one Obama immigration speech. Here is the text of another immigration speech. Without looking at the dates, I dare you to tell them apart.
Below are the pertinent parts of, well, both speeches. Remember when the 2010 speech kicked off a serious, concentrated effort to move comprehensive immigration reform through Congress through the heroic efforts of Obama, the bipartisan zen master? Yeah, me neither. Often, an Obama speech is just a kick-off for…more Obama speeches.
2011: At times, there has been fear and resentment directed towards newcomers, especially in hard economic times.
2010: Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval.
2011: And then when I think about immigration I think about the naturalization ceremonies that we’ve held at the White House for members of our military. Nothing could be more inspiring. Even though they were not yet citizens when they joined our military, these men and women signed up to serve…
Another was a woman named Perla Ramos who was born and raised in Mexico and came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history we write day by day.”
2010: This past April, we held a naturalization ceremony at the White House for members of our armed forces. Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted. One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos — born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.”
2011: What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded; that you believe that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. (Applause.) All of us deserve our freedoms and our pursuit of happiness. In embracing America, you can become American.
2010: …and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
2011: We can point to the genius of Einstein, the designs of I. M. Pei, the stories of Isaac Asimov, the entire industries that were forged by Andrew Carnegie.
2010: The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.
2011: That’s the promise of this country — that anyone can write the next chapter in our story
2010: That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
2011: That’s one reason it’s been so difficult to reform our broken immigration system. When an issue is this complex, when it raises such strong feelings, it’s easier for politicians to defer until the problem the next election.
2010: Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.
2011: Today, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States. Some crossed the border illegally. Others avoid immigration laws by overstaying their visas. Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families.
2010: The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.
2011: Also, because undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, where they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses that skirt taxes, and pay workers less than the minimum wage, or cut corners with health and safety laws, this puts companies who follow the rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime or just a safe place to work, it puts those businesses at a disadvantage.
2010: Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage. (Mary Katherine Ham)
So what if they were defeated the last time and the time before that. Liberals don’t care.
As Charlie Sheen would say, “winning!” 🙂