Obama: I’ve Got ‘Five Years’ Left to Solve Immigration

Byron Tau, Politico, February 23, 2012

In an interview with Univision Radio, President Barack Obama said that he has “five years” left in his presidency to figure out issues like comprehensive immigration reform. Striking a confident note about his reelection prospects, Obama assured a largely Hispanic audience that he has not given up on getting an immigration bill done—one that would provide a pathway to citizenship.

“My presidency is not over,” Obama told Univision’s Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo. “I’ve got another five years coming up. We’re going to get this done.”

{snip}

“So far, . . . we haven’t seen any of the Republican candidates even support immigration reform. In fact, their leading candidate said he would veto even the DREAM Act, much less comprehensive immigration reform,” Obama said, in an apparent reference to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. {snip}

Obama also defended his administration’s approach to immigration, which has been characterized by a high level of deportations, saying that the law needed to be changed and Congress needs to act.

{snip}

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Obama also defended his administration’s approach to immigration, which has been characterized by a high level of deportations

    If he means “deportations” by merely turning away illegals at the border, and starting the bureaucratic process of “deportation” (which rarely results in actual deportation), then he’s right.  Otherwise, we will have to chalk that up to semantics and legerdemain.

  • jackellis

    Yes, Obama is bad on immigration – about equally bad as confused, 76 year old Libertarian candidate Ron Paul who’s pulling in a D- grade on immigration from NumbersUSA:

    Ron Paul and his 100% Libertarian cult followers at Reason Magazine insist that American businesses should be “free to choose” to hire and fire whatever workers they want, letting a “free market” determine wages – if tens of millions 3rd world people of color want to come in to the United States to work at sub minimum wage – only socialists, collectivists or worse RACISTS would try to stop them.

    I am one of those “collectivists”, yes RACISTS (don’t care if some Libertarian calls me “socialist”) that would stop American businesses from hiring tens of millions of 3rd world people of color at sub minimum wages. What’s more, I would institutionalize confused, 76 year old Libertarian candidate Ron Paul in a mental institution as his immigration views are flat out…. 

    crazy.

    • Jerrybear

      Paul used to be better on immigration but he sometimes let’s his rigid ideology get in the way of common sense. The globalist cheap labor mentality will destroy the U.S. That being said, all the candidates are bad on immigration. Especially Gingrich. Romney is currently talking a good game but I don’t have a lot of faith that he will keep his promises. Besides, I’m pretty positive that Obama will win re-election since these GOP primaries have taken away any attention and scrutiny off of Obama and he now enjoys a 50% approval rating which is mind boggling.

      • The_Bobster

        Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign has been hijacked by the open-borders neo-libertarian wing. These people are flat-out open borders.

        • And that’s partially because he is for the most part an open borders neo-libertarian left winger on the immigration issue.  The open borders neo libertarian left wing could try to hijack me all they want, but I’m not biting.  One does not bit the bait that one does not already enjoy.

          • This_Name_Doesnt_Exist

            I remember the first time I read one of your comments about consistency in ideology, if I’m remembering it correctly.  I had a hard time with it at first.  How can consistency be a bad thing?

            Absolutist libertarianism brought it into focus for me.  They brook no dissent from the program.  Every ill on the face of the planet is a result of the state, end of story.  This ideology doesn’t allow for the concept of groups, except to suggest that without government to create them, they would not exist.  Suggesting that race is a government construct is no less ridiculous than suggesting it’s a social construct. 

            They don’t seem to get that the flaws they attribute to the state are actually flaws of men, who create the state.  Getting rid of the state won’t get rid of these flaws.

            Debating the hard-core libertarians is a lot like debating the progressive multiculturalists, I’ve found.  The ideology approaches a level where it becomes faith, except instead of absolute faith in the good of the state it’s absolute faith in the evils of the state.

      • jackellis

        The right course is for us who live and work in the here and now is to not stay loyal to candidates who were supposedly with us 30 years ago.

        The immigration issue isn’t complicated. Populist parties in Europe are doing well/great on this issue – it’s just common sense to work to keep out Islamic terrorists, Mexican Zeta cartels, hordes of 3rd Worlders infected with TB. 

        If Ron Paul has lost his marbles or is doing too many MJ bong hits with Libertarians from Reason Magazine  and is saying insane/treasonous things about immigration, then we have to simply take him down. 

        I’ve got a beautiful 21 year old White blue eyed daughter. I’m fighting to secure a decent life for her and my grand children. I don’t particularly care about the reasons old White Libertarian people get confused, do and say stupid/treasonous things about immigration. We’re in a war. Please act accordingly.

        Maybe Ron Paul will do well/OK in some retirement home for old White people – he’s just sucking wind as an open borders immigration Libertarian candidate for President of the United States.

  • He obviously cares little for “his people” because while illegal immigration is bad for everyone, I think it hurts blacks the most. Anyway, this mindless numb-skull will say or do ANYTHING to get re-elected.  

  • Shawn_thefemale

    Nobama is one of the most arrogant, self absorbed, delusional excuses for a human being I’ve ever had the displeasure of sharing the planet with. His delusions of grandeur  are only eclipsed by his racism. It pains me greatly to feel he does indeed have 5 years left as Miscreant In Chief.

  • And just how are the statistics above you cite the fault of the Democrat Party?  They would still be that bad if 99% of blacks voted Republican.  It’s not anything the Democrat Party did that causes about a third of black men to go to prison at some point in their lives, or for less than half to graduate high school, it is because blacks are what they are.  If anything, if the criminal justice system and education system were genuinely fair, many more blacks would be in prison, and fewer blacks would graduate from high school.  So far from liberal Democrats being the cause of their problems, they’re the only reason why those stats aren’t worse.

    • WTF

      I agree with you implicitly, I just don’t understand why African Americans vote for Obama when his policies hurt them more than any other group. I know no one person or organisation can compensate for a pathology but the fact still remains that if Blacks did not have to compete with Illegal Immigrants they would have lower unemployment and reduced levels of incarceration, which would financially benefit the US economy.

      • Why do blacks vote Obama and Democrat in general?

        Answer:  More welfare goodies than Republicans can promise and give.

  • Hirschibold

     Sorry, but “Shutyourmouth” is correct. Hispanics (particularly Salvadorans) enjoy ethnically purging blacks in Southern LA (particularly along the Rampart stronghold). I would say that shooting someone in a drive-by counts as “hurting them” technically.  Everyone loses with open borders immigration, including the immigrants who quickly turn the country into the land they left.

    • Yup, and the “anchor” babies are turning into the teens fighting (physically) with the blacks in high schools on what seems like a monthly basis, all over the USA.  This I love because it further proves us Whites are not the devil racists that the liberals and blacks made us out to be. It proves that blacks have problems with EVERY single race/ethnicity you can think of.

  • ViktorNN

    You are absolutely correct that blacks have been displaced by Mexican immigrants in the US labor marketplace.

    It’s one of the sides of the story that rarely gets told in anti-illegal immigration vs. open borders debates.

    The usual argument is that “white people don’t want to do those jobs” or “Americans don’t want to do those jobs”… Wrong, very wrong. Those jobs as janitors, pot washers, parking lot attendants, meat packers, and so on were done by many, many blacks. And if whites at the lower end of socio-economic spectrum have been displaced by illegal Mexican labor, then the effect on blacks has been devastating.

    But blacks don’t speak up because Dem Party orthodoxy won’t tolerate it. It’s another one of those glaring contradictions in US liberalism to which Dems seem blind, including black Dems.

    And blacks don’t turn to the GOP for help because let’s face it, the GOP is an inconsistent, flaky partner when it comes to fighting illegal immigration (the leadership is held hostage by big business essentially).

    • I agree.

      You said “And if whites at the lower end of socio-economic spectrum have been
      displaced by illegal Mexican labor, then the effect on blacks has been
      devastating.”

      I believe this whole-heartily.

  • JackKrak

    Why does immigration “reform” never involve cutting it?

  • MissBonnie123

    Obama is talking about giving amnesty to illegal aliens. He knows he lost the White vote (except for liberal Whites) so he needs the Latino vote, even if it is illegal.

    Such corruption in this administration!

    • MikeofAges

      Obama’s problem in 2012: You can be the latest new thing only once. Consistent Democratic voters will vote for him, whatever peg they choose to hang their hat on. Particularly that means black voter and liberal white voters. These blocs will vote Democratic no matter what. Wait until 2016. however. You may begin to see some slippage even in the black vote. Perhaps some will decide that their obligation to liberalism has ended along with the tenure of Barack Obama. A  president who could actually put people to work in stable jobs would be a real game changer.

  • jackellis

    Agreed. Also, don’t put all your time and money, all your hopes in to the Presidential election. We took over state houses in the South, Midwest – get to know these people, work for local power, find young, local White talent. Get away from Old people who fall in to the line of thinking that the world is going to end in the next couple of years and they’re looking to get RAPTURED so they don’t  care about domestic politics, crime, immigration. 

    • Alexandra1973

      Actually I believe in what’s referred to as the “rapture” myself…but while we’re here, we shouldn’t be sitting around doing nothing.

      • jackellis

        I thought all the good Evangelical Religious Right Christians were supposed to  have been “Raptured” in May of 2011….. maybe they did, only there turned out not to be that many “good” Evangelical Christians. The ones “left behind” are mostly bad folks, not really much better than Liberals, secular humanists. Oh well, you’re here ,we’re all still here – let’s try to make the best of things and stop being clueless idiots on important issues like immigration, crime, racial realities etc.

        • Alexandra1973

          I never pay attention to anyone who sets dates.  Just goes in one ear and out the other.

  • Haven’t you heard the latest news?  Voting for Ron Paul is essentially voting for Romney.  That’s all conservative talk radio has been talking about for two days, even though the Romney-RP friendship and silent alliance has been obvious since well before Kwanzaa. 

    Why has the silent alliance between the two materialized?  People are beside themselves trying to make sense of it.  I just happen to think that their common cause is that they’re two people within the same political party who are for one reason or another seen as outside the “bounds” of lamestream conservatism.

    It’s not way too dissimilar from the Cameron-Clegg Odd Couple government in Britain, only the common opponent was the Labour Party.

    Personally, I agree with Hunter Wallace on this — I can’t despise Romney as much as I do the more boilerplate lamers Santorum and Gingrich.  While I think Romney is an “invade the world invite the world” type, and is surrounding himself with many of the same Bush flunkies, I do think his “political whore” propensities means that he is far more likely than  the two lamers to be talked out of it.

    Plus, Kris Kobach having Romney’s ear on immigration will neutralize the negatives of the left-libertarianism propensities of Ron Paul on that issue.

  • This Name Doesn’t Exist:

    No “reply” button, so I’ll continue this conversation about consistency in a new thread.

    I remember the first time I read one of your comments about consistency
    in ideology, if I’m remembering it correctly.  I had a hard time with it
    at first.  How can consistency be a bad thing?

    Consistency in computer algorithms and legal contracts and mathematical calculations are good.  That’s not what I mean when I haul out the Emerson quote that “a foolish consistency is the hobglobin of little minds.”

    The reason I’m sort of stuck pig about this is that it’s a bad habit I used to have, demanding ideological consistency from others.  It took me quite some time to break it.  Trust me — People who demand the consistency of the ideological rectitude from themselves and others are really the pencil pocket dorks of the world.  I think nicotine is less addictive.

    I’ve taken it one step further in AR in recent weeks.  Inordinate devotion to any abstract ideology, whether it’s left or right, libertarian or authoritarian, especially when it hurts yourself or your kin, is a form of mental disorder.

    I no longer think about abstract creed and ideology in its own terms, instead, I analyze it in terms of whether it will help white people.  If a given idea makes our people better, then I accept it, if it hurts our people, then I reject it.  Furthermore, if there are changes in society, culture, trade, technology and commerce, and an idea which helped white people starts to hurt us, then I dispose of the idea and come up with new ideas, and vice versa, if an idea that used to hurt us starts helping us, then I will adopt it.

    Absolutist libertarianism brought it into focus for me.  They brook no
    dissent from the program.  Every ill on the face of the planet is a
    result of the state, end of story.  This ideology doesn’t allow for the
    concept of groups, except to suggest that without government to create
    them, they would not exist.

    They’ll not only argue that “every ill on the planet is the result of the state,” they’ll then argue that the state is the essence of and as an absolute monopoly on evil. 

    If these absolutist libertarians had the sense that God gave a snail, they would embrace “the concept of groups,” because groups between the people and the central government wind up protecting us from the kind of tyranny of the central government that is every libertarian’s (and a lot of other people’s) nightmare.  See this:

    http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html

    I’m surprised Stalking the Wild Taboo is still up, and it’s still true to the Web 1.0 era in which it started.  This is an essay by an Emory University philosophy professor (oops, sorry, I’m about to be told that philosophy is a pseudo-science).  Its purpose is secession apologetics, but he winds up making a crucial philosophical point about the necessity of “groups.”

    Debating the hard-core libertarians is a lot like debating the progressive multiculturalists, I’ve found.

    “Inordinate devotion to any abstract ideology…”  Sounds so familiar…

  • “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” can mean a whole host of things.

    It can mean deportation by the hundreds of thousands ala Eisenhower, amnesty by the millions during the Reagan Administration, compassionate conservative sham enforcement like the Dubya years, etc.

    The most comprehensive immigration reform I can think of would be a ban on all immigration, a retroactive revocation of 14th amendment birthplace citizenship, mass deportation of illegals on the order of tens of millions, and the erection of a full Berlin style manned wall on all borders.

    That would be pretty comprehensive, wouldn’t you say?

    • The_Bobster

      I would add all the illegals “normalized” in 1986 and the subsequent mini-amnesties.

      Would it be too much to wish for the deportion of all the minorities allowed to enter after the Immigration Act of 1965?

  • ageofknowledge

    This is code for he’s going to try to push full amnesty through for all illegals.