June 21, 2010

President Obama: "... if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform"

Monique Chartier

This is simply unacceptable. The president has openly admitted that he has walked away from two of the paramount duties of his office: the preservation of his country's sovereignty and the protection of his country's citizens, legal immigrants and guests. [H/T Glenn Beck.]

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, "The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, "In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with 'comprehensive immigration reform'."
Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Secure the border?? Obama is a racist!! The problem isn't just with Mexicans, it's with people from all countries. Guatemala, Ireland, Russia, Liberia, Portugal, etc. It's not just people sneaking across the Arizona, NM and Texas borders.

And where people like Kyl missed the boat was to attach stronger immigration laws on to the health care bill. If Dems want their health care bill so badly, then agree to stricter penalties for illegal immigration.

No country can survive on health care for all and open borders.

Posted by: Patrick at June 21, 2010 12:23 PM

Glen Beck....really?

Posted by: swazool at June 21, 2010 2:49 PM

Those of us who remember the 1986 immigration reform know that, in any "comprehensive" immigration reform bill, any enforcement measures will be included mainly for show. The 1986 bill essentially said we have to amnesty the illegal aliens present in the country because it's impractical to deport them but we'll put new controls in place to prevent future waves of illegal immigration. As we now know, we got the amnesty but illegal immigration continued unabated. That's why there was so much opposition to McCain-Kennedy; McCain could load up the bill with all manner of tough-sounding enforcement language, but no one believed there would be any actual enforcement.

We actually don't need a whole lot of legislation to make immigration enforcement a reality. Mostly it's a matter of administration policy. We need an administration that takes enforcement seriously. And that doesn't mean raising the specter of massive roundups and deportations.

It is already against the law for an employer to hire illegal aliens. All employers are required to verify every employee's eligibility to work and to record that fact on an I-9 form. If we require expanded use of e-verify we can reduce the number of illegal aliens who obtain employment with fraudulent documents.

Attacking the problem through employers should produce greater results than going after the illegal aliens themselves. Employers typically have more to lose than illegal aliens so it should be easier to deter them through serious enforcement efforts. If illegal aliens can't get jobs and they can't get public benefits, they will deport themselves.

If stepped up enforcement actually manages to get the illegal immigration problem under control, I suspect there will be more willingness on the part of the public to accept some kind of amnesty for those who are left. I know I would give it serious thought. But the government's track record on this issue means it has to make the first move by demonstrating it's serious about enforcing the law and enforcing the borders.

Posted by: David P at June 21, 2010 3:20 PM

The use of border security as a bargaining chip by a man with the highest responsibility in the US for national security in all its aspects is criminal.
Obama is a criminal on this basis alone.It makes the Sestak business look like spitting on the sidewalk.
I cannot believe this position is defensible.Of course I'm sure Stuart has quite the opposite view.
Cause you're never wrong,are you Stuie?

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 21, 2010 3:21 PM

That has always been the Democrat Party's philosophy. If they solve a problem then no one will need them!

Posted by: Chris at June 21, 2010 7:00 PM

David, you make too much sense. Illegals go where they get hired. That and increased border security are fine with me.
The problem is, these people hire illegals because they don't feel like following employment law when it comes to Americans and legal immigrants (we Americans won't stand for being treated like that and will try to do something about it - guess it's easy to raise the iron fist against politically powerless illegals). Putting a good foot down on these employers is the first key step toward easing the problem.

Posted by: rhody at June 22, 2010 2:42 PM

So why are you liberals against the state e-verify law which carries penalties for employers?
Try supporting that on RIFuture,Rhody,you phony.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 22, 2010 3:43 PM

I would like to apologize to the commenters on this thread for the behavior of Mr. Bernstein. I wish I could explain why he does this - maybe it's an after-effect of his behavior earlier in his life (see porn thread).

Posted by: rhody at June 22, 2010 10:06 PM

I would like to apologize to commenters on this thread that Rhody became a viable zygote.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 22, 2010 10:25 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.