Skip to comments.Obama Flinches on Immigration
Posted on 03/24/2009 10:09:08 PM PDT by La Lydia
In a little-noticed act of political faintheartedness, the Obama administration has pulled back from nominating Thomas Saenz, a highly regarded civil-rights lawyer and counsel to the mayor of Los Angeles, to run the Justice Departments civil rights division. Saenz, the former top litigator in Los Angeles for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or Maldef...The floating of his name led to fierce outbursts from anti-immigrant groups and blogs, which detest him for being so good at what he does.
He was a leader of the successful fight to block Californias Proposition 187...He has defended Latino day laborers who were targets of misguided local crackdowns...An editorial in Investors Business Daily slimed Saenz by calling him an open-borders extremist and said Maldef wanted to give California back to Mexico.
None of it was true, but it was apparently too much for the White House. Mr. Saenz was ditched in favor of Marylands labor secretary, Thomas Perez... Immigrant advocates are stuck with the sinking feeling that Mr. Obamas supposed enthusiasm for immigration reform will wilt under pressure and heat.....
Mr. Obama may have avoided a nasty fight this time. But if he is ever going to win the battle to put 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, he will to have to confront and dismantle the core restrictionist argument: that being an illegal immigrant is an unpardonable crime, one that strips away fundamental protections and forgives all manner of indecent treatment.
The Constitutions bedrock protections do not apply to just the native-born. The suffering that illegal immigrants endure from raids to workplace exploitation to mistreatment in detention is a civil-rights crisis. It cannot be left to fester while we wait for the big immigration bill that may or may not arrive under this president....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
As that's certainly our position (come'on people, do I really need a sarc tag on this?). Just more projection from the NYT; the question is whether illegally entering the country should be a crime at all - not the specifics of how you deter those who do so.
That's right. That's why they should leave and go back home for the free tacos and watermelon.
isn’t Operation Endgame engaged to precisely do that very same thing? just curious
“But if he is ever going to win the battle to put 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship”
15 years from now they will still be saying 12 million illegal aliens. They will never admit that it is around 20 - 30 million at this time, LOL!
The NYT would have flinched from calling Pancho Villa a border extremist.
Cry me a river...
for the AFIRE ping list
I’ve noticed you’ve been particularly busy on that list lately. Keep up the good work.
Any number of new keywords have appeared over the past year. I now have over twice as many to monitor. That's what's added to the increased number of links. Most contain the same posts as the first ones visited (multiple keyword entries per post), but there's always the chance of a missed post buried within...
seems like we ill be supporting the NYTs very soon.
Demonstrative of the NYT’s uncanny ability to promote opinions and ideology instead of actual fact based news. Then again, liberals cant seem to grasp facts anyways so why am I surprised. Oh and forgive - I cant seem to find in the Constitution where it says illegal aliens are protected by its powers.
Hey, Hitler was really good at what he did. Oops, I just lost the argument by invoking Hitler, but such is the caliber of discourse when the NYT is involved.
Get a load of this.
March 16, 2009
“Recently, MALDEFs record of protecting the civil and constitutional rights of Latinos has come under attack by extremists. We reject these attacks...”
“The Constitution protects all persons not all white persons; not all citizens; not all natives; and not all legal residents. http://www.maldef.org/news/releases/statement_031609/
James Walsh, one person who ought to know, says conservatively 38 million and very carefully explains why here: