Posted on 04/19/2010 7:02:40 PM PDT by Man50D
First lady Michelle Obama on Sunday suggested congressional partisanship is to blame for the absence of comprehensive immigration reform since her husband took office.
When asked during an interview on Univision's "Al Punto" why President Barack Obama had not lived up to his promise to push the issue within his first year of winning office, Michelle stressed "immigration is still on the top" of his political agenda.
However, the first lady quickly suggested that the primary roadblock to the reforms that Obama first pitched on the campaign trail are none other than congressional lawmakers, who are still reeling from the just-completed healthcare debate.
"[W]hat we all have to understand in the United States, in Mexico and around the world is that the president needs the support of two parties of Congress to get major reform done," the first lady said.
"We saw the challenges that take place with just getting healthcare reform so there are real challenges ahead," she continued, "but I know that my husband is committed and understands that a comprehensive and smart immigration reform policy is going to benefit the United States and Mexico and other countries around the world."
Immigration reform has returned to the political foreground in the past few weeks, in part because of a recent move by the Arizona legislature to require people to carry proof of legal status or risk detention.
That effort, which Gov. Jan Brewer (R) could ultimately veto, has touched off a debate in the Latino community that mostly targets the Obama administration. Community leaders -- including Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' immigration task force -- are now questioning why the president has not introduced the comprehensive immigration reform he promised on the 2008 campaign trail.
"The President knows what we must do, but he alone must summon the political will in Washington to do it," the congressman wrote in an op-ed published on The Huffington Post this weekend. "The short-run calculations of politics are deeply rooted and hard to overcome, but as we saw in the health care debate, he can do it if he wants to."
"Obama the President needs to stand up for what Obama the candidate and what Obama the Senator and what Obama the Chicago community organizer stood for and lead the Congress towards reform," Gutierrez continued. "But I'm already afraid that for the people of Arizona, he has waited too long."
Democratic lawmakers have, however, tried recently to generate interest in immigration legislation, but their efforts seem to be to no avail.
An attempt by Senate Democratic Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to drum up support for immigration reform met resistance even from those within his own party, who thought such a bill would help the leader's political future at the expense of Democratic incumbents running for re-election in conservative states.
The first lady seemed to hint at those difficulties during her interview on Spanish-language television this weekend. However, she stressed immigration would continue to be one of her husband's top priorities.
"I think what people can understand about the President is that he has done his best to follow through on every single commitment that he has made, and immigration reform is still on the top of his list -- it's a necessity," she noted.
So, for Sen. Reid to be telling the truth about 56 Democrats backing his amnesty, the following 11 Democrats would have to have changed from NO on amnesty in 2007 to YES on amnesty in 2010 -- during 10% unemployment:
Arkansas -- Sen. Pryor
Indiana -- Sen. Bayh
Louisiana -- Sen. Landrieu
Michigan -- Sen. Stabenow
Missouri -- Sen. McCaskill
Montana -- Sen. Baucus
Montana -- Sen. Tester
New Mexico -- Sen. Bingaman
Ohio -- Sen. Sherrod Brown
Vermont -- Sen. Sanders (Independent)
West Virginia -- Sen. Rockefeller Here's the deal, folks. Either Sen. Reid was just making things up when he claimed he had commitments from 56 Democrats, or a lot of these offices are lying to their constituents.
ACTION: Now is not the time to let up on the pressure on the 11 Senators listed above. Phone them until you get flat promises that they will not vote for "comprehensive immigration reform" that legalizes illegal aliens this year.
All of these 11 Senators believed in 2007 either that an amnesty was bad policy or that they needed to bend to the will of their constituents who opposed amnesty.
Sen. Reid is indicating that every one of these has changed his/her mind and turned against you and the majority of voters in their states.
Before Reid gets the nerve to bring this amnesty to a vote, make these 11 Senators account for themselves before the voters of your state. Exactly what have they promised Reid?
REID SAYS ALL THESE NEW DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ARE SUPPORTING AN AMNESTY?
Reid's claim of 56 Democratic votes for an amnesty means that every single new Democrat added to the Senate after 2007 is pledged to an amnesty.
That would be:
Alaska -- Mark Begich
Colorado -- Michael Bennet
Colorado -- Mark Udall
Delaware -- Ted Kaufman
Illinois -- Roland Burris
New Hampshire -- Jeanne Shaheen
New Mexico -- Tom Udall
New York -- Kirsten Gillibrand
Jeff Merkley (Oregon)
Virginia -- Mark Warner
Toll free Capitol Switchboard numbers are 877-762-8762, 866-338-1015, 866-220-0044, 877-851-6437, 877-210-5351
I think that Michelle reached the Peter Principle when she was chief of the vegetable garden! Nothing else that she has to say matters......
The only necessity to immigration reform is to enforce the existing laws and deport the Illegals.
How much does a bus ride to the border cost anyway, Michelle? You witch.
It’s not “immigration” anymore. It’s a foreign invasion and takeover of America.
Fat chance, Michelle. We know who Obama is and you are going to be lucky if you have a dime between you when we run you two out of the country.
This is who Obama really is; why he hates the British and perhaps explains how Obama got to where he is. He had an ax to grind along with Soros and others. Voila, we have Obama.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278969/posts
“[W]hat we all have to understand in the United States, in Mexico and around the world is that the president needs the support of two parties of Congress to get major reform done,” the first lady said.”
Hmmm.....if the president needs the support of two parties, how in the world did we end up with deathcare?
“It’s not “immigration” anymore. It’s a foreign invasion and takeover of America.”
Spot on, Flyer! And I love your tagline:)
It is a means of taking power from the White population.
Thank you.
That graphic best shows their nature.
[That graphic best shows their nature.]
Lol, well a lot of kids used to do that a lot. I just made the Obozos do a kind of a ‘dance’ with the fist bump.
My daughter’s dog will raise both paws and do a ‘high 5’ with her!
“It’s not “immigration” anymore. It’s a foreign invasion and takeover of America.”
__________________________________________________________
Amen, and like I told my Black friend who voted for BO, “he will be your first and last President” because Hispanics will rule from now on and they will NOT vote for a Black. They will vote ethnicity and culture, just like you did.
Frisk lady: Emigration back to Kenya still a priority for Obummer, despite communist piggyback
Frisk lady Much Helle Obummer on Sunday suggested the communist party is to blame for the absence of compelled emigration of her husband back to Kenya.
I believe you’re exactly right.
Right, I think he is assuming that all newbies are in his pocket. Then from his 59 people, he is subtracting the three who voted no on one of the bills last time (Stabenow, Nelson and Byrd), to get 56.
That’s my best estimate as to where his number comes from. Unless he’s actually referring to the number of people in the country who want to see him re-elected.
Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.