This is why the only people who trust the Obama administration to handle illegal immigration are pro-illegals. Because they know that the only way Obama will handle it is with amnesty.
Are you sure it was just Pres. Obama who has ever advocated amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico?
From the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) website:
"
Americans Spurn Illegal Alien Amnesty, Polls Say," dated 10/2001
Just before Presidents Bush and (Mexico's President) Fox met in Washington to plot an amnesty for illegal aliens, FAIR released a national Harris poll it commissioned, confirming that the majority of Americans oppose an amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States. Based on a survey of over 1,000 voters, the poll found that Americans oppose an amnesty for illegal aliens by a 60 percent to 29 percent margin and are specifically against the proposed amnesty for Mexican illegal immigrants by 59 to 31 percent. Dan Stein, executive director of FAIR, announced the poll results at a press conference on August 30th that was covered by Telemundo, the Los Angeles Times, The Arizona Republic, La Opinion, Gannett News Service, and McClatchy Newspapers, among others.
Or this from a little know website called Vdare.com:
(Hate the title of the article, but...) "
That Amnesty Proposal – Ruling Class Returns To Its Vomit (Again)"
Amnesty—no one wants to call it that but that's what it is—was a major morsel on the Bush administration's plate before 19 perfectly legal immigrants carried out the biggest act of mass murder in human history. After that, amnesty went on the backburner, while various politicians scurried about pretending to do something about the mass immigration that made the Sept. 11 massacre possible.
Now, four months later, with the Justice Department still unable to locate or deport aliens suspected of involvement in Sept. 11, the public attention span has proved short enough for the administration to get back to real business. As the Los Angeles Times reported last week,
"the most significant development in the national immigration debate is what hasn't happened: No lawmaker of influence has moved to reverse the country's generous immigration policy, which for more than three decades has facilitated the largest sustained wave of immigration in U.S. history. Proposals to restrict a system that welcomed more than 9 million legal immigrants during the 1990s were not even accorded a formal hearing on Capitol Hill."
[Los Angeles Times, "Wave of U.S. Immigration Likely to Survive Sept. 11," January 10, 2002]
But if no lawmakers are moving to cut immigration, the administration, in addition to resurrecting amnesty from its political grave, is moving to provide more welfare to legal immigrants. As the Washington Post reported last week,
"The Bush administration proposed yesterday that poor immigrants who have lived legally in the United States for at least five years be allowed to collect food stamps, restoring part of the safety net that was removed in a 1996 overhaul of the welfare system."
Try not to allow yourself to become so blinded by partisanship that you fail to recognize that this immigration problem has been going on for at least the past 30 years and that both sides believe they have something to gain by not adequately sealing the boards. My question still remains, however, as the Vdare article dares to ask:
"If boarder security and illegal immigration are so important to Republican politicians, why didn't they do something about it right after 9/11 when the nation was made to realized the dangers of not adhering to or improving our immigration policies?"
Why now all of a sudden have they jumped on this immigration issue but are still unwilling to tackling it head-on but instead are willing to skirt around the issue by coming up with such lame solutions as amending the 14th Amendment? The answer is three-fold:
1) Amnesty for illegal Mexicans means votes! That much is clear. By pandering to the Hispanic population, both sides wish to capture this largely elusive voting block.
2) Cheap labor! When the economy was good, most politicians didn't mind having a few Mexicans toiling the fields or doing some of the odd jobs most Americans really don't want to do. But now that jobs are the hot button item in this deep recession, now suddenly people and politicians are pissed off about it (particularly those on the Right...now that they don't control Congress. Listen to their voices should they regain control and see what, if anything, they really do about immigration reform then.)
3) To discredit the sitting President as being soft on immigration, yet which President since Reagon has publicly stated as part of his White House agenda he plans to tackle immigration reform after the mid-term elections? (I'm listening...chirp, chirp, chirp....the sound of crickets...that's what I thought.)
Get it right, people. Neither side really wants to mess with this, and both sides have advocating amnesty for a good reason - YOU CAN'T DEPORT 38 MILLION PEOPLE (most of whom are Hispanic/Mexicans) WITHOUT HAVING AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE LABOR FORCE!!!
It may not be the right way to go about solving our immigration problem particularly with our souther neighbor, but it is a solution worth exploring.