Disappointed Democrat Will Still Vote for Obama, No Matter How Shoddy His Immigration Record

Say, Democrats who are bitterly disappointed in President Obama's immigration record, isn't a shame that you have to vote for him anyway in 2012? What's that, you don't have to? As the Huffington Post notes, don't tell the family of 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of President Barack Obama's most vocal critics on immigration, was sitting at dinner with his family a couple of weeks ago when his youngest daughter began talking about the president's "terrible" deportation record.

"If they invite us to the White House, I won't go," the 24-year-old said, according to Gutierrez.

His wife, though, summed up the family's mixed feelings on the president and immigration. "Yes -- but you should clarify that notwithstanding that, we're all voting for him," his wife said, according to the congressman. "We can be angry, but we cannot vote for" Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee.

Far be it from me to advocate voting for Romney, but story is still completely gross in that it demonstrates perfectly how political politics turns out to be. 

Gutierrez threw his support to Obama in 2008, when many Democrats in Congress backed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Four years later, Gutierrez said he wants Obama to win a second term and will help campaign for him. But he said he won't muzzle his criticism, no matter how much the campaign pushes.

"You just can't, otherwise it's you're the bullshitter again," Gutierrez said. "Like, 'Oh, don't you worry about all of those hundreds of thousands of children who don't have moms and dads, that isn't anything.' No, you have to. It is significant and important that a lot of people understand that we grasp that."

The Obama campaign has asked Gutierrez to tone down speeches calling out the president for deportations and immigration enforcement programs, a source with knowledge of the conversations told HuffPost. The Obama campaign declined to comment.

I guess props to Gutierrez for not shutting up about immigration, which  clearly a big-deal issue for him. But his family's attitude of having to vote for the Democrat is such a perfect snapshot of all that is wrong with the two-party system. And while Obama's record on immigration is appalling, the Republicans continue to invoke Reagan for every issue except immigration reform and Mitt Romney is vaguely, but strongly opposed to measures like the DREAM act. There is no really pro-immigration candidate. But that's not a reason to pretend you have no choice when it comes to voting, especially if you're trying to send a message to the president.

Reason on immigration

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Killazontherun||

    Fuck anybody who would bring about four more years of that piece of shit.

  • Amakudari||

    Ah, but most are voting between a skinny piece of shit and a slick piece of shit.

  • Killazontherun||

    Now for my constructive suggestion:

    I guess props to Gutierrez for not shutting up about immigration, which clearly a big-deal issue for him. But his family's attitude of having to vote for the Democrat is such a perfect snapshot of all that is wrong with the two-party system.

    Someone should suggest to Gary Johnson's people to have Johnson call up Gutierrez to personally convince him he doesn't have to settle for Obama.

  • Rich||

    That sign is RACIST!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Is that the pro-illegal immigration sign or the anti-illegal immigration sign?

  • JW||

    But his family's attitude of having to vote for the Democrat is such a perfect snapshot of all that is wrong with the two-party system.

    Exhibit #1 on getting the gubmint you deserve. Good and hard.

    When they deport his wife because of a "clerical error," I'm going to laugh my ass off and raise a toast to our benevolent masters.

  • ||

    There is no really pro-immigration candidate.

    There are more than two candidates running for president. At least one of them is noticeably better than Obama or Romney.

  • The Derider||

    Of the two candidates that could actually win, Obama is noticeably better than Romney on immigration.

  • wareagle||

    really? How so? Obama makes a show of deportation but, in 3+ years, has done nothing about jacked up system beyond sue AZ for trying to help DC enforce its own laws. Romney's dad was born in Mexico, for crying out loud; it's not like he's for shooting anyone trying to come in, though having an orderly immigration process is not a bad thing.

  • The Derider||

    He wants "voluntary deportation", meaning he wants to make life so shitty for undocumented immigrants that they choose to leave. That was Arizona's strategy as well, and the Obama justice department is resisting it.

  • wareagle||

    the DOJ is pretending that 1) there is no such thing as illegal immigration and 2) there is no existing immigration system, both of which are wrong.

    I have more respect for the illegals than for businesses that take advantage of them, but that does not make them, to use your words, documented. Countries have borders, and they also tend to have language and culture. I like what people from other places bring to the table but this is not a theme park. You don't get to just walk in.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Creection: there is no pro illegal immigrant candidate.

    Conflating regular immigration with people flouting American immigration law is pure agitprop.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You're not going to see the word illegal in front of immigration here.

  • Mike G||

    Gutierrez is a hack, but c'mon, suggesting a Dem machine pol vote for anybody but the machine's own begotten son is like suggesting he shoot his nuts off. This is, relatively, independence of mind.

  • ||

    To the dumb bitches with the sign: Mexico didn't become a country until 1821 (1810 if being generous), as such every part of the United States that was ever a part of Mexico has been a part of the US multiple times longer. Hell Texas was only part of Mexico for 15 years. The fucking French have a better claim.

  • The Derider||

    There's more to property ownership than the national government which claims to control your land.

  • ||

    Completely irrelevant.

  • The Derider||

    Mexicans owned property and lived in the United States when the southwest was annexed. These women (err... bitches) are making the point that a Mexican cultural heritage does not necessarily make you an immigrant.

    And you disagree because our national government beat theirs in a war and they should just accept it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And the descendents of those Mexicans are today Americans. Presumably, the sign holder is from that area of Mexico that remained part of Mexico. This would the same as an Englishman claiming that he should remain in Philadelphia because it was part of his homeland.

  • Robert||

    The British would claim your back yard even if it was in Brunei if they thought they could get away with it. They would then "mine" your outhouse for lumber, and then duck out just before the methane exploded.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Mexicans owned property and lived in the United States when the southwest was annexed.

    Really? Because in many parts of what is now the American Southwest, they didn't consider themselves "mexican"--those were the Indian underclasses, not the Spanish-descended gentry that actually ran the country.

    These women (err... bitches) are making the point that a Mexican cultural heritage does not necessarily make you an immigrant.

    No, it just makes them ethnically chauvinistic. Which I'm fine with, really--their fundamental ignorance goes hand-in-hand with left-wing enabling of such.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Sure, but what part of that "more" gives her a claim on it?

    The residents of Alta California became Americans when we acquired the land. Modern Mexicans are descended from people who didn't live here.

  • The Derider||

    Latinos aren't stupid. They know team blue tried to pass the dream act, and they know team red filibustered it. They know Romney wants "voluntary deportation" for their family and friends.

    If you're shocked, you just don't get it.

  • ||

    And yet, who is the one in power deporting them at the fastest rate ever? Who is the one in power leading a drug war that is destroying Mexico?

  • The Derider||

    They believe, rightly, that Mitt would be worse. What reason has Mitt given you to think that he'd deport fewer people than Obama, or be better on the war on drugs?

  • Amakudari||

    Not Romney's politics, but I don't expect Democrats to care about deporting illegal immigrants with a Democrat in charge (cf. today).

    It's like how the anti-war movement ended on November 4, 2008.

  • Bryan C||

    "They believe, rightly, that Mitt would be worse."

    So the guy who disagrees with you on this specific issue is "worse" than the guy who also disagrees with you, but pretends to agree with you in order to get your vote. And who then proceeds to ignore you and work against your actual interests on every other front.

    Yeah. That's a winning strategy you got there.

  • wareagle||

    oh bullshit. These knowing Latinos also know that Bush II was behind amnesty and so was McCain. Maybe on the next Newsweek cover, The Obama could be captioned as "the first Hispanic president."

  • The Derider||

    McCain threw immigrants under the bus during the campaign, remember?

    He said he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill.

    Bush II was better than most of team red on immigration, and he saw the benefits at the ballot box.

  • wareagle||

    and Obama did what, other than ratchet up the deportations and not stop the funneling of guns to Mexico. Besides, I suspect a good many Latinos don't much like the illegal influx, either.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Exactly.

    What's the argument that "hispanics" vote solely on immigration policy, other than flat out racism?

  • JeremyR||

    Until Obama, there was never a bigger proponent of a giant welfare state than GWB.

    Of course he wanted Latino voters to come in, so they could vote for more government spending.

    Why LIbertarians want bigger government and more welfare is beyond me. You want open borders, then end the welfare state first. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for government services for illegal aliens...

  • jcomeau_ictx||

    libertarians as a whole, and Gary Johnson specifically, do *not* want bigger government and more welfare. "libertarian" != "liberal". not meaning to be pedantic, but if we're going to have meaningful discussions we have to agree on some basic terminology.

  • ||

    Why LIbertarians want bigger government and more welfare is beyond me. You want open bordersfood freedom, then end the welfare state first. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for government services for illegal aliensfatasses...

    Why LIbertarians want bigger government and more welfare is beyond me. You want open borders sovereignty over your own body, then end the welfare state first. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for government services for illegal aliensdrug addicts...

    etc.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I vote we call him "The First Gay Hispanic Vulcan Demi-God Awesomestest president* Ever, For Life and Beyond".

    * I do not capitalize the word "president", as it does not deserve such.

  • AlmightyJB||

    As sometone who is half-Vucan, your suggestion offends me.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It's hilarious that you think all the genuflecting you do to the Great Brown Races is going to get you any special privileges when they finally do run things.

  • Robert S||

    +1

  • jcomeau_ictx||

    this is the year to vote your conscience, whether libertarian, green, reform, justice, hell vote communist if you're so inclined but let's stop giving credence to the demopublican party which doesn't care if Romney or Obama wins because the big corporations own both of them.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I love the mentality behind that sign.

    "We took this land from the Indians before you took it from us! It is rightfully our homeland!"

  • Lyle||

    It's not good to be an illegal immigrant when the economy is sour. You may be aggressively deported.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Actually a lot of them end up going home on their own since the job market is so weak here.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    LOL at that sign--the only reason those goons are in their "homeland" is because the Apaches didn't have a chance to properly kill their ancestors on the great trek north.

  • aelhues||

    I always feel like I'm missing something when I see signs like that. If your ancestors lived in TX/NM/AZ/CA, then you'd likely be an American. If you moved away, it doesn't give you the right to come back and reclaim your property.

    I once lived in a nice little cabin in Glen Haven, CO. Maybe I should move back, and demand that the current tenants leave, and give me the cabin back.

  • Bryan C||

    "But his family's attitude of having to vote for the Democrat is such a perfect snapshot of all that is wrong with the two-party system. "

    No, it's a reflection of how people confuse voting for a politician with a religious statement of faith. If the guy in office ignores your priorities and takes you for granted, you vote against him. That's what voting is for. Sometimes that may entail voting for someone you don't like, in order to provide an incentive for your preferred candidate to change his behavior. Suck it up and use your vote, or stop complaining.

    This isn't unique to a two-party system. You can't magically conjure up infinite numbers of perfect candidates, and if disappointed Democrats can't even be bothered to field a primary challenger then they clearly aren't very upset after all.

  • silverbull8||

    Apply this requirement equally to every US President, Vice President and candidates for those offices:
    1. They were native-born in the USA.
    2. At the moment of birth, both parents were married to each other.
    3. At the moment of birth, both parents were US Citizens.

    You will soon separate the eligible from those ho are not eligible.
    Romney passes, and Obama fails.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement