Obama Loves Immigrants So Much He's Cracking Down on Workplaces That Hire Them.


Among the most predictable outcomes of the 2012 election was Republican Mitt Romney's absolutely awful showing among Hispanic voters. The reluctant candidate (according to one of his sons anyway) pulled around 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, less even then John McCain managed in 2008 and much less than George W. Bush (who got around 40 percent to 45 percent in 2004). Given that Romney called for "self-deportation" of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants and attacked Texas Gov. Rick Perry for giving some illegals in-state tuition at the University of Texas, his lackluster showing was hardly surprising.

But you know what? Compared to President Barack Obama, Romney was practically sweetness and light to the overwhelming number of immigrants (legal and otherwise) coming from Latin America and especially Mexico (a country that has accounted for about 55 percent of immigrants for the past decade or two). Indeed, in his first term, Obama deported immigrants at a higher rate than Bush and made it clear that even his paltry and temporary waiving of deportation for some illegals who had been brought here as children was neither "amnesty," "immunity," nor "a path to citizenship."

People who think Obama is somehow pro-immigrant can suck on this as they savor four more years: Last year, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) jacked up its efforts to punish companies hiring illegals:

Audits of employer forms increased from 250 in fiscal year 2007 to more than 3,000 in 2012. From fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the total amount of fines grew to nearly $13 million from $1 million.

The number of company managers arrested has increased to 238, according to data provided by ICE.

The investigations of companies have been one of the pillars of President Obama's immigration policy.

When Obama recently spoke about addressing immigration reform in his second term, he said any measure should contain penalties for companies that purposely hire illegal immigrants.

More here.

At the same time, it's coming out that Mitt Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has long been a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform that was supported by high-profile Dems and Reps. Ryan has recently met with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has his own issues with President Obama on immigration.

In 2005, Ryan was a co-sponsor of bipartisan and bi-cameral comprehensive immigration reform legislation carried in the House by Gutierrez and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "It wasn't like it was a long line of Republicans supporting it. He's always supported immigration reform," Gutierrez said.

The measure was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). That was the last time lawmakers crossed the aisle to work meaningfully together on immigration reform—and that mighty effort failed.

Read more here.

As a matter of fact, there wasn't a lot of Democratic support for immigration reform in the mid-'00s either. That's one of the reasons it went nowhere, despite support from George W. Bush. Iimmigration was about the only thing Dubya was good on, in my opinion. He wanted more of it and defined it thus in 2001: "Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is a sign of a confident and successful nation. Their arrival should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment, but with openness and courtesy."

Will we ever see a president again who talks that way about immigration? Here's hoping.

Related video: Can an Illegal Immigrant Become a Lawyer in the United States?

NEXT: Soda Shop Hit With Tobacco Ordinance

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Obama deported more people in four years than Bush did in 8 and didn’t spend a single dime of political capital on immigration issues. Could it be that Latin voters don’t give a flying fuck about immigration and just want big government?

    1. The welfare state is not compatible with open immigration, as much of Europe has discovered. So, to answer your question, yes.

      1. Yeah. Latino voters just want their welfare. Republicans could advocate full open boarders and they still wouldn’t get their votes.

        1. They have this in common with previous generations of European immigrants.

          But I guess it is part and parcel of being human.

    2. Many chicanos who are citizens because of the 80s amnesty are big Chavez supporters and RR haters.

  2. Except that he didn’t deport 3rd world invaders at a rate higher than Bush’s. He simply changed the definition of “deportation”. Before Obama, invaders caught at the border were returned and not counted in the deportation numbers. Obama started adding them in to his count.

    We need a moratorium of at least 40 years on all immigration. Just so we can clean up the mess the 1965 Immigration Act made. Otherwise we can wave good bye to freedom and liberty in the United States.

    1. We need a moratorium on redefining words for smear purposes.

    2. Daddy, why do you touch my special place every night? It hurts so much! I know you’re sad about what happened to Mommy, but won’t she get jealous when I kiss your daddy-thing like she used to?

  3. The weakness of Romney’s campaign never ceases to amaze. The lines of attack on Obama were endless, and universally ignored.

    You could easily have run a campaign on the horrible economic performance during his administration without once making anything remotely like a personal attack.

    You could have easily exposed the hollowness of his base-pimping rhetoric on nearly any topic just by pointing at actual facts, like the way he sponsored a crackdown on illegals, ramped up the drone war, etc. Sure, those are things the Repub base might actually kind of like, but there’s no way any Repub base voter was going to vote for Obama no matter how Repub any particular policies of his were.

    Well, at least losing twice to a very beatable Dem won’t lead to any change in Repub leadership. So there’s that.

    1. No. The GOP must run a rich guy who doesn’t really want the job or cares if he gets it.

      1. The GOP establishment loves Obama’s policies and doesn’t want change.

        It’s as simple as that. Oh they may quibble about who gets which bit of plunder, but they will never agree to something that threatens the stream of wealth they mulct from the people who produce things.

        1. Sad but true.

  4. Please. The last thing Obama and the Democrats want is for today’s immigrants to find jobs and work! If that happens, they will start becoming middle class and vote Republican or — worse yet– become libertarians, just like the immigrants from the late 1800’s-early 1900’s did when they moved into the middle class.

    1. Of course, how would they succeed in doing so when Democrats in the past could not?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.