Obama Tough Guy On Illegal Immigration! That Was Then...

-By Warner Todd Huston

Once again we see that anything that Obama says has an expiration date. In 2006, then Senator Obama was a tough guy on illegal aliens. Flash forward to 2010 when he wants desperately to find an issue with which he can beat up on Republicans, suddenly Barack Obama pretends to be every illegal alien's buddy.

In 2006 an illegal alien named Elvira Arellano was discovered working illegally in Chicago. She escaped going into the custody of ICE officials and ended up hiding in a law breaking Catholic Church in Chicago. She was eventually apprehended and deported as she should have been. But before that happened this lawbreaker made a special plea to the two U.S. Senators in Illinois. Barack Obama was one of them.

He rejected her pleas saying, "We live in a country of laws. We don't do things sort of based on, you know, one person's situation."

Thanks to the ever alert Naked Emperor News...

Oh, a tough guy was he. Yep, just another Obama "principle" that was conveniently thrown away when Obama needs a new one to fit his new political needs.

(H/T Breitbart TV)

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Obama was not being "tough on imigration" when he refused to help Elvira Arellano. He was upholding the law. A man in office has a duty to uphold the law; if he doesn't agree with the law he should try to change it, but until that day he should uphold it. Obama may have been tough on immigration back then- I don't know- but that is a very poor example.

  • In reply to fairyonprozac:

    OK, then. If he should just accept a law because its a law, why is he speaking out against Arizona? It IS the law there, after all.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    The Arizona law sets bad precedent. In reality, illegal immigration is actually better now than it was in 2006. In fact, the numbers have dropped and, since the financial meltdown, people are actually leaving America and heading back to Mexico (not in huge numbers, but it's happening). So, it's interesting that Arizona now decides the problem is a 'crisis.' Further, our federalism dictates that certain areas of law are better suited for the federal government - e.g. immigration. Allowing for 50 different states to regulate this body of law would confuse those trying to get over here, waste tons of money in administrative costs, and over all, be a poorly constructed inefficient immigration system. Hence, speaking out against Arizona and urging states not to take AZ's lead in an area that, since 2006, has become less of a problem in light of our economic pain, makes sense. I would go so far as to say he is urging states to comply with the law and our Constitutionally sanctioned federalist system. In essence, he is just telling Arizona to comply with the law. Because, you know, we don't do things based on one person's (or state's) situation.

Leave a comment