Calderon Should Mind His Own Business, Obama Should Take Care of Ours

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-19-mexico_N.htm

Mexican President Felipe Calderon had the unmitigated gall to use an official visit as an opportunity to criticize Arizona’s law to address illegal immigration, a problem for which his and his predecessors’ bumbling and ineptitude in managing the Mexican economy is mostly to blame. 

Mexican President Felipe Calderón on Wednesday criticized Arizona’s tough new immigration law as “discriminatory,” a rebuke of a domestic policy rare for a foreign leader to deliver on U.S. soil. Calderón’s criticism was echoed by President Obama during a joint Rose Garden news conference held hours before Calderón was honored at a state dinner.

And, once again, Obama just stood there and took it, just like he did in an earlier visit to Mexico when Calderon chastised him for even thinking about renegotiating NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and then, to punctuate the point, slapped big tariffs on American imports.  Not a peep of protest from Obama.  Even worse, he took Calderon’s side.

 Arizona’s law “has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion,” Obama said. “The judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.”

… Obama didn’t seem put off. He hailed Calderón as a “true partner” on issues from the war against drugs to creating jobs on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border.

 Calderon championed the “rights” of the Mexican people to come to the U.S. for economic opportunity.  Perhaps Mr. Calderon should mind his own business and focus on improving economic opportunities for his citizens in Mexico.  And perhaps he should implement a population management policy to rein in the explosive population growth in a land that is already badly overpopulated.  Oh, wait, I forgot – he already has such a policy:  exporting people.

When it comes to Obama, I suppose things could be worse.  He could be pushing Congress to enact “immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty and an open border.  Were it not for the fact that the American people are furious about illegal immigration, he’d probably try.  He’s smart enough to know that he’d be wasting his and Congress’ time.  No such legislation is going to be enacted.  Not now and not in the forseeable future.

What’s sad is that the President, contrary to the image portrayed during the election of someone who understands and was willing to tackle the problems that confront this country, he just doesn’t seem to get the problems caused by worsening overpopulation in the U.S., and the role of both legal and illegal immigration in exacerbating those problems.  At a time when we have 18 million unemployed workers (50% more than the total of illegal immigrants in the U.S.), shouldn’t it be obvious to anyone that we don’t need to be importing an additional one million laborers every year?  At a time when we are dependent on foreign sources for 70% of our oil, isn’t it obvious that we don’t need to be importing a million more oil consumers every year?  When the challenge of cutting carbon emissions by 80% is already nearly impossible, how much common sense does it take to know that we shouldn’t be importing an additional one million carbon emitters every year? 

As someone who believed the calls for “hope” and “change” and voted for Obama, I’m terribly disappointed.  We’re once again saddled with a another in a long line of care-taker presidents, satisfied with tinkering at the margins while the bigger, underlying problems go unaddressed.  Health care reform that doesn’t address the biggest issue with affordability:  incomes that haven’t kept pace with inflation.  Wall Street regulatory reform that doesn’t address the global trade imbalances that fuel the excesses.  Jobs programs that leave workers high and dry once again when the deficit spending can’t be sustained.  Criticizing states who tackle immigration enforcement when he’s unwilling to exercise his executive powers to address the problem. 

Mind your own damned business, Calderon.  And start taking care of ours, Obama.

Advertisements

15 Responses to Calderon Should Mind His Own Business, Obama Should Take Care of Ours

  1. Mark Hall says:

    WELL SAID PETE!!!

    When Obama said that we should start focusing on creating “Green Jobs”; now we know what he meant.

  2. Ken Hoop says:

    Calderon can’t be called a risktaker. He knew Obama, with his semi-alienated history from the Majority American, wasn’t going to offer any resistance. Then again, one wonders if “White” free-trading Chamber of Commerce GOP plutocrats like George W Bush would have offered much more.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Bush did make a push for “immigration reform,” including amnesty, but his own party made it clear that they’d have none of it until the border was secured and until enforcement action was taken against employers who knowingly hired illegals. To his credit, Bush responded with with a crack-down that had illegals on the run. I noticed that when Calderon spoke to a joint session of Congress earlier this week, Democrats stood and cheered while Republicans sat silent. It’s clear which party is on the right side of this issue. If McCain had taken a tough stance on illegal immigration, instead of mirroring Obama’s call for immigration “reform,” he might be president today.

  3. MikeF says:

    I never thought I would ever live to see the day when the president of the United States would stand shoulder to shoulder with a corrupt foreign president and demean one of our sovereign states.

    There was a time in this nation when such an action would have been seen as high treason.

    We are getting closer and closer to the point where we fight or simply give up.

  4. ClydeB says:

    The lack of “American” culture continues to be more and more apparent in this man that was elected to be our president. It becomes more and more obvious that his goal is to eliminate the notion of American exceptionalism. I agree that his actions border on treason. I for one, have had enough.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Mike and Clyde, I wouldn’t go so far as to call his actions “treasonous.” I thought he chose his words rather carefully, saying that the Arizona law has the potential to be applied in a discriminatory way. You could say that about any law. It wasn’t an outright rebuke of Arizona; nor was anything he said a ringing endorsement of an open border. He’s crafty enough to know that this issue is a loser for him. He’s trying to duck the whole immigration issue and walk a fine line without angering the Hispanic constituency.

      That said, though, a guy like Calderon has no right to come here and get on his high horse about immigration and Obama, regardless of his position on the immigration issue, should have put him in his place, and should certainly be raising holy hell about the NAFTA situation. Instead, all we get is pleasantries and “statesmanship” instead of any real action on any of these issues.

  5. MikeF says:

    Pete,

    Our disgraceful president said, “In the 21st century our nations are not defined by borders, but by our bonds.”

    Obama has taken pot shots at Arizona every day since the law was passed.

    This great, “every kid should go to college,” leader is at the same time in favor of filling our nation with non-English speaking non-educated foreigners.

    He’s a disgrace to our nation.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      I have no problem with non-English-speaking foreigners or that they may not be highly educated. From a population management perspective, it’s the sheer volume (of both illegal and legal immigrants combined) that is the problem. If we want our position on managing our population to a sustainable level and limiting immigration to be taken seriously and to gain traction, and not be dismissed as racists or xenophobes, we need to stay focused on the numbers.

      I hadn’t heard that quote about borders and bonds. Both are important. Without borders, we’re not a nation at all, but the “free parking” space on the global monopoly board, ruled by anarchy – something pretty close to the situation in Arizona that prompted them to finally act.

  6. MikeF says:

    Pete,

    Here’s the speech. http://tammybruce.com/2010/05/obama-to-mex-prez-we-are-not-defined-by-our-borders.html

    My point is this, our president continually touts a college education for every kid. At the same time, we have an endless invasion of illiterate people that is sanctioned by the same man; which way is it?

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Good point. And with college graduates already unable to find work, how much worse will it be when everyone attends college? It doesn’t take a college education to machine and assemble parts into finished products. Yet, we need those products as much as we need financial, legal and health services. Somehow we managed to have a vibrant economy, one healthier than what we have now, when the workers making those products were right here in the U.S. It didn’t matter that those people were paid well when everyone’s incomes were sufficient to afford their products. Henry Ford was smart enough to understand that his workers were also his customers.

  7. Robert says:

    Pete,

    Governor Brewer’s latest comments on the criticism are hilarious and to the point!

    • Pete Murphy says:

      That’s great, Robert! Thanks!

      Regarding the “boycott” of Arizona, no doubt some groups have chosen to boycott Arizona and it’s had a negative impact. But one has to wonder if, in the long run, it will actually boost business in Arizona when it’s perceived as a safer place to do business than it is now.

  8. MikeF says:

    There isn’t one in ten thousand that have the internal fortitude and guts to do what Jan Brewer has done.

    We have a growing cowardice that political correctness, back peddling and quick compromise have provided for the growing number of modern day Loyalist’s who would compromise our entire culture in order not to have to get involved.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Agreed, Brewer is a heroine.

      Of those one in ten thousand, how many have the financial wherewithal to wage an election campaign? Another one in ten thousand? And, once elected, how many can resist the corrupting influences of the lobbyists?

  9. MikeF says:

    Pete,

    You said, “It didn’t matter that those people were paid well when everyone’s incomes were sufficient to afford their products.” Spot on!

    A full circle economy comprised of beneficial exchange creates parity. When we take entire sectors out of that full circle, we lose parity.

    I often ask the same question that you referred to, “This economy functioned properly at one time; what changed?” We must restore that butcher, baker and candlestick maker of our past if we are to have a future.

    Thanks for your continual good work Pete.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: