No surprises here: Myrick didn’t like Obama’s speech on immigration reform

US Representative Sue Myrick (NC-09) has always been one of the most vocal critics of illegal immigrants in this country. So it should not come as a surprise that last week she disagreed with Obama’s speech on immigration.

This week’s Mint Hill Times editorial calls for a practical solution to the immigration problem that is more akin to what Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch wants: Set up a program that will allow the current illegals some level of legal status, and then restructure immigration laws so that we never again have this problem. Who else is on board with this idea? In addition to Murdoch and Obama, Michael Bloomberg (and many other CEOS and Mayors), George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Trent Lott, Ken Mehlman, former chairman, Republican National Committee, and Republican strategist Michael Murphy.

Myrick is correct. We are a nation of laws. But we are also a nation that recognizes when a law doesn’t work or is antiquated like the current immigration law. Here’s her full statement on Obama’s speech last week following President Obama’s immigration speech this morning at American University:

“The Commander in Chief is supposed to protect America and enforce the laws on our books.  Instead, President Obama advocates implementation of a policy that rewards those who’ve broken our immigration laws.  His suggestion that securing the border is unworkable is an astonishingly defeatist statement.  Simply put, his ‘path to citizenship’ is amnesty.  Blurring the line between ‘immigrant’ and ‘illegal immigrant’ clearly indicates the President’s desire to put those who support the enforcement of US immigration law on the defensive.  The United States is undoubtedly a nation of immigrants.  Unfortunately, it seems the President has forgotten that we are also a nation that respects the rule of law.”

7 comments on “No surprises here: Myrick didn’t like Obama’s speech on immigration reform
  1. Phil, I don’t think anyone is arguing that the immigrants are not here illegally.

    Knowing there are 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, do you think law enforcement alone can solve the problem? If so, how?

  2. Very simple Tim, cannot transfer money out of the U.S. unless you have a visa, green card, etc. Any company employing an illegal would be subject to a substantial fine on the first offense and jail time for executives, owners etc., for subsequent infractions. If an illegal has no employemnt opportunies and no way to transfer funds to Mexico and any other country, he/she will go home. In other words, employemnt opportunies are only available to those immigrants who have entered the country legally and have the proper documentation.

  3. New York mayor Bloomberg said recently that lawmakers who think we can send the 12 million back is living in a “fantasyland.” I guess you don’t agree!

    I think one reason why your solution, Phil, could be a problem, is that businesses want the immigrants here–legal or illegal. That’s why Rupert Murdoch, Bloomberg and many other CEOs have banded together to try and “educate” the public and congress that keeping the illegals in this country is a good thing. Call it amnesty or whatever, but when business speaks, congress listens, and therefore amnesty is looking more and more likely.

    Also, would we as a nation find it acceptable to focus our already depleted law enforcement on someone working as a peach picker versus someone who is committing a more serious crime? I am just asking. It’s a very complicated issue to say the least.

  4. Tim, like most leftests, you continue to ignore the obvious and slant solutions to your ideology. Apparently, you cannot accept/comphrehend the simplist of solutions. Business can still these workers when they they follow the rules and enter this country legally. As a legal worker they have the ability of sending money home based on the timeframe of their work permit. When their work permit expires they will not have that ability and their employment will terminate. With no prospect of a job, they will go home. To assist employers with the law, penalties could be as follows;
    1. First offense — 10K fine per illegal
    2. Second offense — 100K fine per illegal
    3. Third offense — Business license is suspended for 90 days
    4. Fourth offense — Business license is revoked permanently
    For the illegal
    1. First offense — returned to country of origin.
    2. Second offense — prison for 2 years
    Harsh — yes, but if the Federal government enforced the laws already on the books, the illegals should never face the harsh penalties, because an employer would not risk their business for an illegal. If they do, then they know the penaly.
    The problem about illegals is not about employment, its the Democratic party and the left wing establishment looking for 12 million new voters to keep that Idiot Obama in the WH. Fortunatly he will only be a one-term President. Incidently, the business/political leaders you quoted are so left leaning they can’t walk upright.

  5. “Tim, like most leftests, you continue to ignore the obvious and slant solutions to your ideology. ”

    I think you could say the same for both parties, couldn’t you?

    What Obama supports is the notion that current illegal immigrants in this country could pay a fine–say $50,000–to stay here for a certain time period and continue to work. That sort of takes the idea of amnesty off the table because if you are paying a steep fine, then you paying society back for breaking the law. It also means that businesses get their way–a nice pool of low skilled labor.

    This way we don’t have to round all of them up, or expect business to tow the line, or stress our already stressed law enforcement.

    Maybe you could apply the $50,000 to better border security?

    Would illegals pay? That is another question. But could it also not be given a chance to work?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>