Here is the "official" transcript of the Mexican President's translated comments (the one given at the press conference was worse, but I'm going to address the weaker, less controversial statement):
I know that we share the interest in promoting dignified, legal and orderly living conditions to all migrant workers. Many of them, despite their significant contribution to the economy and to the society of the United States, still live in the shadows and, occasionally, as in Arizona, they even face discrimination.First of all, Mr. Felipe Calderon should be aware of the fact that the Democrats in the failed 2007 immigration reform essentially gutted expansion of a temporary worker program for Latin America, due to opposition by American labor unions. It was the JFK Administration which did away with the Bracero program in the early 1960's. Second, I don't like the political spin regarding the economic worth of undocumented workers; most Congressional and state studies I have seen have concluded a net government cost to illegal immigrants, taken low wages and progressive tax systems (it is true illegal immigrants are barred from a number of federal or state welfare net programs, but there are a number of eligible programs, including medical services, education or school lunch programs, or other benefits to anchor children, which offset modest tax revenues, e.g., sales tax). The fact, is that even the low wages paid in the US are much more attractive than those paid for the same type work (if it's available) in host countries, constitute a significant source of dollars to Latin America, and help alleviate low-skill labor surpluses and related social unrest in host countries. There is no doubt there is some economic worth to low-skilled labor, particularly in the cases of migrant farm labor.
But let me discuss the last part of the discussion where he talks about "discrimination" against undocumented workers. This is preposterous. Let us first point out in most cases, we are talking about driving, a privilege restricted to citizens and legal residents. Undocumented workers are ineligible for driving licenses. So what's discriminatory? Is he suggesting illegal immigrants from Mexico are being treated differently than, say, illegal immigrants from Poland? Or is he addressing concerns over the treatment of Latino Americans? Latino Americans are American citizens, not Mexican citizens.
Barack Obama's political spin response was nothing new; in fact, neither Calderon nor Obama are doing enough to ensure border security, particularly critical given increasing violence at or near the Mexican side of the border. The charge of "possible discrimination" by the President is knowingly arbitrary and disingenuous; it's possible some law enforcement officials will act in ways inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the law--but that can be true of any law. For instance, it's possible some law enforcement officers will go rogue, e.g., accept money from organized crime. What Obama is trying to do is to suggest that some forms of rogue law enforcement behavior are more equal than others.
The fact is that Obama is trying to politically exploit a situation he is responsible for creating; in the face of southern border area violence, he's actually cutting relevant expenditures (e.g., in terms of completing a border fence) and other (e.g., manpower) resources. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that the Obama Administration has been scrutinizing his department's behavior in dealing with illegal immigrants, with no findings of abuses by Arpaio's people. So what is the substantive basis for this obsession with "possible discrimination"? It seems to be little more than a smear.
Cavuto is Wrong on the Blumenthal Scandal
It isn't often I disagree with Neil Cavuto, Not to make light of Cavuto's point over Blumenthal lying only on some but not every occasion regarding whether he served in Vietnam, but that would be like giving Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt because he didn't always cheat on Hillary. Neil Cavuto thinks that Richard Blumenthal deserves a break because he more often spoke of service during the Vietnam era and not in Vietnam itself. A number of points, Neil. First, if Blumenthal told the truth most of the time over not serving in Vietnam, why have so many state newspapers and progressive websites specifically called him a Vietnam veteran? Not a Vietnam-era. And why didn't he correct the record? Second, why would Blumenthal be inconsistent regarding Vietnam statements? There are a number of possible reasons; for example, it provides him political cover in the event he is exposed. Liars also may not remember their patterns of lies. It's also possible in certain contexts, his lies might be more easily exposed--for example, he might have been asked detailed questions by veterans over locations, operations, personnel, etc., and any bluff on his part would be easily exposed. Third, Blumenthal picked some high-profile events, like the dedication of Vietnam Vet Memorial, to make his bogus claims. Fourth, there are politically favorable, dishonorable reasons for misleading voters over the nature and extent of one's military service--war heroes like Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt have won the Presidency; among Democrats, JFK, Kerry, and Sestak, the Dem US Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, have prominently featured their military service. Fifth, it isn't just a "slip of the tongue"; the man is not only a trained lawyer but has been a multi-term attorney general.
Cavuto's main point is that other, more pressing issues are fair game, like Blumenthal's grandstanding, anti-business disposition, etc. I'm empathetic to that point of view, but there are some fundamental issues with that. First, we are talking about character and integrity, which cuts across all levels of public service. Second, the issues Cavuto are raising are more relevant to addressing a Blumenthal attempt to run for reelection as attorney general, not US Senator. Now I do agree that an anti-business grandstander like Blumenthal is less likely to support the pro-business agenda we need, e.g., lowering tax rates for business, streamlining regulatory and reporting burden, tort reform, etc.
The point is, Neil, is that things like personal integrity are easier for voters to understand than global capital flows. In information technology, we have a concept known as GIGO--garbage-in, garbage-out. When a person does not act with integrity over his own past, what can we expect in the future?
Political Cartoon
Steve Kelley show how Obama really brings people together. But why should the Attorney General and the Homeland Security first read a law before criticizing it? It's 10 pages long... It's obviously not as important as the over 2000-page Democratic Party Health Care Law; they're still reading that thing. I suspect they're relying on crib notes, the Saul Alinsky edition. Should we be surprised they didn't read it? After all, the US Constitution doesn't have a lot of pages either....
Quote of the Day
Love is like the sea, it's a moving thing; but still it takes its shape from the shore it meets and it's different with every shore.
Zora Neale Hurston
Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)
#13. "People"
#14. "My Heart Will Go On"
#15. "Cheek to Cheek"
#16. "Evergreen" (from 'A Star is Born')
