America's Voice Blog

Posted 08/02/10 at 03:36pm

Sarah Palin’s “Cojones” (and the Immigration Debate)

Yep, I went there.

Maybe it’s because I would expect better from one of the leading women in politics, but I found former Alaska Governor and GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s recent “analysis” of the immigration crisis in our country particularly obnoxious.

CBS reports Palin’s latest headline-grabber: "Palin: Obama Doesn't Have the 'Cojones' for Immigration Reform". That pretty much sums up the level of the discourse here. See, it comes down to whose "balls" are bigger – Palin’s, Brewer’s, or Obama’s. There’s certainly more than enough testosterone in this debate to go around. Not to mention botox.

Blogger Prerna Lal writes at Change.org:

Cojones is a vulgar Spanish word for testicles, which translates to "balls" in English. Yes, Brewer has plenty of nuts in her administration, but that's probably not what Palin meant. Her words were intended to emasculate President Obama, who Palin and her adherents see as not doing enough to "secure the border." [...]

Let's take a few steps back here. When did manhood become a prerequisite for "securing the border" — itself empty rhetoric that serves as an excuse for inaction on immigration reform? It doesn't take "balls" to make a sound immigration policy.

But seriously, ignore the fact that the Obama administration has paralleled and even outspent the get-tough era of the Bush administration on immigration enforcement per year. Ignore the fact that Obama’s Administration is on track to deport 400,000 immigrants this year, the majority of whom have no criminal record and are mainly working hard at menial jobs to feed their families. Ignore all of that -- not to mention the fact that Sarah Palin just used a “Mexican” word on national television (blasphemy!).

It’s clear that our immigration system is dysfunctional, but our immigration debate is just plain irrational at this point. More guards, fences, and drones on the border hasn’t worked to date, and we would be insane to think it will work in the future -- any attempt to promote border-only immigration policy is pure political pandering, plain and simple.

What would work would be smarter immigration policy that allows for an ebb and flow of workers during times of demand; that makes sure businesses hire the right way; and that provides a way for workers without papers to come forward, meet requirements, pay a fine, and become legal taxpayers and citizens. In other words, an immigration policy that lives up to our tradition as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

Unfortunately, all signs point to the fact that many Republican politicians are again hoping to exploit fears about immigration leading up to the midterm elections this fall. Just look at all the squawking about repealing the 14th Amendment of our Constitution to strip out “birthright citizenship,” an issue that’s been a fringe non-starter for years. Coincidence that it's suddenly coming up?

Perhaps it’s because all the GOP-led clamoring that crime is out of control in Arizona finally hit a roadblock (i.e. the truth, by way of actual crime statistics). Whatever the reason, it’s getting uglier out there.

According to the same CBS article:

Mr. Obama, in an exclusive interview with CBS "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith, said that said he understands frustration over illegal immigration, but he warned against local, "patchwork" solutions.

"I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can't do is demagogue the issue," he said. "And what we can't do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, 'I'm gonna be anti-immigrant and I'm gonna try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.'

A reasoned statement like that, in the midst of an enflamed, mostly-irrational immigration debate... now that takes some real cojones courage.

blog comments powered by Disqus