Mike Gonzalez

Heritage Fellow: Obama Will Use Government 'Goodies' To Replace Americans With Latino Immigrants

Discussing President Obama’s likely executive action on immigration with the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios today, Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez suggested that the president wants to swap freedom-loving Americans with government-worshiping Latinos as part of his plan to weed out liberty from the country.

After Rios read an excerpt from a Federation for American Immigration Reform report claiming that an executive action would “open up federal and state benefits to individuals that are illegal immigrants,” Gonzalez said “Obama’s calculus” is to use undocumented immigrants to breed support for “big government.”

(Noncitizens under the Obama administration’s current deferred action program — which would be expanded under the proposed executive action — are not eligible for any federal benefits and do not have a path to citizenship and voting rights.)

“The reason he wants to do this is because he believes that these people, when they become voters, will support Big Government,” Gonzalez said. “For them to be assimilated into the ‘new America’ that the president and the progressives around him are trying to create, they need to be acclimated right away to being on government services, to liking government services, to think of the government as being a benevolent dispenser of goodies.”

He added that Obama plans to undermine the country’s “experiment in human freedom and prosperity” by replacing native-born Americans with immigrants who want a bigger government: “In order to change it, they need to create a people that like and look upon government as benevolent and a provider.”

Rios agreed, saying that Latino immigrants are “accustomed to government sort of being the ruler, they’re not used to self-rule or self-decisions.” She insisted that the “poison pill” of government will weaken Latino families just as she believes it damaged the black community.

Heritage Foundation VP Blamed Boston Bombings on 'Multiculturalism and Diversity' in Schools

Mike Gonzalez, the Heritage Foundation’s vice president of communications, has had a rough week. He was tasked with defending a Heritage report about the economic impact of immigration reform that was statistically faulty, co-authored by a white supremacist and bashed by other conservatives.

The controversy over the report, however, has overshadowed an op-ed that Gonzalez wrote for the Denver Post last week that pins at least some of the blame for the Boston Marathon bombings on what he sees as a new trend in American schools of teaching “multiculturalism and diversity” rather than “love of country.”

But we know one thing for sure: He wasn't taught that assimilation into American society was desirable. As I'm finding while researching a book on Hispanics — indeed, what I experienced as a young Cuban coming to this country in the early 1970s — we no longer teach patriotic assimilation. By that I mean love of country, not just its creature comforts.

We teach the opposite, in fact — that we're all groups living cheek by jowl with one another, all with different advantages and legal class protection statuses, but not really all part of the same national fabric. In other words, we teach multiculturalism and diversity, and are officially making assimilation very hard to achieve.

If Dzhokhar and his brother Tamarlan are guilty of the acts of terrorism they are accused of because they succumbed to Islamist radicalism, then they are monsters who are personally responsible for turning against the land that welcomed them. Tamarlan has paid with his life, and Dzhokhar will be dealt judgment.

But as we grapple now with the thorny question of immigration, how to handle the millions of people who started to arrive at mid-century in a massive immigration wave, we could do worse than look at the affairs in Boston for a clue on whether our current approach works.

Over the past few days, many people pondering the question of how the Tsarnaevs could have acted the way they did have discounted that lack of assimilation could be the case, emphasizing that the brothers Tsarnaev lived in Cambridge, "one of the most diverse and inclusive places in America."

The problem is indeed with an "inclusive" approach that considers it wrong to teach love of a country so generous that it takes in two foreigners from a far-away land, gives them refuge, welcomes them in and gives them a free education. To have done so might have precluded the radical brain washing that led to the bombing.

This absurd argument is basically the one put forward last week by Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian.

###

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious