The short bios in The Post and other places featuring immigrants who are in the United State illegally were fascinating. I was struck by their courage to leave their homelands, their pluck at navigating a new culture and their patience in waiting for America’s official welcome mat.

Something else struck me, too. Not a single one expressed remorse for jumping the fence or overstaying visas. The law was simply a nuisance, an unfair barrier to their right to live in America, and they felt no qualms about violating it.

Some of these immigrants, including one woman who sneaked in from Mexico 18 years ago, even complained that presidential ­amnesty doesn’t include free health care.

“It isn’t fair,” Graciela Flores whined.

What luck — she and the other 5 million who benefit have found their soul mate in Barack Obama. He’s not into obeying laws, either. And he is endlessly entitled to whatever he wants, whenever he wants it.

Oh, sure, he has twice taken an oath to “faithfully execute” the ­nation’s laws, and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

But he’s not serious about oaths, either. As America has learned, his word is not his bond.

A president who cannot speak honestly and who finds the Constitution’s separation of powers an option he can ignore is the very definition of lawless.

“It’s fair to say we’ve never seen anything quite like this before,” a Temple University professor told a reporter. He meant the sweeping amnesty decree, but his comment also summarizes the entire Obama presidency.

There’s never been anything like it, thank God.

What started out in 2008 as a historic election that could have reimagined our national identity has deteriorated into a bitter schism. The overwhelming belief among voters of all colors that race relations have gotten worse under the first black president demonstrates one area where hope is giving way to hate.

If that were all, it would be bad enough. But on virtually every major topic, from the economy to foreign policy, the president’s view is shared by only a sliver of the country. It would be leadership had his policies been proven right. But they are proven wrong every day.

So the nation grows gloomier as more people lose faith in their government and their own ­futures.

That seems to be fine with Obama. Democracy is a virtue only when his side wins.

Why he chooses again and again to divide rather than unite, to confront rather than cooperate, is a mystery whose answer is known only to Valerie Jarrett. My view is that he’s so psychologically ­damaged that he cannot abide any image of himself that isn’t heroically iconic.

After all, any president can make deals and advance a unity agenda. It takes a Superman to force a transformative agenda down an unwilling nation’s throat. Thus, the more America resists his policies, the more determined he is to impose them.

Impose is the right word. He doesn’t listen to his advisers, his Cabinet or congressional leaders of both parties. Nearly all the books written by former insiders describe a president who doesn’t trust the military commanders — or anyone else.

Two years ago, former top aide Neera Tanden said this about him in a magazine interview:

“The truth is, Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. It’s stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people. My analogy is that it’s like becoming Bill Gates without liking computers.”

He is a misfit, sailing against the national mood. His one significant victory, ObamaCare, became law only through one-party rule, and even then depended on massive deception and outright lies, as the infamous Gruber tapes prove. It may yet break the health system, just as his amnesty breaks immigration law and poisons Washington.

Whether we can survive two more years is an open question. Mushrooming global disorder and the near certainty that Iran will get a nuke makes the world infinitely more dangerous.

Meanwhile, the divisions and distrust at home erode America’s power and influence.

There is no way to sugarcoat the obvious. Barack Obama is making everything worse.

Schumer shh-ock

Politico had an insightful piece on Chuck Schumer’s blind ambition — until it claimed he stayed “quiet during a four-hour venting session in last week’s leadership elections.”

Schumer was quiet for four hours? He must have been sleeping.

Clip Al’s Wingtips

Reader Peter Culhane wonders how Al Sharpton gets away with dodging the tax man. “Why don’t federal and state tax authorities simply put a tax lien, garnishment, etc. on Sharpton’s income from MSNBC?” he asks. “Or at least tie up his clothing allowance!”

Late hit on Howard

Breaking news from the graveyard — it’s open season on Howard Cosell. Thanks to a book by a former partner, broadcaster Al Michaels, Cosell is taking a beating nearly 20 years after he died. He drank too much, talked too much, was arrogant, blah, blah, blah.

All true, as Cosell admitted. He was also a remarkable pioneer and gutsy as hell, enough so that TV Guide in 1993 named him the all-time best sportscaster. Personally, I admired him and enjoyed his company.

But Michaels chafed under Cosell’s shadow, and now attacks a man who can’t defend himself. No grace, no glory.

De Blasio, Chirlane McCray miss the big point

Two press releases from City Hall were unusual. The first announced that “First Lady Chirlane McCray, joined by US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand,” would distribute turkeys at a Brooklyn pantry, and the second announced that they had done it.

By having an honorary first lady “joined by” an elected US senator, the releases were jarring, especially because of their timing. They arrived as a poll showed New Yorkers don’t like McCray’s big part in her husband’s administration.

Quinnipiac reports that 71 percent think she should play a minor role or none at all, while only 24 percent want her deeply involved in public business.

Just days earlier, Rachel Noerdlinger, McCray’s $170,000 chief of staff, took an unpaid leave to deal with her son’s troubles. Voters want the leave to be permanent, telling pollsters by nearly two-to-one they don’t want McCray to have a chief of staff.

Naturally, her husband disagrees, which is probably why Mayor de Blasio hyped the turkey event. He called McCray “highly effective,” insisted, “She’s going to have a staff,” and said New York is lucky to get her “for free.”

Free isn’t free if taxpayers pay for a staff, yet reality often escapes de Blasio. When Quinnipiac showed that his support among whites is collapsing, falling to 34 percent, he argued with that, too.

He said public criticism “doesn’t necessarily make it right,” which is, technically, true. But as one political operative notes, de Blasio invariably says “polls are inaccurate unless they are good for him.”

That’s the mayor’s personal “tale of two cities.” He’s right and everybody else is wrong.