From the New York Slim Times:
Rubio Pushes His Party on Immigration
By JULIA PRESTON 9:53 PM ET
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is asserting his leadership among Republicans with a proposal that includes measures to give legal status to millions of immigrants.
As President Obama and Democratic leaders are preparing a major push to overhaul the immigration system, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is asserting his leadership among Republicans on the volatile issue, previewing a proposal that includes measures to give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.
Mr. Rubio, a Cuban-American in his first term whose star is rising rapidly in his party, has outlined views in recent days that set him apart from many other Republican conservatives, who reject any legalization as a form of amnesty that rewards immigrant lawbreakers. Mr. Rubio said he would not rule out some kind of legal status for immigrants in the United States illegally, although he insists that any measures should not penalize immigrants who have tried to come here through legal channels.
Mr. Rubio described his proposals in interviews last week with the Wall Street Journal editorial page and with The New York Times. By Monday he was already gathering support, as Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a conservative who was the Republicans’ vice-presidential nominee last year, endorsed Mr. Rubio’s ideas.
Mr. Rubio laid out three: aside from fair treatment for foreigners who play by the rules, he said, any legislation should also recognize that legal immigration has been a boon to the United States in the past and is “critical to our future.”
He would also insist on new measures to ensure strict enforcement at the border and within the country.
“We can’t have the kind of vibrant growth we need and the economy we want, based on limited government and free enterprise, if we don’t have a legal immigration system that works,” Mr. Rubio said. “And in order to have a system that works, we have to deal with those people who are already here illegally.”
Pure comedy gold.
Mr. Ryan, on his Facebook page, wrote that Mr. Rubio was “exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system.”
I was under the impression that Mr. Ryan was a Big Loser who couldn't carry his home county and cost Romney Florida, but apparently, he's Mr. Good Judgment on Immigration. Rubio and Ryan, they're like the Boy Band that took over the GOP.
“I support the principles he’s outlined,” Mr. Ryan said, “modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population.”
As one of three Hispanics in the Senate, Mr. Rubio, who won his seat in 2010 with support from the Tea Party, seemed to be trying to set a new tone for his party to discuss immigration. Many Republican leaders have been reconsidering the party’s stance on the issue since the November election, when Latinos, the electorate’s fastest-growing group, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.
Strikingly, Mr. Rubio’s principles did not sound that different from proposals for an immigration overhaul by Mr. Obama, Democratic leaders and a handful of other Republicans.
Uh-huh ...
Aside from work under way at the White House on legislation, a bipartisan group of Senators has been meeting to draft a bill.
Where Mr. Rubio differed significantly with Democrats was on the legal pathway illegal immigrants would follow, with him proposing a long and indirect course before some of those immigrants could apply to become American citizens.
... But, he said, “ultimately it’s not good for our country to have people permanently trapped in that status where they can’t become citizens.” After a certain period, he said, immigrants would be allowed to apply to become legal permanent residents, a status that would eventually allow them to become citizens.
More votes for President Rubio. Or at least that's the plan. Doesn't anybody else find this comically transparent? Probably Rubio and George P. Bush will cancel each other out in the GOP's 2020 primaries, allowing, in a breakthrough for feminism, the nominee to be Meghan McCain.
... “To me the most surprising thing was that he was talking about a pathway to citizenship,” Lorella Praeli, a leader of the organization, said on Monday. “There has been such a shift in the tone, in his vision.”
Some conservative Republicans made it clear they would not support Mr. Rubio. In a statement, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama ...
Posts
52 comments:
For once I agree with the elite. We do need comprehensive immigration reform, and I think the GOP should push hard to get it done. The current system is broken. Not only does it do little to stop the flood of illegals across the border or overstaying their visas, it allows in too many legal immigrants through ridiculous refugee scams, diversity lottos and family reunification.
Yes, we need comprehensive reform to change our immigration system to something similar to the one in effect in 1924.
So call your Senators and Representatives and demand an end to this sysfunctional system that carelessly and casually mints 1.5 to 2 million new citizens, i.e. new mouths to feed, per year.
I have noticed that prominent White Americans have to use a Latino proxy to express their view on immigration rather than just state their opinion directly. Congressman Ryan being the latest example. This is true on both left and right. Every time there is a show on immigration, Fox News, MSNBC, or whomever feels compelled to trot out two Latinos to debate the issue as if it only effects them.
The elephant in the room here is that any method of legalizing illegal immigrants - any method that allows them to stay here without risk of deportation- totally undermines the law and policy that are now in place to regulate legal immigration. Why would a prospective immigrant bother to subject himself (or herself or family) to the rigors of the current legal path for immigration when a come-here-illegally-and-stay-without-risk policy will have been put into place?
This is why, short of enforcing existing immigration law and under it deporting all illegal invader-colonists and preventing the trespass of more such, none of the proposals for so-called "immigration reform" makes so much as a single jot of sense.
If - or perhaps I should say "when" - our rulers adopt "immigration reform," it will have two major and entirely negative consequences: one, influx of a greater mass of foreigners; and, two, the creation of a whole new echelon of federal ICE bureaucrats who will be tasked with dealing with the policies and procedures that will be endemic to and inseparable from the "immigration reform."
Draft Jeff Sessions for POTUS in '16.
"Every time there is a show on immigration, Fox News, MSNBC, or whomever feels compelled to trot out two Latinos to debate the issue as if it only effects them."
This is an absolutely great point, but it could be generalized even further. Whenever one of the Sunday morning talk shows have a panel on the Israel-Arab war the participants are usually around two-thirds Jewish, again as if Israel policy doesn't affect American gentiles, so therefore there's no need for them to have a say in the matter.
I'm sure there's countless other examples of this phenomena.
In left wing circles, being against amnesty for illegals is considered worst than being a pedophile.
In left-wing circles, NAMBLA (National Man-Boy Love Association) are considered "civil rights activists."
So I think for liberals, immigration restrictionism is definitely worse than pedophilia.
Republicans will move left with the country to maintain the 50% share of the electorate that is a stable equilibrium. Readers of iSteve may not like it, but if they don't, they will simply lose elections perpetually. Democracy is about people what they want, good and hard.
So to have a 'legal system that works' you apparently have to ignore the effect of a working legal system (ie it has effectively distinguished and marked those who have transgressed the rule), and pretend that the rules never existed in the first place.
What f..king sense does that make?
What part of 'illegal' do these fools not get? You would think at least the Republicans would be against it on grounds that they are legalizing Dem voters. We really need to have a paleocon party and get rid of these neocon fools that run the show.
"If - or perhaps I should say "when" - our rulers adopt "immigration reform," it will have two major and entirely negative consequences: one, influx of a greater mass of foreigners; and, two, the creation of a whole new echelon of federal ICE bureaucrats who will be tasked with dealing with the policies and procedures that will be endemic to and inseparable from the "immigration reform.""
It definitely will have a negative effect and only encourage more- we already got to see that happen under the Reagan amnesty. And it was a disaster for the Republicans as most turned out to be Dem voters. So why on earth would they want to be so stupid as to do it again? My guess is that its due to elites with essentially the same endpoint view in mind funding both parties.
"Republicans will move left with the country to maintain the 50% share of the electorate that is a stable equilibrium. Readers of iSteve may not like it, but if they don't, they will simply lose elections perpetually. Democracy is about people what they want, good and hard."
Did you bother to think that one through before you wrote it? How is legalizing an extra 10% of voters who will overwhelmingly vote against you 'moving to maintain the 50% share of the electorate' ?
Politicians try to grab the 50% by adopting things that the majority wants. Most Republicans do not think Hispanics are necessarily Democrats. I agree with Steve they are wrong, and have been for years, but that's what they think, and so the move. When that doesn't work, they'll move left in some other dimension. Further, as Thom Tancredo showed, the anti-immigration position has no legs nationally.
Auntie Analogue said "The elephant in the room here is that any method of legalizing illegal immigrants - any method that allows them to stay here without risk of deportation- totally undermines the law and policy that are now in place to regulate legal immigration."
The elephant in the room is that the vast majority of the illegals currently here are Mexicans. More Mexicans is bad for America. Mexico is a dysfunctional mess largely because its full of Mexicans. I don't want to live in Mexico, thus I don't want a country with more Mexicans in it. No non-Mexican thinking person should either. The ones I encountered almost daily when I lived in CA were nice enough people, but they're not my people. They're Mexicans. They should go home and take their anchor babies and street gangs with them.
Further to immigration: We're full. We have enough people. Unemployment is high, traffic is a mess in half the US cities...enough. Turn off the spigots.
Politicians try to grab the 50% by adopting things that the majority wants. Most Republicans do not think Hispanics are necessarily Democrats. I agree with Steve they are wrong, and have been for years, but that's what they think, and so the move. When that doesn't work, they'll move left in some other dimension. Further, as Thom Tancredo showed, the anti-immigration position has no legs nationally.
If the GOP moved to the left on basically any other issue than immigration, they would start winning elections. Naturally they pick immigration to start with.
Eric Falkenstein:
Your second post does not fit the first. In your first post you essentially said that we have to accept a leftward move on immigration in order for the GOP to be electorally viable. In the second, you admit that a leftward move on immigration won't help. Maybe that is what they think, but if they are wrong, there is no reason not to try and push the correct thinking, and to try and restrict leftward moves to those that will actually help the GOP electorally.
If Tancredo's failure to capture the GOP nomination is evidence that immigration restrictionism has "no legs" then logically the equally abject failure of Kucinich in 2004 "proved" that an anti-Iraq War position didn't have a political future, either. And of course, that assessment would have been totally false, because it's ridiculously simplistic to conclude such "facts" on a lone data point.
Eric Falkenstein said...Politicians try to grab the 50% by adopting things that the majority wants. . . . Further, as Thom Tancredo showed, the anti-immigration position has no legs nationally.
Polls show that most Americans favor a stricter approach on immigration. I think that going mushy on immigration once the primaries were over was one of the reasons Romney lost the election. He could have made a case against our current policy purely on the basis of our unemployment rate, without targeting Mexicans specifically. If he had come back strong when Obama assailed him for his self-deportation program instead of looking all abashed, it would have made him look less wimpy and like a man with some interest in helping working class Americans. As it was, by election day, Romney looked like a wishy-washy Republican whose only concern was low taxes for rich people. He wasn't willing to fight about anything else.
As far as Tancredo, you can't blame his failure wholly on his immigration stance. He just doesn't have what it takes as a national candidate.
"Further, as Thom Tancredo showed, the anti-immigration position has no legs nationally."
One politician, who by his own admission was not the most attractive (i.e. physically) candidate, does not disprove the appeal of a position. As a counter example I would give the incredible defeat of the 2007 attempt at amnesty -- against all odds and with little formal leadership. That was carried out by the US population itself.
"This is an absolutely great point, but it could be generalized even further. Whenever one of the Sunday morning talk shows have a panel on the Israel-Arab war the participants are usually around two-thirds Jewish, again as if Israel policy doesn't affect American gentiles, so therefore there's no need for them to have a say in the matter."
To elaborate on this excellent point: The other one third is usually a Muslim, either American or foreign. Again as if the only people with an interest in the conflict are Jews and Muslims.
The US is the official policy on the conflict is that there are serious American interests. But I can't remember a time, there may have been a few, where This has been argued in the nonprint media.
I can remember the time, and have read about the time, in the 50s, when US citizens were welcome throughout Muslim countries And where moderate Muslims were on the ascendancy in those countries. But those moderate Muslims could not deliver on the Israeli-Palestinian conflic, Their US allies were defeated by the Israeli lobby, and they were undercut. Years of war have ensued leading to loss of blood and treasure by the US.
Robert Hume
Politicians try to grab the 50% by adopting things that the majority wants. Most Republicans do not think Hispanics are necessarily Democrats.
But the majority doesn't want amnesty. Only a small minority of maybe 10% want amnesty.
Further to immigration: We're full. We have enough people. Unemployment is high, traffic is a mess in half the US cities...enough. Turn off the spigots.
Yeah, literally. Millions of Mexicans in Texas means we can no longer water our lawns when we want to. Strangely enough, this is the only immigration argument that seems to get my wife's attention. They're using up our water.
"Eric Falkenstein said...
Republicans will move left with the country to maintain the 50% share of the electorate that is a stable equilibrium. Readers of iSteve may not like it, but if they don't, they will simply lose elections perpetually. Democracy is about people what they want, good and hard."
That's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.
I;m certain this 40 year deluge of illegal immigrants was part of a conspiracy to elect a new less competitive, more easily manipulated American people but I can't help thinking the costs will outweigh the benefits even for the ruthless con-conspirators who brought this about.
I imagine I'll be retiring in Europe if I can find a roommate to share the living expenses I'll barely be able to afford. Too bad I didn't invest in gold when it was about 600 an ounce or go ahead and load up on silver which I was inevitably going to be next to attract the herd.
Suicide pact, anyone?
How can somebody who would turn the populace of the US into a majority third world one possibly be described as 'conservative'? What are they conserving? We need a new labeling system, the old ones haven't meant anything in a long while.
Rubio himself gives off bad vibes, for whatever that's worth. He's oily. I wouldn't trust him further than I can spit.
Ironic this obvious Caucasian's last name is Rubio- translated as "Blonde"- just to drive the point home to those that don't get the disconnect between him and those brown huddles masses he identifies with.
I'm over this country. Am going to enjoy The Beach for a couple more years and then make Aaliyah to the glorious motherland when my son is of school-age. This shit can burn.
BTW if it makes anyone feel any better most of us have a higher net worth than Blondie.
"According to his latest income disclosure form filed in 2010, Rubio still had between $100,001 to $250,000 in debt when he was elected."
Law school, man.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/15/memo-to-ca-gop-voters-want-pragmatism-not-purity/
You mean it's not dead already?
CA GOP died because it didn't resist the change of browning/yellowing hard enough.
Politicians try to grab the 50% by adopting things that the majority wants.
Which is why both parties strive to outdo the other on immigration restriction.
@Falkenstein
If Reps adopted measures the majority really wants, they´ll grab far more than the 50%. Which goes to show they´re not really interested in government r taht they´ve given up. The way things work, they´re resigned to play second fiddle to the real power in charge, that is the coalition behind the Dems (Media, Finance, Civil Service Bureaucracy,the judiciary, NGO´s, the Ivies, Unions, Feminists, Minority and Antifas Brownshirts etc).
The above "Prof. Woland" has amply shown that he or she is not an English professor.
America would be better off in every possible way if it ended immigration and deported all illegals. The only losers would be the Democratic party, the cheap-labor lobby, the illegals themselves and self-proclaimed ethnic "leaders" who pretend to be "Hispanics".
Rubberio.
"Yeah, literally. Millions of mexicans in Texas means we can no longer water our lawns when we want to. Strangely enough, this is the only immigration argument that seems to get my wife's attention. They're using up our water." - well water is pretty important. We're running a net deficit in water consumption, and in a few decades something will have to give, and not just Texas, but the entire southwest. Whats further drinking the acquifers dry may have other unintended consequences.
Marco Rubio has rendered himself irrelevant for 2016 now. Good luck, Marco. Hey, Gov. Christie, you got anything to say?
The majority of Americans do not want amnesty and actually approved of the Arizona law. The reason in some polls "majorities" say they are for a path to legalization is because of the way the question is asked by biased pollsters.
As someone else said, a Republican party that moved left on almost every other issue by a bit except immigration would have a great chance to win. Instead Republicans decide to move left on the one issue that will kill their party, literally, both short and long term.
A Republican party that can win is a working-class and middle-class targeted populist party that is socially conservative in a states' rights way, anti-immigration and anti-birthright citizenship, fiscally conservative but pro-SS and Medicare. That Republican party wins the Midwest and wins nationally.
We must call every Republican in the House, making sure they know that any vote for amnesty is a vote for us staying home in 2014. I live in Pennsylvania where there are 13 Republican congressmen. Let's get to work.
Wait, how did Ryan cost Mitt Romney Florida? I thought you said Paul appealed to Jewish women because he looked like a sweet Jewish kid. Quit being cryptic Steve, just speak plain English!
Cliché: elephant in the room, the
Meaning: uncomfortable topic or presence that doesn't quite fit (example 1, example 2)
Rewrite 1: whale in the pool
Rewrite 2: rhino in the yard
Rewrite 3: yacht in the pond
Rewrite 4: refrigerator in the closet
Rewrite 5: donkey at the tea party
Turn off the spigots.
What rhymes with spigot?
[QUOTE]Most Republicans do not think Hispanics are necessarily Democrats.[/QUOTE]
If most Republicans do not think Hispanics are natural Democrats, I would ask them why it is that every county in the Southwest that shares a border with Mexico, ALWAYS vote Democrat in presidential elections.
In Laredo which is a Texas city located near the Mexican border, a whopping 76 percent of voters cast their vote for Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 presidential elections.
Obama's approval rating in the Southwest counties that share a border with Mexico is way higher than his approval rating nationwide.
The Republican Party will NEVER become popular in the Southwest counties that share a border with Mexico.
In that heavily Hispanic region of the country, they will forever continue to get slaughtered in presidential elections.
Rewrite 1: whale in the pool
Rewrite 2: rhino in the yard
Rewrite 3: yacht in the pond
Rewrite 4: refrigerator in the closet
Rewrite 5: donkey at the tea party
Rewrite 6: 5000-year-old* brontosaurus at the fundamentalist mega-church picnic
* I know dinosaurs existed at least 50 million years ago. Do they?
I love conquistador-American. It's obviously referring to non-indio Mexicans without making it sound like they're respectable and decent people like most other bunches of white people.
I also like the implication that the Conquistadors ain't done Conquistadoring yet: wonder when Rubio's gonna demand a room full o' gold.
One of the Anonymouses said:
"Further to immigration: We're full. We have enough people. Unemployment is high, traffic is a mess in half the US cities...enough. Turn off the spigots."
We're full. We have enough people. Those being the key sentences. Population projections being passed around 2 or 3 years ago projected the US would have half a billion people by 2050 and almost a billion people by 2100. How many people on the Left really want this?
It'd be an unholy alliance between the Right and the environmentalist Left, but I think one way to promote immigration restriction would be to cleave off the Enviros from the rest of the Left.
Are there any Dem Senators or Representatives with good green credentials who'd be willing to stand up and say "Enough is enough!" ?
The GOP is once again completely asea on this issue. There are ways to play this and win. Someone in the comment section on this site once suggested tying all immigration to the unemployment rate, for example implementing severe restrictions on immigration until the unemployment rate gets under 4%. Takes away the whole "you're just racist" angle and scores Republicans points among the working class.
If restricitng immigration wasn't such a political winner, the democrat-media complex wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to convince the Republicans otherwise.
What rhymes with spigot?
Frigate.
As someone else said, a Republican party that moved left on almost every other issue by a bit except immigration would have a great chance to win. Instead Republicans decide to move left on the one issue that will kill their party, literally, both short and long term.
That's what happens when you're being run by the other party.
No comment yet from Steve on Cuba's new open borders policy and its implications for the Cuban Readjustment Act (dry foot, wet foot, etc). Potentially limitless immigration for Cubans who can get here. But who is going to change the policy? Which party would fight the Cuban lobby?
"It'd be an unholy alliance between the Right and the environmentalist Left, but I think one way to promote immigration restriction would be to cleave off the Enviros from the rest of the Left."
Republicans could do well to be more environmental, at least in their rhetoric. And sure, they could tie it to immigration, like they could tie it to lower wages, etc.
Why don't they? I'm guessing it's because of big business donors. That's all I can imagine.
What rhymes with spigot?
I think the commenter was looking for "bigot".
If restricitng immigration wasn't such a political winner, the democrat-media complex wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to convince the Republicans otherwise.
No kidding. On almost any other issue, the fact that Party A is gung-ho for something would be good enough reason for Party B to oppose it. Parties even switch sides on that principle sometimes, with many Republicans becoming anti-war under Clinton and Democrats switching back into that role under Bush, for instance. Yet on this one issue of immigration, the fact that the Democrats are all for it is presented as proof that the GOP should be even more for it.
Bizarre. Does no one ever stop and ask why the Democrats are so supportive of this move that's supposed to be good for Republicans? Did they suddenly become the stupid party or something?
To rob said...
Thank you Captain Obvious for pointing that out.
When someone calls another a "racist" you have won the argument. It is the liberals' last option, like a losing country at war going nuclear to avoid total conventional defeat.
To Cail Corishev said..
May i commend you on an excellent post. The very fact the Democrats want open door immigration and amnesty so badly should in and of ITSELF be a very strong reason for the Republicnas to so adamantly oppose it. You always want the opposite of what your enemy or foe wants. If its good for your foe it must be bad for you. Why the Republicans can't see this and act on it i will never understand. Non-white immigration is so obviously disastrous and inimical to the basic interests of Republicans and white Americans that i can only assume they have a subconscious deathwish. (At least liberal white Americans).
Such a shift in tone this is! sez Lorella Praeli.
Post a Comment