Byron York noted that Rubio stated that he should have been more artful in his comments to Univision, where he stated that the illegals would be legalized before any sort of border security. I wonder how he’ll walk this one back, via Byron
(Washington Examiner) Why is it necessary to legalize the roughly 11 million currently-illegal immigrants in the U.S. before newly enhanced border security and internal enforcement measures are in place? Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Senate’s Gang of Eight, says part of the reason is that the federal government can’t afford to secure the border on its own and needs financial help from the immigrants themselves, in the form of fines paid when they are legalized.
Rubio made the statement during a radio interview after he voted against an amendment from Republican Sen. Charles Grassley that would have put off legalization until after the border is secure — a position supported by majorities of voters across the political spectrum. Host Andrea Tantaros asked Rubio why he opposed something that was important “to so many in the Republican party?â€
First he stated that “We cannot wait another four years with 11 million people living in this country illegally without knowing who they are or why they’re here” when noting that it would take at least 4 years to get enhanced border security in place. And then
But there was another reason. “We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security,†Rubio explained. “If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security.â€
This is because Rubio seem disinclined to spend taxpayer money on apparently low level issues like securing and protecting the US southern border. He doesn’t want to borrow and spend the money. Peering into my crystal ball, once the illegals are given legal status, we’ll hear that we haven’t gotten enough money out of them to pay for border security, so, hey, we had a good idea, it didn’t work, so let’s get on with making them voting citizens for 2016.
Then there’s this, which has to be taken with a grain of salt, since the Daily Caller doesn’t say where Rubio made the statement
Sen. Marco Rubio stayed away from specific immigration reform policies during a talk Thursday, reiterating that America must be recognized as an exemplary nation that welcomes those seeking freedom they don’t have in their home countries.
“What we have is special,†Rubio said. “Every single human life is worthy of the protection of our values. Who else will do it if not us?â€
The Florida Republican also appealed to America’s religious heritage, asserting that as the “salt of the earth,†the United States has a duty to be compassionate to the less-fortunate.
This is the same type of impassioned emotional plea that Democrats make, while also noting that it would be un-American to refuse to accept these people who broke our laws, continuously flouted out laws, drain our social services, demand that they be provided with goods and services, demand that everyone else speak Spanish and provide writings in Spanish, and, in some case, commit crime, including violent ones up to murder, against American citizens. Oh, and let’s not forget the fun one where Mexican illegals demand that the US Southwest be returned to Mexico, or turned into a new Hispanic nation separate from the US.
Morning update: yes, big grain of salt (actually, it is more a steaming pile of mule fritters from the DC), since what Rubio was talking about was getting involved in the Syrian conflict, not immigration. The DC misrepresented what Rubio stated.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan wants to debate anyone who is calling the Gang of 8 bill “amnesty”. Perhaps he should debate the 2010 Marco Rubio.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Is there anyone that represents conservatives? It seems that the Republican party has given up.
Well, we have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Darrell Issa. And I’m sure some others. Unfortunately those others tend to keep their heads down. We can’t trust Rubio, McCain, Graham, Ayotte, Boehner, and so many others. Plus some State govs. I don’t trust Richard Burr, my senator, who rarely will tell us where he stands. I’ve tweeted, no response. I called his office, and was told that the Senator was considering his position.
Rand Paul seems to be a bit of a squish on this issue as well.
David, it does appear that the Republican party is dead and gone. They are just Democrat-lite.
Rubio:
wait… is this like Cap-n-Tax plan but with immigration? We have to register them to prevent more illegal immigration? Only to anti-American socialists does this make sense.
Please tell me how low-wage non-tax paying immigrants will pay for the construction of the border that was supposed to be built many years ago. Isn’t the fines for citizenship something akin to a poll-tax? Isn’t that illegal? And, isn’t it amnesty when we as a nation ignore all the laws that they’ve broken without demanding punishment?
you guys noticing that the number of illegals keeps decreasing? In 2006 the numbers were 15-20 million illegals. Now they’re pushing the 11 million number.
If these felons are in the shadows, then how do we know how many of them there are?
I’d suggest that based on the numbers reported over the years, that we are in fact nearer to 30 million illegals.
Here’s another thought, the people that said screw our borders, and screw our laws, and whose intent was to screw our nation out of its welfare, are going to be given citizenship knowing that these people have no respect for our rules or laws?
And a political party wants to award these people with a valuable citizenship. And, I’m betting that once this process starts, the prerequisites for citizenship will be waived. Making these poor shadowed marginalized people pay for citizenship classes? How dare us.
Also, if they’ve been living in the shadows, how will they show how long they’ve been illegally living in the US?
Will they show the time they’ve been getting food stamps? Wouldnt that mean that they’ve not been in the shadows?
My head hurts
Okay, say there are 11 million people here illegally. What do you want to do with them? Just as importantly, how do you want to implement your plan?
If we were to fly eleven million people and return them to their country or origin, that is more planes of people than Boeing plans to produce in the next 20 years.
That’s even assuming you can get the clearance to enter a country to return the people.
So what is the plan?
First, they are not felons. Secondly, if you don’t know the numbers, how would you suggest determining the depth of the problem? It is my understanding that the Gang of Eight’s plan requires people register. That way we know how many are on the books and can work on the problem.
Welfare and medicare fraud happen all the time. We need to clamp down on it and making sure people who are here legally have access to those programs is much better than saying “we know there is fraud, but ahhhhh….. screw it.”
My understanding of the bill (once again I could be wrong) is that in order to be put on the path to citizenship – not “given citizenship” – the person must repay all fraudulently obtained benefits plus fines. This is not “blanket amnesty,” but rather “if you do this – if you make restitution to the US and its citizens – you can be on the path to being a US citizen.” I am not sure that is not a good plan.
At the very least, I would like to hear more about it and see alternatives discussed as right now the idea of “deport them all” is not practical and the idea of “everyone is now a citizen!” is morally and ethically repugnant.
Don’t know. But isn’t that something that can be discussed? Figured out? Talked about? The people who committed fraud will come forward if they desire citizenship down the road. Those who do not come forward will have demonstrated they are not interested in being a part of the US and we can and should deport them.
We are a forgiving people. If those people who really want citizenship want to come forward, admit their wrongdoing, and make it right in the long run, I am not sure I see a harm in that.
That is the stick and citizenship is the carrot. The two are linked together. Without disclosure, the person cannot get citizenship.
I am not sure that I like the Gang of Eight’s plan. I am not sure that I hate it. I think it may be a good starting point and should not be rejected out of hand.
First, why do we have to deport them all right now? We’ve been deporting people over the last few decades. Why can’t we just start following the law and deport those illegals that have broken the law? Breaking the law means they chose to not remain in the shadow. We know they are illegal – Deport them.
Also, yes, it is a felony. It is a violation of federal law and that law makes the crime a felony. Aiding illegal immigration is a felony.
If we enacted verify laws, and enforced HARSH punishments for businesses that employ illegals, then, as they did before, they would start leaving on their own. Not to a great extent but it will help. Recall that few years ago we have more leaving than entering because of the push for state’s rights on immigration enforcement.
Unfortunately, the feds have made it legal to give federal welfare and tax refunds to illegals, even if their mailing address is not in the US. Courts have said that hospitals and schools MUST provide free services to illegals.
We are a forgiving nation – reason why we dont have death penalty for all crimes. But, we also demand punishment. Right now, we have kids facing jail for wearing certain shirts to school. We have kid’s futures being threatened by the state for speaking about religion at their convocation. But, we must treat these illegal felons with kid gloves?
I agree, there needs to be more discussion about all this. But, it seems things are being set up behind closed doors, and the only time to negotiate is when the bills is on the floor by introducing amendments.
We are expecting low-wage, low-skilled workers, where sometimes, only one person is the wage earner to pay hefty fines, back taxes and fees? For what? TO get attention more than what they’ve gotten by living in the shadows?
They right now get bank accounts, home loans, can open businesses, can get free healthcare, foodstamps, free schooling, in-state tuition at colleges – while desirable foreign students must pay out of state rates along with american citizens.
Why is there a rush to get this done? Why do we need to? If these illegals wanted to become citizens, then they should have played by the rules and done what other new citizens have done.
There is no way to deport them all now. No state or federal government has the resources to deport them all.
It is a question of scale, Gumball. It is doubtful that the US will ever have the resources or the will to deport them all.
No, it isn’t. Being in the country illegally is a civil misdemeanor.
We have such laws now.
Which is why the repayment of monies is the only way to be on the path to citizenship. That’s the punishment. Restitution is a well recognized form of punishment.
What is the alternative?
For what?
To repay the gains they received illegally and to allow them onto a path of citizenship.
So changing the game, so to speak, would eliminate much of the things you see wrong with the current system.
Why is there a rush to get this done?
Rush? This thing has been kicking around for decades Gumball. It is a political hot potato that no one wants to talk about.
The discussion seems to be along the lines of “let everyone in!” and “deport them all!”
Neither appears to be working and neither appears to be viable.
Then why did you bring it up?
RE: felony- Ok, my bad.
In 2006, Repubs tried to remove the “felony” from illegal immigration, but democrats blocked it. Since Repubs passed legislation in Dec 2005 that made it a felony. Don’t think the Senate version changed that.
However, that 2006 reconciled bill was never passed in the House and thus Bush did not sign it. LOL, even the RNC tried to blame Dems for the felony provision.
This link even said there were 11 million illegals back in 2006.
Ok, I kept focus on what was passed, but only was passed in the House, not reconciled and never signed in to law due to conservative and pro-illegal backlash.
Well, there is the jail provision. And the deportation. Once they come in, they are not in the shadows, we know who they are where they are from… then badaboom.. deport them. 🙂
I could care less. Why are we caring? At this point, what difference does it make? :
Also, why are non-libs pushing for this? It only adds to the Dem voter rolls, increases welfare state, re-enforces ObamaCare enrollment, registers voters that view government nanny state as a right, and ramps up the unemployment index.
Not true. There was no real talk of this prior to the Gang of 8 going in to secret to hash this out. There was nothing in the media, no outcry from the public. It was turned down in 2006, so to me, that made it settled. Why bring it up now? I can understand it being brought up under a democrat held Congress (which it didn’t), but its the Republicans that seem to be pushing this (in 2006 and now). WHY?
Ummm.. No. It’s the liberals in both parties that want to increase immigration. I say increase the high-science Visas, but stop all the rest. For now. When our employment and economic situation gets better, then we can look at opening up our gates and other things. Reduce the time and cost of Visas – the backlog and waiting game is stupid and hurts us.
If we have the laws on the books, let’s not start reducing them and our security.
I brought it up because the idea of “deporting them all” isn’t realistic in my opinion. I would love to hear alternatives or something that at least sounds like it may work.
I think the idea of allowing people to make restitution, and then be on a path to citizenship may have merit and therefore deserves more discussion. If the rest of the people don’t want to become legal residents that’s fine – I would support deporting them. But right now we have no way of differentiating the number of people who are here because they want citizenship and those who want to game the system.
I think you underestimate the number of people. Even if you could find all the people, you are talking about almost 38,000 flights of a Boeing 787 to get people out of the country. That is after a trial, appeals, etc. (11 million trials is a lot of trials, plus the appeals, plus the costs of lawyers for those who cannot pay, plus judges, pkus courtrooms, plus support staff, etc. Where is that money going to come from? Where is the structure to support such a plan to deport everyone going to come from?) As for incarceration, right now the US has 6 million people in jails and by most estimates, the jails are overcrowded. Where are the jails that will eventually hold 11 million more people?
The better question is “why does any solution other than ‘deport them all!’ get a rabid response from so called conservatives?”
I am not “pushing this,” rather I am interested in it as a solution because I think in some ways, it has some provisions which may be of merit.
Immigration has been a hot topic and political football since before Reagan.
As far as I know, the gang of 8 plan neither expands nor increases immigration. It deals with the people that are already here. If there is a part that increases numbers for the sake of increasing numbers I would be opposed to that.
Once again, as far as I know, the plan doesn’t address increasing or decreasing immigration numbers. What it does do is tries to address a problem.
How is this plan a reduction in the law or in security? If anything, by identifying and getting people on the books, I would think the security would increase for any number of reasons.
Let’s face facts….. there are illegal immigrants here in this country.
The question is “what to do with the issue?”
The first problem is the sheer number of people. Will this bill or proposal help reduce that number of people we need to deport by identifying those who want to be citizens and those who are here with some other purpose? Yes.
Does the bill allow the US to recoup some costs that the US has paid out to illegal immigrants? Yes.
Does the bill cost or save money in the long run? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows which is why I have said I would like to hear more than just an out of hand dismissal from people.
While I respect what you are saying in regards to more student and high tech visas, that doesn’t address the issue of the people that are already here. What do we do with those already here? Do you want to create “goon squads” to clean out areas? (That’s a gratuitous “Princess Bride” reference, mind you. 🙂 ) What is better? Making a larger federal law enforcement agency just to deal with illegal immigrants or creating an incentive for those who are here to come forward and self identify?
While I am willing to listen and don’t support this plan entirely, I have yet to hear of a plan that seems feasible and has a chance of working while being palatable to the American people. If nothing else, I am supporting the dialogue this plan has created because out of dialogues comes exchanges of ideas and possible solutions.
Gumball…..
In doing a little more research, I have found a paper by the Heritage Foundation that says the proposed bill would cost taxpayers 6 trillion dollars. I haven’t read the paper yet to see whether this is balanced against other factors or how that figure came to be, but if that number is true, my opinion on the proposal would shift more to the negative side.
As a side note, a few days ago Teach published a post questioning why if the proposal was good to begin with, why was Rubio and other “tweaking” provisions of it to tighten it?
The answer may be found in the “tweaks” themselves. The bill initially allowed for more waivers of fees and such and after blowback from constituents, the Gang of 8 appears to have sought to change the waivers and tighten that up.
Once again, I haven’t made up my mind about this but I think it is a starting point that has some merit. How much merit is open to discussion, in my opinion.
The only “fact” of which I am sure is that we have too many illegal immigrants in this country and we need to do something about it.
Why?
Because the alternative of doing nothing is unacceptable on many levels.
Why again?
How is doing what we’ve been doing worse, than what we’ve been doing over the last 2 decades? If the rule of law, that you say we should follow, was good enough yesterday…. then why not tomorrow?
Perhaps you don’t understand the opposite of “doing something” is “doing nothing.”
Ummm.. perhaps you’ve been forgetting our conversation… I’m the one proposing doing nothing. You seem to believe the hype. You seem to believe that Congress has good intentions. Today’s congress can’t be trusted. Have you seen the flip-flop-flips that they’ve done on this bill alone… even before it was brought to the floor.
If you can’t trust what they say about the bill, then how can you trust what the BILL IS?
ie: ObamaCare
GC, for your study, may I suggest this link, which was from an offer Rep Ryan shot up to debate anyone who stated the Bill was amnesty. Ryan is claiming that it isn’t. The author at the link slams it down hard.
Another amnesty that was not brought up, is that once the illegal comes forward, they are given provisional status and are barred from being removed from the country no matter what judicial or executive branch official has determined. (if I recall the bill correctly) – (I’ll grant you that I may be mis-thinking this bill with the unpassed 2006 amnesty bill regarding this point. But I don’t see why it would not be carried over to this new version.)
Gumball,
I had previously read Ace’s article which is one of the many reasons why I said and repeatedly said that I wanted to hear more about the bill.