Posted on 01/29/2013 11:20:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio — one of the bipartisan group of eight Senators proposing an overhaul of the nation's immigration system — managed to make a believer of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.
On his radio show Monday, Limbaugh dismissed the plan as blanket amnesty and said it was "up to me and Fox News" to stop it.
But Limbaugh took a different tone on Tuesday when speaking with Rubio directly.
Limbaugh opened the segment by asking Rubio, "Why are we doing this now?"
"The key is this was going to be an issue," Rubio said. "I thought it was critically important that we outline the key principles." He said he doesn't want the immigration debate to be "defined" by President Barack Obama and Democrats.
Rubio confirmed that he wouldn't support any bill that doesn't attach conditions for border security in exchange for a path to citizenship. Limbaugh said that he thinks Democrats don't want border security because they want more voters to come in that typically vote Democratic. "I am confident that given a fair chance, I can convince most Americans that limited government and free enterprise is better for them. Because that's the reason that they came here," Rubio said.
Limbaugh said he doesn't see where there's any common ground between Republicans and Obama.
Rubio said that the President has an "important decision."
"I'm not going to be part of a bidding war to see who can come up with the most lenient path forward," Rubio said. He repeats that he won't support a bill without any enforcement "triggers."
Limbaugh then asked Rubio whether he thinks Obama really wants reform or if he keeps wanting to use it as a political wedge issue.
"That's precisely why I thought it was important to get our principles out there early,"
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Hell, where’s the WALL that was to be built so we could talk immigration? Nope, not there.
How ‘bout finish the wall, read the 14A properly (no anchor babies), show enforcement of current laws over, say, 5 years, THEN we’ll talk about ‘reform’.
If THIS one doesn’t fly, who’s responsible? The taxpayers, min. wage workers, etc.
And I’m calling bullshit on 11M; such a lowball number.
[Article] "I am confident that given a fair chance, I can convince most Americans that limited government and free enterprise is better for them. Because that's the reason that they came here," Rubio said. [Emphasis supplied.]
Rubio is not correct. We are not talking about Americans here; we are talking about Mexicans. Mexican nationals, Mexican citizens, Mexican scions born in the U.S. but raised as monoglot Spanish-speakers in tight familial and community surrounds that reproduce about 75% of the Mexican cultural experience here in the U.S., from imported Mexican soccer matches (want to see Chivas vs. Cruz Azul, or Pachuca vs. America? just dial up one of the half-dozen or so Houston HDTV channels that are exclusively Spanish-language) to 24-hour infomercials on getting legal representation to challenge deportation orders, featuring the Mexican lawyer Manuel Solis, the Mexican immigrant is never strongly challenged to take up the language and culture of the United States.
Therefore, for the Mexican immigrant, the Stateside barrio is a Mexican cultural exarchate offering wage arbitrage between hte high-cost, high-wage North American economy and what he had back home, and it does not demand anything from him in terms of fealty. Neither does it challenge strong Mexican cultural conservatism, which is a central feature of their society.
Mexican grandfathers who voted for the PRI party or the PRD -- both of them descended from Mexico's Communist revolution -- rejoice in grandsons and great-grandsons whose political outlook is solidly consistent with their own; and those descendants will have descendants of their own who will vote for the PRD-PRI-Democratic Party socialist-Communist continuum as if they had never left home.
THAT is what Marco Rubio does not get.
South American and Central American and Cuban immigrants behave like immigrants; Mexican immigrants behave like Mexicans at home. That's the difference, and that is what Lyndon Johnson knew that Rubio does not, when he blew up the cofferdam holding back a tidal wave of Mexican immigration.
Good post.......
Bump for agreement -- the number is more like twice or three times that many; and when you throw in all the anchor-kids born here in the last 40 years, you may be talking upward of 35 million.
One of the first things I saw when I moved to Houston in 1979 was a Mexican man, obviously a laborer, leading his wife along the sidewalk on a busy six-lane commuter street. She was about eight months pregnant with a belly like a basketball. Eleven million my @ss.
[Quisling ALERT] Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel come out in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens
No, he isn't. He's getting played by McPain and Durbin the Turban .... or he's playing us on behalf of RiNO Central, which has always been in favor of wage-breaking, unlimited immigration.
Some cookie from an employers' wage-busting NGO was on Nightly Business Report talking about the dire need for wage-busting job-begging immigrants. Those poor employers, getting jacked up by over-$3 wages like that? What ever happened to chattel slavery? What this country needs is a good five-cent human being! People who'll work for tacos and clean toilets and a roof over their heads!
And this innocuous statement is verification that Rush is totally on board with Rubio? Give me a break!
Rubio is the only one attempting to do something about immigration but this doesn't mean that Rush is on board the Rubio machine........
People need to take their heads out of their anal retentive butts and start listening instead of judging and reacting.........Sheesh!
Article II, Rush. Damn, what does it take to get people to read the Constitution like it mattered?
Same goes for McCain and Bobby Jindal, by the way. Oh, there was a Senate resolution in favor of McCain? Oh, I forgot -- [51 senators] > [the Constitution of the United Statess]
< /s>
That's what people usually mean when they use words like "admirable".
The amnesty group use the same talking points,
Mccain on Sunday said something similar to what Rubio said, that he ‘believes’ that illegals come here for a better life and opportunities to 'work hard' and will be drawn to conservative values, as if he knows what they are.
More sweet sounding pretty talk that says nothing,, for the gullible.
The libs LOVE Mccain again.
Bump. There's nothing conservative about 30,000,000 people breaking down our laws and giving the White House to the Commie Rats for the next 200 years.
Rubio could land us all in a concentration camp.
Think about it.
30 million people is some 50 new congressional districts (primarily democrat) and all the costs, pork, earmarks, entitlements, and liberal votes associated with them.
It will end the GOP.
Me: "My goal in life is to see total world peace"
My critics: "HT's goal is admirable"..........
Translation: HT's critics are totally on board with his goal........
Here, lets try another one:
Joe Smith says: "I would like to see an end to gun violence in Chicago and the only way to do that is to take the illegal firearms out of the hands of gangs."
HT says: "That's an admirable plan"
HT's critics say: "HT supports gun control......."
That's why the evil Durbin the Turban was grinning like a jack-o'-lantern yesterday when he and the rest of the gang of eight came out to gloat .... and McCain wandered around mouthing his usual fatuities, and I kept looking at Rubio and wondering, "what are you doing here?"
The evil, grinning Durbin, the corrupt and stinking Bob Menendez the teeny-hooker-humper, some other Dim in the background ..... and McCain and Rubio, giving them all cover.
I about tossed dinner.
I grew up in a house where my mother forbid us from learning Spanish, (later in life she admitted it was a BIG mistake, that we should have learned both)
Now if Mark Rubio, was serious he could champion the doing away with the anchor babies. Then maybe I'd listen to the want to be prez in 2016.
The Framers were dead-serious about the issue, to write it into the Constitution rather than relegating it to a statute. They thought it was vitally important that only NBC's occupy the office. It was customary for peripatetic lordlings to wander around Europe, serving now in one court and then another, in the 18th century -- John Paul Jones went on, after his Navy service, to serve Catherine the Great of Russia against the Turks.
The Framers didn't want any foreign-born persons in the White House, and they were dead serious. I'd take them at their word on it, and I myself couldn't qualify under those rules, since my mother was still a foreign national when I was born: she was a war bride.
I listened to 2 different parts of this and some of the monologue after. What I got was that Rush was giving Rubio kudos for trying to work with the cheating, disingenuous Dems but thinks he is rather naive about Obama and the Democrats.
Several remarks Rush made after Rubio was off the show focused on Rubio’s belief (maybe naive) that he could actually sell conservative values to recent immigrants and win many of them over to the Republican cause.
Rubio’s plan is a decent plan but if he expects the current administration NOT to pick and choose the parts they like and ignore the parts they don’t he is damned naive.
“Include the elimination of birthright citizenship, and maybe I’ll listen to the crap they are peddling.”
Um...that would exclude Rubio from eligibility as neither of his parents were citizens when he was born on US soil.
No way Rubio and the GOP-e would go for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.