The Trouble With Rubio

The Federalist ^ | 05/14/2014 | David Harsanyi

[zeestephen]

When Ted Cruz ran for the Senate in 2012 he claimed that Texas ranchers and farmers needed more work visas to bring in more foreign labor.

I guess raising wages and benefits and improving work conditions for native born Americans was too complicated.

In 2000, Cruz was a paid consultant to the GWBush campaign on immigration.

It's not clear what Cruz contributed to Bush immigration policy, but just months after the 2004 election GWBush was trying to shove Amnesty down our throats.

[kabar]

Gotta ask the question: What do you think should be done? If the answer is to deport all the illegals, I agree that it should be done.

Is there anyone here that actually believes that it would ever happen? If there is, I want some of their mood supplements for my own personal use.

Barring a mass deportation, that ain't gonna happen, what could/should be done that actually has a snowball's chance of implementation?

Phony strawman used by the amnesty advocates. The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Arizona proving that it does. During the 2006 amnesty debate, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) commissioned a Zogby poll offering respondents not the false choice between mass deportation or amnesty (a word CIS did not use in the survey), but rather a three-way choice between mass deportation, earned legalization, and attrition — and attrition was preferred two-to-one over legalization.

We mock the Left for not being in touch with reality, but they have a cohesive factor that ensures their on-going success in destroying Freedom. We have fantasies.

What is fantastical about enforcing our laws, securing the border, implementing a system to track and deport visa overstays, and shutting off the job magnet thru mandatory e-verify? We need to make our country as unwelcoming as possible for illegal aliens. No sanctuary cities and states. No social benefits, in-state tuition, driver's licenses, etc. for the lawbreakers. When you reward something, you get more of it.

You seem to have bought the amnesty prostitutes' premise that we only have two choices, i.e., mass deportation or a blanket amnesty. We are now being stampeded by Dems and Reps, business, the labor unions, ethnic groups like La Raza, the churches, and the Chamber of Commerce that we must do it now.

In 1986 we had a one time amnesty that the proponents said would solve the problem and that there would never be another amnesty. The USG estimated 1 million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. Now we have 11.5 million lawbreakers (USG estimate) and are being asked to do the same thing again. This time around let's just try enforcement without amnesty.

[Fiji Hill]

The problem with eliminating someone over a single issue is nobody will ever make the cut.

Amnesty is a huge "single issue." If it goes through, it will set America on the path to becoming just another Third World hell hole.

[kabar]

The status quo on legal immigration will make us a Third World hell hole. Amnesty just hastens the process.

[TomGuy]

Amnesty is a huge "single issue." If it goes through, it will set America on the path to becoming just another Third World hell hole.

I recently watched the movie Elysium on one of the premium cable channels. It is set in 2150. I was rather surprised that it showed Los Angeles of that time as such a hell hole. The 'elites' had moved off planet years earlier, leaving the great unwashed masses to fend for themselves.

My first thoughts at watching the first 10 minutes of the movie: This is where California and many other states are heading. The movie gives them 150 years. That may be optimistic.

Of course, in Liberal feel-good-ism style, the unwashed manage to reach the space station, disrupt and take over, and send salvation [free medical and other aid] back to the planet.

[pallis]

Working with the Republican left doesn’t require vision. Just find a Democrat and follow.

[plain talk]

There won’t be mass deportation and it’s not necessary. We used to have lots of illegals in AL and they suddenly vanished after tighter laws were passed. They self-deported. We reaLly don’t need that much really - fence plus enforcement of existing laws.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I'm tired of leaders who must come to the grassroots to be told what is right and wrong. If they don't know instinctively I don't see much hope, and certainly no hope for continued principled actions after the election.

Going back to a phone conversation I had with Jeb Bush when his daddy was running the last time it became very clear that he didn't really understand 2nd amendment issues and had no solid anchors set.

We need anchors, solid anchors, drifting always leads to a broken ship on the rocks.

[Bikkuri]

1/2 GROSS value of the corporation/company/business (plus min. of 2 years in jail/prison) for offenders hiring illegals sounds fair to me.. (Easy way to get the illegals to leave without having to deport)..

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Rubio=Amnesty=no way for me Jose!
Freegards
LEX

[Bikkuri]

Forgot to mention.. for EACH illegal hired ...

[Dagnabitt]

Rubio helped the democrats write a nation-killing amnesty bill which included a massive increase in third-world migration to our homeland.

That raw treason is not excused by votes against tax increases.

[trebb]

You seem to have bought the amnesty prostitutes' premise that we only have two choices, i.e., mass deportation or a blanket amnesty. We are now being stampeded by Dems and Reps, business, the labor unions, ethnic groups like La Raza, the churches, and the Chamber of Commerce that we must do it now.

I don't see it as one or the other. The reasonI made my comments is that there are many here that seem to think that anything but a mass deportation amounts to amnesty and whenever a potential candidate talks anything but deportation, they come under fire as unclean "amnesty whores". I understand that there are other methods to whittle the problem down, and that it will likely take a number of steps to implement. I just hate to see solid candidates being trashed because they discuss some of the realities - one poster decided that Cruz had jumped the shark.

[trebb]

There won’t be mass deportation and it’s not necessary. We used to have lots of illegals in AL and they suddenly vanished after tighter laws were passed. They self-deported. We reaLly don’t need that much really - fence plus enforcement of existing laws.

I agree - many here don't. It seems that whenever a potential candidate mentions some of the realities of the situation, they get labeled as "amnesty whores" even when that's not what they are suggesting. I've seen Palin labeled and even saw some who decided that maybe Cruz is becoming unworthy. Some folks are so twisted by illegals that they resemble those that will find ways to twist a story on silkworms into an anti-Romney/Mormon rant. Jay Carney could make the claim that they are pro-amnesty and some folks here will be so incensed they will lose the last tenuous touch with reality.

[kabar]

The reasonI made my comments is that there are many here that seem to think that anything but a mass deportation amounts to amnesty and whenever a potential candidate talks anything but deportation, they come under fire as unclean "amnesty whores"

I am the head of a grassroots immigration organization that lobbies on the Hill and in Richmond. I have been fully engaged on the immigration issue for over 7 years. I know of no leading person on our side who has ever supported mass deportation. Not Jeff Sessions. Not Steve King. Not Tom Tancredo. Not Kris Kobach. Not Roy Beck. Not Mark Krikorian. Not Dan Stein.

Also, I have not read many FR posters who are demanding mass deportation. Most want our immigration laws enforced, including deportation, which is now at its lowest ebb since 1978. The other side likes to raise mass deportation as an alternative even drawing parallels to the Hollocaust, i.e., rounding up the lawbreakers and putting them into rail cars to the border.

I understand that there are other methods to whittle the problem down, and that it will likely take a number of steps to implement. I just hate to see solid candidates being trashed because they discuss some of the realities - one poster decided that Cruz had jumped the shark.

Do you have any specific candidates in mind other than Ted Cruz? Who is talking anything but deportation? What "solid" candidates do you think have some rational solutions to the issue?

If you know that there are other solutions to the problem, e.g., attrition thru enforcement, why did you mockingly ask the question, "Barring a mass deportation, that ain't gonna happen, what could/should be done that actually has a snowball's chance of implementation? You know what needs to be done--enforce our laws. Certainly amnesty is not the solution. Doing nothing is better than amnesty.

[trebb]

You know what needs to be done--enforce our laws. Certainly amnesty is not the solution. Doing nothing is better than amnesty.

I absolutely agree, but I doubt we'll ever get to that simple place. In itself, it would trigger a large deportation effort. I'd be happy if we would just make a start by securing the borders - we have the loosest border in the world. I can't see it being done with some sort of "mass reform" because we all know how politicians treat such omnibus bills - no telling what other damage they would create. We keep hearing blather from some of our "representatives", but nobody bothers to take the first step. When Perry pointed out that we created and grew the problem by not following our own laws, a bunch of folks went bonkers and spit so much venom I'm surprised the FR servers survived. If they are unable to look reality in the eye and then decide to factor it in, we might as well fold up shop because we won't be able to support those who actually start whittling away at the problem because some concessions are inevitable.

As far as mass deportations - I think they would be useful even though they will never happen. Not only could we get rid of a high percentage of the criminal elements in one fell swoop, but it would send a message and make those who remain more likely to obey laws and go through proper procedures. It would also serve as a deterrent to those who want to come. But, we all know that in reality, it would also cause a firestorm and much of the Right would hop on the bust the Left drives because of the human suffering involved.

Good luck in your efforts - do you see anyone in D.C. serious enough to at least secure the borders?

[kabar]

I absolutely agree, but I doubt we'll ever get to that simple place. In itself, it would trigger a large deportation effort.

Funny, but even the supporters of amnesty say that we have to get to that "simple place." They are holding enforcement hostage to amnesty. After that, they say they will enforce the laws so we don't have another amnesty. It is the same thing they said after the 1986 amnesty.

I'd be happy if we would just make a start by securing the borders - we have the loosest border in the world.

Not looser than the borders within the EU. Yes we do need to secure the borders, but 40% of the illegals came here legally and overstayed their visas. Securing the border only solves part of the problem.

When Perry pointed out that we created and grew the problem by not following our own laws, a bunch of folks went bonkers and spit so much venom I'm surprised the FR servers survived.

Perry's immigration problem was that he wanted to be compassionate with the illegals and give them things like in-state tuition. Texas has close to 2 million illegal aliens.

If they are unable to look reality in the eye and then decide to factor it in, we might as well fold up shop because we won't be able to support those who actually start whittling away at the problem because some concessions are inevitable.

And what concessions should be made and why?

As far as mass deportations - I think they would be useful even though they will never happen. Not only could we get rid of a high percentage of the criminal elements in one fell swoop, but it would send a message and make those who remain more likely to obey laws and go through proper procedures.

There are an estimated 2 million criminal aliens in this country (even McCain uses that number) and Obama and the rest of the amnesty supporters say they should be removed immediately. I guess it is easier to deport 2 million than it is 11.5 million. Of course, this is all BS to deceive the public. Once you have a legalization of the status of the illegals, all enforcement is put on hold until you can process the 11 to 20 million lawbreakers. In fact the Gang of 8 bill, which had 14 Rep Senators signing on, would allow the previously deported to apply to get to the US as part of family reunification.

What some people don't realize is that once you legalize the 11 to 20 million, they will be able to sponsor their relatives to join them thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification. The decade ending in 2010 was the highest decade of legal immigration in our history surpassing the previous highest ending in 2000--13.9 million. Granting an amnesty will help increase legal immigration over the next decade to 33 million-if there are only 11 million lawbreakers. We know from the 1986 amnesty that the USG estimates are low. In 1986 the USG estimated one million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has estimated an amnesty will cost $6.3 trillion.

And who are these people we want to legalize? Mostly high school dropouts who will take more in social benefits than they contribute. They will also vote overwhelmingly Dem.

Good luck in your efforts - do you see anyone in D.C. serious enough to at least secure the borders?

Jeff Sessions, Steve King, Lamar Smith, David Vitter, etc. But the real threat to our Republic is LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Unless we reduce the numbers, we are finished as a party and a country.