Rubio’s DREAM: Will it win Latinos to the GOP?

posted at 1:05 pm on April 4, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio has never fully supported the DREAM Act, but he says he has always supported the idea behind it: Undocumented immigrant children don’t bear responsibility for the decision of their parents to bypass the legal immigration process, and they shouldn’t be made to bear that responsibility. Rubio wants to propose a modified version of the DREAM Act, one that won’t incentivize “chain migration,” but that also won’t relegate children to “shadow” status in this country. CNSNews.com reports:

In an April 1 interview with liberal commentator Juan Williams on Fox News Latino, Rubio said he does not support the DREAM Act as currently drafted. But he said he would sponsor a proposal that incorporates the “idea” of helping young illegal immigrants by providing them with a special visa to allow them to stay in the country legally while waiting in line to get citizenship.

Rubio has not yet published a specific proposal of his “idea” and has only provided broad details of what the alternative DREAM Act would entail.

“I support the idea behind the DREAM Act, which is to help these young kids. I don’t support the DREAM Act as currently drafted because it allows for chain migration, because it creates a pathway to citizenship that can potentially encourage illegal immigration in the future,” Rubio told Williams.

“I do support, and I have consistently supported, even during my campaign, I’ve supported the notion that we need to accommodate these kids that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this legal limbo,” he said.  “But we have to do it the right way. And so I’m actively engaged in working with my colleagues, and with outside groups, and with anyone who would work with me to craft a solution that helps deal with this issue, but doesn’t do it in a counter-productive way.”

It sounds as though Rubio wants to allow children in the country illegally to apply for certain types of visas — but it’s unclear whether they’d be guaranteed those visas. If their presence is guaranteed to be made legal in the United States, then it’s hard to see how Rubio’s DREAM wouldn’t still unfairly reward parents’ decision to forgo the legal immigration process. If their presence isn’t guaranteed to be made legal, then it’s hard to believe kids would apply for the visas and risk punishment for the revelation that they (and, by extension, their parents) are in the country illegally.
It seems safe to say, though, that any type of outreach on this issue couldn’t hurt the GOP’s chances with Latino voters — and that fact will probably make Rubio’s DREAM appealing to Romney and other party leaders who’ve rejected DREAM as it stands now and might welcome the opportunity to soften their stance on help for alien minors.
Neither the current version nor Rubio’s version will solve the illegal immigration problem, though. The system itself is in desperate need of reform — and the reward for tackling the issue would probably be about as great as the reward Paul Ryan has received for tackling entitlement reform. There just isn’t much political incentive to dig into the nitty gritty of the actual immigration process. Until someone does, though, the risk-reward calculus will continue to favor illegal immigration over legal immigration and, every 10 to 20 years, we’ll have to decide again how best to assimilate the immigrants who’ve entered our country illegally and managed to live and work here for years.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

the wages of citizens and legal immigrants would rise.

aunursa on April 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM

And so would prices.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

We are never going to have a 100% secure border. We can secure at most 50%

If you make a 40 feet fence, business will boom for 45 feet ladders.

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Not if there’s a man on the other side drawing a bead on your center of mass.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I guess it’s Paul Ryan.

Tea Party shelf life is about 2 years.

Oil Can on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I can republish my Immigration Manifesto. Last time it garnered zero comments though. It has to start with securing the border and ending birthright citizenship no matter how you cut it.

DanMan on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

4. NOW we can begin to talk about whether any idea such as Rubio’s would be possible

peski on April 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

To which the Latino population (including Rubio) reply: f*ck yourself.

ernesto on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You can’t blame Mexicans for European-Americans committing demographic suicide. Over the last 40 years, Mexicans have been moving in to fill the gap caused by America’s small families, or no families. You win territory with war. You KEEP territory with babies.

RBMN on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

So what do you do with their American born children who are US citizens?

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Why wouldn’t they take their children with them? Would you leave your child behind to fend for themself on the street if you were deported? Don’t illegals love their children?

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

If you think the majority of illegal immigrants to the US are crossing the Mexican border, you are sorely out of date. Most are arriving on legitimate visas and simply staying. They are arriving at airports with a tourist visa and staying with family who got here on an H1B or overstayed a tourist visa themselves.

Kid graduates from Bangalore University with a computer science degree, gets a tourist visa to see California, interviews with a tech company in Silicon valley and lands a job as an Oracle database administrator in about a week.

crosspatch on April 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM

To which the Latino population (including Rubio) reply: f*ck yourself.

ernesto on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Only the moochers and ignorant ones.

Many of those who are here legally are not with.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2012 at 1:51 PM

the wages of citizens and legal immigrants would rise.

aunursa on April 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM
And so would prices.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

That’s true. Prices are artificially low because of the low wages paide to illegal aliens. And the costs of many government services (e.g. police, social services) are artificially high because of the prescence of illegal aliens.

Wages will rise, prices will rise, and government expenditures will fall.

aunursa on April 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

It’s amnesty. Any law that allows amnesty for a single member, ends up be amnesty for the whole family. Anyone who tells you differently, is delusional or lying.

This is NOT something to bring up before the election. Someone should put a foot on Rubio as soon as possible.

aniptofar on April 4, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Secure the border first, then you deal with the people who are here.

El_Terrible on April 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Your solution will not stop Visa Overstays . There will be illegal immigration even after the feds “secure the border.”

56andwarmweather on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

The idea of punishing kids because of what their parents have done is just not right.

I agree with Rubio on this

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:07 PM

So if a bank robber kept the money and gave it to his children, you would support the children keeping the money?

aniptofar on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Brewer or Kocbach for VEEP

gemini on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Why wouldn’t they take their children with them? Would you leave your child behind to fend for themself on the street if you were deported? Don’t illegals love their children?

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

When you go to prison you don’t have to take your kids with you. Why would they take them back to Mexico if you didn’t have to? They might have family here they can stay with. They’ll have friends here they can maybe stay with.

RBMN on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Only the moochers and ignorant ones.

Many of those who are here legally are not with (you/them).

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I can republish my Immigration Manifesto. Last time it garnered zero comments though. It has to start with securing the border and ending birthright citizenship no matter how you cut it.

DanMan on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

We only respond to posts from proggie trolls.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Wages will rise, prices will rise, and government expenditures will fall.

aunursa on April 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I agree that taxpayer money is subsidizing low labor costs. What liberals don’t realize is it’s a form of slavery. Or maybe they do realize this.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM

If it is deemed inhumane to shoot every illegal invader and impractical to deport them, there are easy ways to get rid of the menace while still providing cheap labor to American businesses.

Let them come, and issue guest work permits to anyone without a criminal record. However, all forms of federal safety-net assistance to people who are illegally in the country must be prohibited: no Medicaid, no welfare, no EMTALA imposition on hospital, no public education. If any state or any charity wants to spend state or private money on them, it is their right. Any jail sentence imposed on an illegal is instantly tripled, with a self-paid deportation must follow the release. However, if they earn enough to pay for all necessities out of their pocket and can demonstrate continuous employment, God bless them – in ten years (can be made five for certain cases), they are free to apply for permanent residence. These are the people we need here.

Archivarix on April 4, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Take the goodies away from the parents who are here illegally and they will self deport and take their kids with them.

JPeterman on April 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

THIS! And thus WHY we need a “reasoned” discussion, not those who scream “send them all back, with their little dogs too!”

lovingmyUSA on April 4, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Why would they take them back to Mexico if you didn’t have to? They might have family here they can stay with.

RBMN on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Minor children stay with their parents.

Why is that so difficult to understand? These “anchor” babies are also citizens of their parent’s country – again, it’s not a punishment to be sent to a country you’re a citizen of.

Rebar on April 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Can we all agree that securing the border includes dealing with the internal work arounds to walking across the border? Getting into semantics is not helpful.

For this discussion securing the border ought to mean dealing with illegals at every turn no matter how they got in. Incentives evaporate, etc.

DanMan on April 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Let them come, and issue guest work permits to anyone without a criminal record.

Archivarix on April 4, 2012 at 2:00 PM

With 20%+ real unemployment here, why would we want to do that?

Rebar on April 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

The answer to immigration issues, beyond the obvious of securing the border (though totally obscure and controversial to the Demographic Party), is all about the entitlement problem. Raise the bar to getting entitlements, or end welfare entitlements, and the country improves instantly. By the way, I am strongly in favor of immigration. In fact, my personal preference is that anyone doesn’t serve in the military be given $5 and dropped off in Guatemala- if you make it back you get full citizenship. Anyway, get rid of welfare and we’re good.

MTF on April 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

thatsafactjack on April 4, 2012 at 1:45 PM

+++100000!!!

lovingmyUSA on April 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Liberal4life, this is just for you.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2012 at 2:07 PM

We only respond to posts from proggie trolls.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM

aiyeee!! guilty as charged! I do note many comments are right in line with it. You’da thought I farted in church when I put it out last time.

DanMan on April 4, 2012 at 2:08 PM

To answer the question: no.

We’ve seen this play out before. Anyone remember Reagan’s amnesty?

This is perfectly reflective of typical conservative ‘thinking’. Let’s throw a bone to demographic group X and they’ll like us.

I suppose conservatives like this because it allows them to escape the reality that the only way to destroy liberalism in this country is to effect systemic change: taking over institutions, including media and academia, and marginalizing the other side.

avgjo on April 4, 2012 at 2:10 PM

crosspatch on April 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Sorry crosspatch, but 20 million from south of the border didn’t get here with visas! You are sorly out of touch with data!

tomshup on April 4, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I guess it’s Paul Ryan.

Tea Party shelf life is about 2 years.

Oil Can on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

It will be Gov. McDonnell, if Mitt wins the primaries.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Marco Rubio, No Thanks.

Sarah Palin vs. Chris Christie 2016.

CoolChange80 on April 4, 2012 at 2:11 PM

With 20%+ real unemployment here, why would we want to do that?

Rebar on April 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Because out of those 20%, about half are “funemployed”. They either build their lifestyle around odd jobs and EBT card, or live in parents’ basements waiting for that elusive six-digit job to pay for their Japanese Musicology degree. Of the rest, many are physically incapable of doing agricultural work, unable to move due to sorry financial condition, locked in a certain area due to family circumstances, or just plain too lazy to bother. Unfortunately, we do need the invaders; we just should stop paying them to invade.

Archivarix on April 4, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The problem is that Rubio’s version still gives more positive reinforcement for Mexicans to bring their family over than if nothing is done. It’s better however, but I don’t think the US should adopt it until Mexico adopts such a Dream Act for their illegal immigrants. We should demand an end to Mexico’s hypocrisy.

Chessplayer on April 4, 2012 at 2:15 PM

One simple addition; those kids are not allowed to EVER sponsor a relative into this country. That breaks the chain right there.

michaelo on April 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM

So if a bank robber kept the money and gave it to his children, you would support the children keeping the money?

aniptofar on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I was about to post something similar, before I saw your comment.

My example: Suppose a child grows up in comfortable financial circumstances funded largely by the proceeds of his parents’ embezzlement. After a decade, the parents are caught. I don’t think a single person here would argue that such embezzlement should be allowed to continue, or that the taxpayers should be required to fill the gap, because it would be “punishing” the child to deprive him of the lifestyle to which he had grown accustomed.

Not rewarding =/= punishing

Just Sayin on April 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I don’t totally disagree with Rubio’s idea, but we first need to turn off the faucet at the borders and stop more illegals from entering the country before we can implement any other measures to address the problem.

stukinIL4now on April 4, 2012 at 2:19 PM

One simple addition; those kids are not allowed to EVER sponsor a relative into this country. That breaks the chain right there.

michaelo on April 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM

…just to have the first President running for a reelection, no matter Republican or Democrat, sign an executive order voiding this prohibition.

Archivarix on April 4, 2012 at 2:20 PM

When you go to prison you don’t have to take your kids with you. Why would they take them back to Mexico if you didn’t have to?

RBMN on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Mexico, India, Poland, The Philippines, Canada are the same as prison? Minor children should stay with their parents. Why did our President allow his daughter to go to prison Mexico over Spring Break if it is unsafe?

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Why wouldn’t they take their children with them? Would you leave your child behind to fend for themself on the street if you were deported? Don’t illegals love their children?

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

They are often not allowed to take their American citizen children with them. I recently heard this story on the radio about a Mexican father whose American citizen children have been in foster care since he was deported. He wants them back, but the authorities in North Carolina don’t approve of the living conditions in his rural Mexican village.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=148311603

cam2 on April 4, 2012 at 2:22 PM

They are often not allowed to take their American citizen children with them.

If the child has dual citizenship, it should not be an issue.

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Chessplayer on April 4, 2012 at 2:15 PM

We should just kindly remind them of their own policies and tell them to get lost every time they cry foul of our “inhumane treatment” of illegal Mexicans. If the Mexican government were as lax in enforcing the Mexican border as we were in enforcing ours, we’d have millions of illiterate peasants from Honduras and Guatemala knocking on our doors in addition to millions of Mexicans.

Alexis on April 4, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Why wouldn’t they take their children with them? Would you leave your child behind to fend for themself on the street if you were deported? Don’t illegals love their children?

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

They are often not allowed to take their American citizen children with them. I recently heard this story on the radio about a Mexican father whose American citizen children have been in foster care since he was deported. He wants them back, but the authorities in North Carolina don’t approve of the living conditions in his rural Mexican village.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=148311603

Unbelievable!

aniptofar on April 4, 2012 at 2:27 PM

These people are not leaving to go back to Mexico. Something has to be done. The border must be secured first. Then deal with the issue of those here. I have no problem with a process for the children to become citizens. Next time you see people cleaning toilets tell me what nationality they are. The Latinos do much of the dirty work in this country – like it or not. Unlike the majority of black males – Latinos will actually work. Democrats have a plantation of welfare blacks to vote democratic because of welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc. White trash are in the same class as these blacks.

kozmo on April 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM

What would be your suggestion for dealing with almost 20 million undocumented people?

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Well, we could just give them all a blanket amnesty,right?

BoxHead1 on April 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM

This is making me start to have reservations about Rubio, sad to say. He’s appearing more and more as an opportunist deep down and we have to be wary of personality politicians like him. His Romney endorsement damaged him in my book.

mozalf on April 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Ruck Fubio!!!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM

If the child has dual citizenship, it should not be an issue.

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 2:26 PM

According to the article you cite, dual citizenship is not automatic. You would have to have the money and know-how to apply or hire someone help you to apply.

cam2 on April 4, 2012 at 2:39 PM

This is making me start to have reservations about Rubio, sad to say. He’s appearing more and more as an opportunist deep down and we have to be wary of personality politicians like him. His Romney endorsement damaged him in my book.

mozalf on April 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM

And SOPA did not? Rubio is not even a sellout. He has never been a conservative – he just rode the Tea Party train to the Senate by parting some conservative fools and their money.

Archivarix on April 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Excuse my lack of expertise in straight-line logical thinking, but if you grant citizenship status to the children, what then becomes of the parents?

And, wouldn’t the fact that the parents are not eligible for the same status mean children who are applying (and therefore admitting they are here illegally) are in practice outing their parents?

Something is amiss here.

And Rubio is either pandering knowing his solution won’t work, logically mistaken about how to handle this, or really for amnesty but afraid to say so.

None of those are good.

The Hammer on April 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Marco Rubio is pushing his version of McCain’s amnesty. Make no mistake in understanding this. Wow, two Romney trial balloons today:

1) Tax Increases
2) Amnesty

If the US economy is dependent on undocumented workers, we are so screwed. The economic value verses the entitlement value is no comparison. We can’t afford 30 million new welfare recipients. It’s really that simple!

Oh yeah, Senator Rubio, leadership is hard without pandering. We actually have American citizens that have paid the ultimate price with this problem like losing a loved one or being mangled during a traffic accident. We live it every single day!

jjnco73 on April 4, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Why are we buying into this assumption that Latino voters automatically sympathize with illegal immigrants and that “reaching out to them” consists of somehow rewarding those who are here illegally?

Shump on April 4, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Excuse my lack of expertise in straight-line logical thinking, but if you grant citizenship status to the children, what then becomes of the parents?

And, wouldn’t the fact that the parents are not eligible for the same status mean children who are applying (and therefore admitting they are here illegally) are in practice outing their parents?

Something is amiss here.

And Rubio is either pandering knowing his solution won’t work, logically mistaken about how to handle this, or really for amnesty but afraid to say so.

None of those are good.

The Hammer on April 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Exactly, you have exposed the trick here!

jjnco73 on April 4, 2012 at 2:52 PM

… Rubio is either pandering knowing his solution won’t work, logically mistaken about how to handle this, or really for amnesty but afraid to say so.

None of those are good.

The Hammer on April 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM

That’s right. Rubio should be regarded with suspicion from now on.

David Blue on April 4, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Sorry, but the idea of taking someone who has lived here since childhood and treating them differently because of something their parents did wrong seems…well, heartless at best (yeah, I went there) and bigoted at worst.

But I guess some people would have them voluntarily move back to a country they don’t even remember having lived in or get treated like an unwanted houseguest in the only country they DO remember living in.

I was with Perry on the in-state tuition, and I’m with Rubio on this one. Unless the GOP wants to wind up being a permanent minority party, they had better focus on sealing the border as the best form of immigration control and stop worrying about punishing people who are already here because no one (Democrat and Republican alike) ever took border control and immigration reform seriously.

DRayRaven on April 4, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I see so many conservatives here giving Rubio a pass on this, seriously how can switch from all the mean things you said about dems for pushing a similar plan ( to deal with the anchor kids )… And now say …’well I agree with him as long as we secure the border”…. This is so much B.S.!!!

At least I’m consistently pissed about tho about the thing

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

hmmm funny how the day after Romney wraps up the primary articles about supporting the DREAM Act and raising taxes on the rich pop up on establishment fave Hot Air. It can mean only one thing… the etch-a-sketch cave-in/lurch to the left begins!

DBear on April 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Tina,I suppose you are too young to remember the “onetime Amnesty” signed into law and promoted by our hero, Ronald Reagan. God rest his soul! Unfortunately, even though there were an estimated 3.5 million illegals, at that time, with no enforcement of our borders, we are now dealing with 20 million illegal aliens! Imagine everyone’s surprise!

What do you think might happen with another AMNESTY? More folks violating our border because we’ve demonstrated we can’t stop them, and we’ll give you citizenship if you don’t get caught!

Get real Tina…..this is bad policy and even worse political theater as it is a real drag on out economy. We can’t afford the illegal aliens we have, much less another influx!

tomshup on April 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Too bad most republicans vehemently disagree, and actively seek to punish these very children.

ernesto on April 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

This is funny coming from the party now discussing post birth abortion. Are you saying you would rather kill them than put them through the “punishment” of returning to their home country?

Night Owl on April 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM

The cheap labor loving Chamber of Commerce GOP doesn’t understand the concept of attrition through enforcement. Enforcement doesn’t include amnesty. Rubio can call it whatever he wants, it’s still amnesty and a magnet for more illegals.

TxAnn56 on April 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM

A woman who takes 15 years to give birth should probably see a doctor.

BadgerHawk on April 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM

+1

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one that saw the flaw in that statement.

mwdiver on April 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Should a 1 year old kid who was brought to the US 16 years ago by his parents be deported back because his parents came here illegally?

That is just inhumane!

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Hahahahahaha! There you have it folks. It’s inhumane for people to live in their country of origin if said country is not the USA.

I agree that USA is No.1, but living in Japan certainly wasn’t inhumane. Course I wasn’t a citizen of Japan when I was there.

Classic liberal hyperbole.

Pattosensei on April 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM

But I guess some people would have them voluntarily move back to a country they don’t even remember having lived in or get treated like an unwanted houseguest in the only country they DO remember living in.

DRayRaven on April 4, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Those poor missionary kids born in Bolivia/India/name a 3rd world country and come back to the US at the age of 5, 6 or even 12 or 13. Those poor children should be given citizenship in X country because it would be evil for them to have to come and live in the USA./

Pattosensei on April 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

tea party favorite

hahahahaha!! suckas!

james23 on April 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

It’s all good so long as an R is at the end of the name.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Should a 1 year old kid who was brought to the US 16 years ago by his parents be deported back because his parents came here illegally?

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

What??..O_O..:)

Dire Straits on April 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

What did Bush or any other Republican ever do to secure the border?

kozmo on April 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

It’s all good so long as an R is at the end of the name.
0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

After reading conservative blogs after startig on the lefty ones, I have to admit…there is no denying that fact for me. This issue (the Dream Act at that!! Not even a different name than when Obama was using it as a political leverage for renewing the bush tax cuts).

I have to tell, politics mostly amuses me… But this issue makes me see red!!!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM

To which the Latino population (including Rubio) reply: f*ck yourself.

ernesto on April 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

You are unsurprisingly ignorant of “Latino” voter behavior and polling results. Immigration–legal or otherwise– is not an important issue for this group, broadly speaking, despite both parties’ behavior (pandering) to the contrary. MAS FREE STUFF is their big issue.

The interesting question is why our representatives, especially Republicans, pretend that it is.

exlibris on April 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Should a 1 year old kid who was brought to the US 16 years ago by his parents be deported back because his parents came here illegally?
liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

You make no f’n sense so STFU!! The kid should take it up with their parents who broke the law, not with me!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Appeasement will not win Latinos to the GOP.

It will not. In order for appeasement on illegal immigration to win over latino voters, they have to be generally republican voters in the first place who just refuse to vote for republicans because of immigration.

And that is not the case. It is not the case. They are very liberal economically. they claim to be conservative socially, the same way that blacks do, but at the end of the day, they support things like affirmative action, racial grievances, and the like. The belief that because Latinos are predominantly Roman Catholic they are therefore “conservative” flies in the face of all of the evidence.

Most of South America is Roman Catholic, yet all of those countries are very far left. at least 1/2, if not more, white Roman Catholic’s are extreme liberals.

Plus, Latinos know that if they could, dems would give all illegals amnesty and citizenship tomorrow.

So how exactly is this supposed to garner the Latino vote?

Who are the idiots who push this nonsense and who are the idiots who believe it? Seriously. there are no facts whatsoever to support the belief that appeasement on immigration will win Latinos over to the GOP. there is no logical argument for it either.

And it is not good policy. It just is not. Not until we take care of the border and get the current illegals here to self-deport to a large extent. Until then, passing an amnesty simply invites millions more illegals to flood into America.

I just do not understand the idiocy that is involved in these beliefs. I do not. I have never heard any compelling argument even attempted to demonstrate that a) the GOP would get more votes or b) it is good policy.

Sure, i’ve heard people make silly moral arguments “we owe it to those who came here illegally to give them something”. But, that is not the same as a logical argument as to why it is good policy for America, or even good politics.

The immigrants came here from very far left cultures. so let’s analogize. When liberals flee liberal states because of taxes, no jobs, and bad schools, what do they do? Do they realize what created the environment they fled and start to vote more conservative? Or, do they move to a conservative place with better taxes, jobs and schools and start to vote for the same policies they fled from? It is the latter!! because that is what they know and believe.

Why does anyone believe that Latino immigrants will be different?

People need to stop dreaming and deal in reality.

Monkeytoe on April 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Should a 1 year old kid who was brought to the US 16 years ago by his parents be deported back because his parents came here illegally?
liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Fine, let’s leave it up to his parents. Deport them, and if they want the kid to stay in America without them, then put him in foster care or with legal / citizen relatives.

The problem is that one can always find a sob story. This person is just such a great guy, we shouldn’t deport him, this person is sick, this person is . . .

That is not how you set immigration policy. America does not “owe” illegal immigrants anything, regardless of their age, situation, etc. We may chose to do certain things, but there is no moral requirement for America to allow any illegal to remain here. the people who have caused moral problems are the people who came illegally. And – I understand their motivation. They want to flee the failed leftist states (who have most of the policies you favor, by the way) for a better life. I understand that. But understandable motivations does not mean America has a moral or legal obligation to someone who entered the country illegally.

Monkeytoe on April 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

My paternal grandfather entered this country @ age 3-LEGALLY.
You can guess where I stand on this issue.
*glares*

annoyinglittletwerp on April 4, 2012 at 4:13 PM

With 20%+ real unemployment here, why would we want to do that?

Rebar on April 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

well, obviously a lot of the legal folks (and your fellow citizens) don’t want and are not interested in certain jobs and prefer the moocher status…if you can find a way to put those to work and make them take those jobs (any job for that matter) you might have solved the unemployment problem of this country…

jimver on April 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

The kid should take it up with their parents who broke the law, not with me!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I am more worried about the mother who was “pregnant” for that long..:)

Dire Straits on April 4, 2012 at 4:26 PM

…we’ll have to decide again how best to assimilate the immigrants who’ve entered our country illegally and managed to live and work here for years.

Tina’s quite the Open Borders shill, isn’t she. The question we now face is not how to assimilate Illegals, but how best to deport them.

Rubio doesn’t want the kids of Illegals to suffer the choices of their parents, he wants us to. Screw him. He’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bush Crime Family masquerading as a Tea-Partier.

sartana on April 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Any Democrat worthy of being kept in office by a responsible electorate has to have some realistic plan ot reign in spending and avoid becoming another Greece (or Spain or…). None have yet.

Any Republican worthy of being kept in office by a responsible electorate has to have some realistic plan to deal with the millions of “illegals” or “undocumented” that are here and integrated into our economy. None have so far.

krome on April 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Any Republican worthy of being kept in office by a responsible electorate has to have some realistic plan to deal with the millions of “illegals” or “undocumented” that are here and integrated into our economy. None have so far.

krome on April 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM

What exactly has to be dealt with? I’m not sure what the argument is that America “owes” people who came here illegally, knowing what their status would be, but chose to do it and remain. I have sympathy, but I don’t see any moral or legal obligation to do anything for people in that situation.

That isn’t to say that I would not support doing something to provide a path to legalization for such people. But first I would need to see real reforms and efforts toward securing the border, enforcing the law, reducing the number of illegals coming into America per year and reducing the number of illegals here.

Until those things are done, I could never support “doing something” about illegals, regardless of how long they have been here or how they have behaved or how “integrated” they are in the economy. “Integrated into the economy” is nonsense by the way. All that means is that the illegals are working illegally. The idea that they could not be replaced at whatever jobs they currently hold is nonsense. So, it’s not as if illegals are so integrated into the economy that America would self-destruct absent their efforts.

Monkeytoe on April 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM

If we won’t enforce the laws we have now…what’s the use of new laws?

d1carter on April 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Still scratching my head why in America, the Melting Pot, we are still so concerned with useless gene pool attributions like this.
Latino means nothing.
Something like ‘some Caucasian’ to ‘a lot of Caucasian, but not all’.
Hispanics, Latinos, you’re not special.
Native Americans?
Nope.
Gene pools.
Why not instead focus on how we all share this idea of Liberty?
I thought that was the real issue here.

Badger40 on April 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM

How to fix immigration:

1. END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. Unless the parent is here legally and on the pathway to citizenship themselves, then their kid gets the parent’s home country citizenship. Now all that juicy welfare that illegals get through their anchor baby citizens will dry up.

2. End all welfare except for emergency medical treatment. If you can’t afford to support yourself, or don’t have friends, relatives or charities that will pitch in then go home and try again some other time to make it in America.

3. Crack down on employers with jail time and real fines.

If we did just these things, we wouldn’t even need a wall, well except for the terrorists.

mrsmwp on April 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM

A nation that does not enforce it’s own laws will die.
We are dying.
So by all means, let’s make some more laws & just confuse things even more.

It’s very nice to have a bleeding heart for people who come here illegally, as well as their offspring.
But when you do not control to some degree who comes in & out, & then offer the illegals free things, do not be surprised they don’t want to leave.
The case has been made here a lot that if you get rid of the incentives that keep illegals here in the 1st place:
Welfare benefits
Healthcare benefits
Education benefits
Jobs
etc..
Then you will continue to have this problem.
But we have already seen some lull in their coming.
More enforcement of the current laws.
More cracking down.
Eventually, they go home.
Where they need to be.
We have every right to have people adhere to our laws in coming here.
Tell me, do you welcome with open arms full blown Communists who have vowed to take over our government & replace it with something else?
Do you want people here who have no loyalty to our founding Documents?
Let’s remove the incentives. It will eventually, along with enforcement of current laws, weed them out enough.

Badger40 on April 4, 2012 at 5:26 PM

In my above comment I meant end all welfare for non-citizens, even ones here legally. Although, I’m sure most people would like to end ALL welfare, lol.

mrsmwp on April 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM

#1 problem with the centrist pandering logic is if we offer a partial amnesty the Dems will offer a fuller amnesty and call us racist for offering the limited amnesty. THe MSM and Hispanic “leadership” will agree that we are racists. The Dems will be the adults and for the sake of the children agree to settle for some ,now revised, partial amnesty and we will be another step towards open borders without any political benefit.

BoxHead1 on April 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM

What would be your suggestion for dealing with almost 20 million undocumented people?

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

They are illegal aliens, not “undocumented”. You should start a colony someplace in Mexico and invite them all there to experience the productive wonders of your philosophy. Don’t forget to write.

VorDaj on April 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Who the Hell wants the United States to look like Mexico? Even millions of Mexicans say with their feet that Mexico is a piece of you-know-what. They may praise Mexico with their mouths all day long but their feet are far more believable.

VorDaj on April 4, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I would hope that every single person that derided Perry for his heartless comment — doing the best he could for Texas, considering the Feds shirked their prime directive — will also turn their back on Rubio for even suggesting that we-the-people do what Perry had to and more while still shirking the Fed’s prime directive.

Because you know, if you reject his proposal, he will call you a heartless racist.

At least I have two reasons to reject Rubio for POTUS or VPOTUS: Amnesty and not a natural born citizen, just naturalized via 14th Amendment.

AH_C on April 4, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Monkeytoe is telling the truth. People need to accept the reality of the situation. Hispanic voters cannot be won for conservatism.

David Blue on April 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM

What did Bush or any other Republican ever do to secure the border?

kozmo on April 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R): Operation Wetback (1954)

David Blue on April 4, 2012 at 7:27 PM

So what do you do with their American born children who are US citizens?
liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

The fourteenth admendment address what defines citizenship. It reads in part;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This does not address that status of children. By common international law children become the citizens of the country their parents are citizens of. Unique to the United States or the British Common Wealth, children born within those boarders would retain that birthright of parental citizenship until the age of adulthood. At that point the now adult child claims their own citizenship of naturalized citizenship by birth as does any child born in the United States at adulthood. If they have left the country, they remain citizens and may apply for naturalized citizenship status upon returning.

Children born on U.S. soil who are the children of diplomats or foreign invaders, have no claim to citizenship.

I am a teacher and as conservative as they come. I still have a concern over the plight of children brought here when they were very young by their parents, who have never known any other life than the one they have here. At the same time I am not for rewarding the parents with the right to stay just because they have children raised or born in our country. Nor do I support amnesty since doing so only encourages further illegal immigration and the problem all over again.

A compromise could work, if it was narrow enough to provide only for the “Americanized” children and only their legal parents or guardians, and afforded few if any loop holes to obtaining a visa or other similar instrument that allows them to remain here. It has to be Acorn proofed! It has to be limited to a child who is in school. It has to be limited to only a child’s natural parents, or legal caregivers, not to be expanded beyond the primary family. It has to have a time limited requirement of citizenship on the legal parents or care givers. It has to be limited to those who show sound character free of criminal elements or associations and maintained employment. The students would be required to maintain passing grades, remain in school until they graduate and not engage in criminal activity or associations.

Not an amnesty plan as much as it is a required set of conditions, that includes the stipulation of acquiring citizenship for the parents and students as a condition for remaining in the country legally which of course is the natural end of the conditions.

Franklyn on April 4, 2012 at 7:32 PM

“I do support, and I have consistently supported, even during my campaign, I’ve supported the notion that we need to accommodate these kids that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this legal limbo,” he said.

Stupid, liberal idea. He wants to inoculate children from the reckless, dangerous, and illegal actions their parents take, at direct and sole cost to U.S. citizens. Under this logic, of course, every child should be granted pretty much whatever they wish because of the failure of their parents to responsibly provide that to them.

If your parents did not graduate high school, took drugs, robbed the 7-11, bore children out of wedlock, whatever action that resulted in you not living in a 3,000 square foot home in Barrington and getting a Mustang for your 16th birthday, then clearly the government should buy you the house and the car.

Anything short of that would not be fair or just — hell, it’s not the kid’s fault. Sarcasm aside, no, it’s not my fault that Sean Malloy decided to overstay his visa from Dublin with his three kids, who are now “living in the shadows”. Why do Americans owe these kids anything? His poorly considered idea rewards criminals with exactly what they wanted — legal residency in the U.S.

Try again, Marco.

Jaibones on April 4, 2012 at 9:29 PM

The idea of punishing kids because of what their parents have done is just not right.

I agree with Rubio on this

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 1:07 PM

The idea of punishing our rule of law not to mention law abiding citizens, taxpayers and legal immigrants because crime wants it’s way with the U.S. is just not right.

I disagree with Rubio on this.

The only people to “blame” for illegal alien children in this nation are their illegal alien parents. They need to ALL go back to their home countries as the family they complain that they are and if they want to become U.S. citizens and/or legal residents afterward, then they need to go about preparing themselves to accomplish that.

How many “pathways” crime goes to to circumvent our nation’s laws, our “rule of law,” should we continue to contend with? People who immigrate illegally (includes Visa overstays) and then try to use their children as reason to be allowed a pass as to our laws are the LAST people this nation needs as citizens or legal residents, however they try to work that.

Rubio is wrong on this. It’ll never fly.

Lourdes on April 4, 2012 at 9:30 PM

The sooner illegal aliens AND their ‘children’ get it that they can’t violate this nation, the better.

They continue to try for the “we ain’t leaving” response when asked to go home and then continue to harangue this nation when they’re asked to do so again and again and again.

I see nothing in this population that merits being given anything more from this nation.

Rubio’s misguided and he’s showing himself to be unreliable with this idea, which looks to me to be nothing more than appeasing for votes.

Lourdes on April 4, 2012 at 9:33 PM

helping young illegal immigrants by providing them with a special visa to allow them to stay in the country legally while waiting in line to get citizenship.

Incentivizing illegal aliens. Brilliant.

Akzed on April 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Yep, that’s exactly what it is. Exactly.

Rubio is a fool if he thinks this idea of his is going to gain him anything from this illegal alien population he’s courting. They’ll use him up and move on to their next round of “demands” if history proves anything.

If they’re here illegally, then they need to go home. I realize that’s a difficult thing for some but as they remain here illegally, they continue to prove both bad character and disdain for this nation that they also want to be provided for by.

Lourdes on April 4, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Too bad most republicans vehemently disagree, and actively seek to punish these very children.

ernesto on April 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Perhaps “these children” SHOULD be punished — and get the point by that that violating our nation’s laws is not to be done, is an indecent thing and something they AND their families need to feel both remorseful about doing AND make restitution about: go back to whence they came and then plan for a legal immigration process later.

Punishment isn’t necessarily a bad thing except to those who think corrupting indulgence and spoilage are good things.

Lourdes on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Secure the border first, then you deal with the people who are here.

El_Terrible on April 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Your solution will not stop Visa Overstays . There will be illegal immigration even after the feds “secure the border.”

56andwarmweather on April 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM

In all fairness, I thought that the phrase, “secure the border,” clearly expressed OUR NATION’s border, as in, jumping over it literally AND jumping over it sneakily, as in, overstaying visas (and it’s not just tourist visas — because medical visas are used often for just such a purpose, to arrive here ‘legally’ but then to remain here illegally afterward, so it’s tourist-student-medical visas that are the problem, ALL visas are abused by the later illegal aliens who arrived here by using a visa and remained here afterward illegally).

The phrase, “secure our border” or “secure our borders” refers to ALL abuses of our borders by those who are not in our nation legally.

I realize many are focused singularly on the Southern border between the U.S. and Mexico, but that’s just ONE “border” of our nation — the “electronic” border is vast and in that area, I’d place visa-overstays, visa abuses, fraud, etc. (but it’s ALL ‘border abuse’ or abuse of “our border”).

Physical barricades work well to prevent foot traffic in some areas but “the border” can be secured in other ways where physical barriers are not much of a deterrant or not one at all as in the case of visa abuses.

I tend to agree that “our border” CAN’T be “secured” entirely and I think that demand is used at times by those who actually don’t want an end to illegal immigration for one reason or another but want to sound like they do (so they proclaim, “secure our border” as the sole method of resolving illegal immigration).

We can’t or won’t, in reality, “secure” THE NATION’S BORDER (all told, the sum of all border or immigration abuses) but we CAN ramp up LAW ENFORCEMENT on borders and about borders, especially as to identifying and capturing and then deporting illegal aliens, and that includes those visa overstays.

Make it really NOT worth anyone’s time or resources to employ an illegal alien and that’s just one method to ‘secure our border,’ by making it a bad thing to even apply for a job or to gain one here in the U.S. if you’re here illegally.

Lourdes on April 4, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Exactly….this “deport them all” won’t work, can’t work…logistically it is next to impossible.

right2bright on April 4, 2012 at 1:15 PM

When will this false dichotomy stop being spewed by the uninformed?
(Or willfully ignorant?)

Attrition through enforcement, not mass deportations, and not rewarding the criminals with their ill-gotten goods (residency) is the most popular, efficient, economical, and just solution.

Read this poll.

Listen to this illegal alien explain to you how it works RIGHT NOW at the state level. 11 sanctuary states are complaining that attrition through enforcement states, like AZ and GA and MO are sending their illegal aliens to the sanctuary states!!!

Help get the national E-Verify bill passed!!!

fred5678 on April 5, 2012 at 2:48 AM

The sad truth, at least here in south Louisiana, is that the growing wave of Mexicans coming here from surrounding states like Texas, Alabama and Georgia (Louisiana is wide open because this wave of post-Katrina immigration is unprecedented, and the Cajuns are just starting to process the fact that they are hearing Spanish spoken at nearly every trip to the store), is enabled by local employers who justify the hiring of illegals with the simple phrase: “The Mexicans work hard – the blacks won’t.”

Until that perception is changed, it’s going to be very hard to shut off the magnet. Before Katrina, construction crews, road crews, gardening, cooks, maids, etc., had a large component of local black citizens.

Since then, a wholesale, dramatic replacement has occurred.

Start with a bad economy, made worse by 0bama’s dishonest Gulf drilling moratorium, and then a wave of Mexican economic refugees, and the local black youth are hugely unemployed.

If that’s not a powder-keg situation – occurring across the nation, I don’t know what is.

If Sharpton and Jackson really cared for “their people,” they’d quit wasting time trying to start a race war, and start hammering the fact that the jobs of black citizens, nationwide, are being gobbled up by illegal fence-jumpers.

The black kids of this generation – all except the high-achievers, are S.C.R.E.W.E.D. screwed.

cane_loader on April 5, 2012 at 7:20 AM

Monkeytoe is telling the truth. People need to accept the reality of the situation. Hispanic voters cannot be won for conservatism.

David Blue on April 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM

that is not my point. My point is that they will not be won through appeasement – attempting to buy their vote.

If we are going to win Hispanics over to conservatism – or even to right-of-center voting for republicans – it must be done on ideas and principals. Simply buying their votes through amnesty will never work and will backfire.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 7:42 AM

enabled by local employers who justify the hiring of illegals with the simple phrase: “The Mexicans work hard – the blacks won’t.”

cane_loader on April 5, 2012 at 7:20 AM

I hear the same things in agriculture up here I the plains.
Only the people I know fight hard for those special visas to bring people from places like S. Africa to work.
To be honest, I can’t blame the ones I know bcs no one wants to work.
And the oil fields out here are taking away a lot of laborers.
I can’t tell you the dozens of stories about people who get hired, work for a day or a week or so & then just up in the middle of the night leave.
Agriculture work these days is not really all that hard. Not like it used to be. But it’s not easy, either.
I would say that people in general these days in America are a bunch of lazy POSes.
So while hiring illegals is definitely NOT the way to go, I can certainly sympathize.
No one wants to effing work anymore.

Badger40 on April 5, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3