WSJ: Rubio “charges up the middle” on immigration

posted at 11:31 am on January 12, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, I wondered when the next generation of Republican leaders would start competing for ascendancy in the post-Obama GOP.  Marco Rubio has the inside track, I wrote, as the most talented member of the Class of 2010, the Tea Party class that owes little to the pre-existing establishment.  Today, the Wall Street Journal profiles an effort soon to be launched by Rubio on immigration, with a plan that Matthew Kaminski says “charges up the middle” and attempts to defuse a political land mine for Republicans:

Florida’s junior senator and one of America’s most prominent Hispanic politicians wants to take the Republican lead on immigration reform. Getting out front of President Obama’s campaign pledge to overhaul the system in his second term, Mr. Rubio is laying out his ideas for possible legislation.

Whether Mr. Rubio is courageous or foolhardy, the outcome on Capitol Hill and the impact on his career will tell the story. Immigration has long been a profitable wedge issue for Democrats and Republicans. On Wednesday at the Biltmore Hotel near his home here, Mr. Rubio spells out a reform plan that charges up the middle.

His wholesale fix tries to square—triangulate, if you will—the liberal fringe that seeks broad amnesty for illegal immigrants and the hard right’s obsession with closing the door. Mr. Rubio would ease the way for skilled engineers and seasonal farm workers while strengthening border enforcement and immigration laws. As for the undocumented migrants in America today—eight to 12 million or so—he proposes to let them “earn” a working permit and, one day, citizenship.

Those proposals amount to a collection of third rails for any number of lobbies. Organized labor has torpedoed guest-worker programs before. Anything that hints of leniency for illegals may offend the talk-radio wing of the GOP.

The plan offers a number of “modules” that are very familiar, but in a new combination, or so Rubio hopes. It comprises:

  • Gain “operational control” of the border first
  • Enhance employment checks
  • Raise the hard cap on high-tech immigration
  • Create a guest-worker program for low-skill labor
  • A lengthy but not indefinite process for normalizing longer-term illegal residents

The last module will run into considerable opposition from Rubio’s Republican colleagues, who will insist that no amnesty be offered.  Rubio doesn’t see it as amnesty, but as a way to first identify the people who need to be deported, and then to eliminate the permanent underclass of legal-limbo residents.  That status quo hasn’t worked in Europe, Rubio argues, and it won’t work here, either:

“Here’s how I envision it,” he says. “They would have to come forward. They would have to undergo a background check.” Anyone who committed a serious crime would be deported. “They would be fingerprinted,” he continues. “They would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They would have to prove they’ve been here for an extended period of time. They understand some English and are assimilated. Then most of them would get legal status and be allowed to stay in this country.”

The special regime he envisions is a form of temporary limbo. “Assuming they haven’t violated any of the conditions of that status,” he says, the newly legalized person could apply for permanent residency, possibly leading to citizenship, after some years—but Mr. Rubio doesn’t specify how many years. He says he would also want to ensure that enforcement has improved before opening that gate.

The waiting time for a green card “would have to be long enough to ensure that it’s not easier to do it this way than it would be the legal way,” he says. “But it can’t be indefinite either. I mean it can’t be unrealistic, because then you’re not really accomplishing anything. It’s not good for our country to have people trapped in this status forever. It’s been a disaster for Europe.”

It would have a better chance of passing the Senate than a strict no-amnesty bill would, obviously.  Democrats want to push on immigration reform anyway, and Republicans will have to have a reasonable alternative on the table.  Rubio is under no illusions that this alone will allow the GOP to make inroads with Hispanic voters, but it will at least remove the biggest roadblock:

Is immigration reform a magic bullet for the GOP’s troubles with Hispanic voters?

“No,” Mr. Rubio says, but “the immigration issue is a gateway issue for Hispanics, no doubt about it. No matter what your stance is on a number of other issues, if people somehow come to believe that you don’t like them or want them here, it’s difficult to get them to listen to anything else.”

I’d like to see more detail, especially on how Rubio plans to define the length of residence requirement to enter into the normalization process, along with the method of enforcing that and the commitment to deporting those with criminal records (other than that which attends their immigration status).  The method of certifying border security matters a great deal, too, of course, and the commitment from Democrats this time around to actually securing the border, rather than the double-talk Ronald Reagan got in 1986.  These are not mere details, but critical to the nature of the approach.

Still, I think Rubio is on the right path, and the sooner that this issue gets off the table, the better off the Republican Party will be.  Given the results of the 2012 elections, we aren’t going to see anything better than this in principle that could resolve the differences between Republicans and Democrats, and its success or failure will tell us — and Hispanic voters — whether Democrats are serious about resolving the issue or just using it for demagoguery.


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

And what the bloody blue **** are we talking about “welfare-for-votes” in relation to non-citizens for, anyway?! Non-citizens can’t legally vote!

gryphon202 on January 12, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Also, via Central/South America and Mexico lots of ME and other scum get into the US.

Thus Genuine’s claim is faux from that regards also.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2013 at 11:12 PM

If you don’t have a immigration plan first that seems reasonable to the public we are stuck with only two other positions: (1) Throw them all out or (2) give them all blanket amnesty with no barriers, no hoops, nothing. Now I hope you have enough common sense to know who will win that political battle in the end? I will give you a hint…..it won’t be our side….

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 11:01 PM

How about this for a plan, Willie Eat-me? Enforce the damn laws as written. Or do you think that’s an unreasonable plan? Politically untenable, perhaps? Maybe impractical? Unfashionable?

THIS is why conservatism is losing.

gryphon202 on January 12, 2013 at 11:14 PM

How about this for a plan, Willie Eat-me? Enforce the damn laws as written. Or do you think that’s an unreasonable plan? Politically untenable, perhaps? Maybe impractical? Unfashionable?

THIS is why conservatism is losing.

gryphon202 on January 12, 2013 at 11:14 PM

How about this dumb ass…Keep getting progressives elected president by convincing minorities in this country we are the second coming of the Know Nothing Party.

Conservatives lose because they lack any political common sense. This country has always been about politics, get out of your ivory tower and come down to earth.

Rubio offers a way to flank the hill and you still want to charge up the dam thing.

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM

Rubio offers a way to flank the hill and you still want to charge up the dam thing.

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM

We’ve been “flanking the hill” for the past 24 years. How’s it been working out for Joe and Jane Q. Citizen? I wanna know who the hell is looking out for ME. It ain’t Marco Rubio, and it ain’t the GOP.

gryphon202 on January 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM

I don’t believe you people. I want to enforce the laws as written, no more, and that is somehow “charging up the hill.” I think you amnesty shills are too smart by half.

gryphon202 on January 12, 2013 at 11:29 PM

We’ve been “flanking the hill” for the past 24 years. How’s it been working out for Joe and Jane Q. Citizen? I wanna know who the hell is looking out for ME. It ain’t Marco Rubio, and it ain’t the GOP.

gryphon202 on January 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM

No we have not, we been sitting at the bottom of hill for the past 20 plus years figuring out what the do while “Fortress Progressive” drops bombs on our heads.

Last Conservative generals who had any clue how to flank anything was Reagan (and sometimes Newt on a good day). The rest are either lets stay at the bottom of the hill or die charging up the hill.

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Just to make everything equitable….
Let’s adopt Mexico’s immigration laws, verbatim, and enforce them the same way.

LegendHasIt on January 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM

I don’t believe you people. I want to enforce the laws as written, no more, and that is somehow “charging up the hill.” I think you amnesty shills are too smart by half.

gryphon202 on January 12, 2013 at 11:29 PM

No some us come to realize that the way the law is written will not be enforced. Ever. We have had sanctuary cities since the late 1970s. Reagan did not do anything about them, two Bushes did not either. We basically have federal laws that are impossible to enforce in some places in this country. It would be no different than if congress passed restrictive gun laws and some states would refuse to enforce that as well.

There has to be some way to get these illegals into the federal system, thus bypassing the states, so at least if we want to deport them it will be much easier, with fingerprints, identification, medical exams, etc, on file. That is why the pathway to legal status is so important. It is the honey at the end of the trap. Some will make it through the process but many will not and get sent out of the country. Obviously this will only happen if the GOP is in control.

The idea that you are going to send the INS into LA and get those illegals is just as dumb as progressive fantasies of sending the ATF into Kentucky to get the guns. It would be a PR debacle.

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM

I was here for 6 years illegally before I obtained a green card through (honest) marriage. I came here initially on what was going to be a short break, and loved it so much that I accepted a job from someone I knew here. To be honest I didn’t have any grand plan to create a life here, and I certainly wasn’t overjoyed at the idea of breaking the law. But, these things happen, and before you know it I’d outstayed my visa. Once that happened, I didn’t want to go home, since I knew that exposing my overstay might result in being banned from entering the US again. And given that I’d fallen in love with the country and didn’t want to go back to the craphole that is Britain, I stayed on.

Pretty soon I was self employed and had obtained a tax ID (ITIN). I filed income taxes in the process. With the ITIN I found myself able to get a bank account. Before I knew it I had a fully operational business with 12 employees. And despite being illegal, I did as much as I could legally. You would be surprised at the extent to which an illegal immigrant can enter the system through the back door, via the IRS.

With the ITIN, I was able to obtain an Employer ID (EIN). The IRS simply does not care about your legal status. With that EIN, I was able to legally register my business with the city of New York, obtain a license to collect sales tax, and also register to withhold taxes from my employees on both a state and federal level. I had all of my employees fill out an I9 (still can’t believe the irony to this day), and obtained for them worker’s comp, disability and UI. My business was fully insured and bonded (the insurance companies don’t care about your legal status either). I had an accountant who knew my situation and didn’t care. I was filing 940/941 correctly and on time, and basically doing everything that a legal business owner should. And yet I was unable to obtain a driver’s license. I never drove without one, but it would have been handy as an ID. Still, I got around it.

During my years as an illegal I employed almost 50 people, paid them properly, withheld their taxes, matched their payroll contributions and collected sales tax for the state of New York. I have paid hundreds of thousands in taxes. I never once committed a crime or claimed any welfare benefits of any kind (I couldn’t even if I wanted to). I went through cancer without any medical insurance, and paid every penny of my medical bills upfront.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that not everyone fits the stereotype of an illegal immigrant, and I know a lot of people swear by that stereotype. Yes, I was breaking the law and I know that was wrong. But how many of you can honestly say you’ve never broken a law?

As a legal resident today, I know of many people in a similar position to the one I was in. There has to be a way for people like this to stay legally. They’re contributing to the economy and are an asset to America. What bothers me is that in all of this talk about immigration reform, the only kind of people the politicians seem to be concerned about are the stereotypical South American migrant worker who gets paid in cash and never pays a cent in taxes (I know some of them do, but most don’t). The people they should be dealing with first and foremost are the otherwise law abiding business owners who are running their businesses properly, paying taxes and creating jobs. You’d be surprised how many seemingly legitimate business owners in this country are actually illegal immigrants.

Sharke on January 13, 2013 at 12:15 AM

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Here’s a far simplier approach: 1) eliminate entitlements for non-citizens; 2) start fully enforcing everify and start throwing managers, executives who violate its provisions in jail.

Unfortunately, if we have another amnesty without any enforcement (which is very likely), we will go from 3 million amnesties in 1986 to 20 million amnesties in 201? to who knows how many amnesties in 202?

bw222 on January 13, 2013 at 12:36 AM

Still, I think Rubio is on the right path

And I’m not surprised at all.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 1:13 AM

Here’s a far simplier approach: 1) eliminate entitlements for non-citizens; 2) start fully enforcing everify and start throwing managers, executives who violate its provisions in jail.

bw222 on January 13, 2013 at 12:36 AM

Allow illegals to sue their employers for ten times their pay and benefits they would have received if legally employed, as well as a $10,000 cash bonus payable by the employer.

No employer would hire illegals because the minute they left the job they could make a bundle suing the employer. That would be the end of the illegal job market.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 1:21 AM

Mitt Romney has disappeared entirely back into private life….

A complete loser.

Sherman1864 on January 13, 2013 at 1:39 AM

Here’s a far simplier approach: 1) eliminate entitlements for non-citizens; 2) start fully enforcing everify and start throwing managers, executives who violate its provisions in jail.

Unfortunately, if we have another amnesty without any enforcement (which is very likely), we will go from 3 million amnesties in 1986 to 20 million amnesties in 201? to who knows how many amnesties in 202?

bw222 on January 13, 2013 at 12:36 AM

I had a big detailed write up but the Hot Air refresh killed it. Oh well. So to simplify: (1) I agree with no entitlements to non-citizens. (2) Problem is states like California will not listen and will find ways to get illegals benefits. (3) Federal government has to find a way to go around states. (4) Break up problem of what to do with illegal immigrants into small bite sized pieces or stages as Rubio suggests. That will removes the states from the equation. (4) Deport all illegal immigrants who do not sign up to be processed. They must be hardened criminals because why would they not sign up? (5) Those illegals who do sign up to the process will have to undergo a serious of barriers (like fingerprints, health checks, resident information, background checks, heck DNA, pay back taxes, pay fines, do community service, learn English, everything to go in a federal database) which will cause many to be deported because they failed one of the barries. Once again the federal government will have info on these people that will make it easy for them to be deported with the need for state help. (6) Obviously all this cannot be done until the borders are secure and those that hire illegals have stiffer punishments.

The point of all this is we need to get the information on how many illegals we have, who they are, their medical background, etc. We can’t do that if they are off the grid and we can’t round them up easily if the liberal states are protecting them. Therefore the lure of maybe becoming legal will get us around this and allow us to keep and deport who we want depending on how stringent we make the controls.

Think of it like why you (or I) would not want to sign up for a federal database of gun owners. It sounds good if you listen to progressive spin, but we all know that is just the first step to confiscation. Much harder for the states to protect us if all our data is in a federal database. What Rubio is really purposing is a illegal immigrant version of that. Just read it and tell me what this is really about. It is a PC way of setting up a deportation database were only a few will get keep their guns…I mean get their citizenship.

Think like a progressive, use their own government mechanism against them.

William Eaton on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 AM

Correction for above:

(5) Those illegals who do sign up to the process will have to undergo a serious of barriers (like fingerprints, health checks, resident information, background checks, heck DNA, pay back taxes, pay fines, do community service, learn English, everything to go in a federal database) which will cause many to be deported because they failed one of the barries. Once again the federal government will have info on these people that will make it easy for them to be deported WITHOUT the need for state help.

William Eaton on January 13, 2013 at 2:10 AM

What’s the solution for dealing with those who break the law?! MORE LAWS!

/facepalm

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 5:36 AM

NO credible info to locate Osama was divulged by a detainee whilst being tortured. In fact, the divulging of information (to Kill Osama), only came when the interrogators used non-abusive techniques (tricking them, giving them food, or basic questioning).

JustTheFacts on January 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Wrong. The name of Osama’s courier was revealed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after he was waterboarded. The CIA then tracked down the courier and followed him to Osama’s compound.

SoulGlo on January 13, 2013 at 8:19 AM

A person that is here illegally has already committed a serious crime. The only people that have not are those who were children brought here by illegal entrants. I would be inclined to cut them some slack, but not the adults. Those have to go.

Quartermaster on January 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM

The Rubio Plan:

- Gain “operational control” of the border first
- Enhance employment checks
- Raise the hard cap on high-tech immigration
- Create a guest-worker program for low-skill labor
- A lengthy but not indefinite process for normalizing longer-term illegal residents

I have no problem with that. We should have a legal registry for seasonal workers.

And Then …

“Here’s how I envision it,” he says. “They would have to come forward. They would have to undergo a background check.” Anyone who committed a serious crime would be deported. “They would be fingerprinted,” he continues. “They would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service.

Ya blew it, sonny.
Try again when public opinion is on your amnesty side.
Hasta Luego, Marco.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 13, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Will never,ever vote for somebody who rewards these illegals with any path toward citizenship.Kiss Hispanic ass all you want Rubio,but I will join the 8 million white voters who didn’t show up last time!

redware on January 13, 2013 at 9:55 AM

…deport all those who don’t report themselves by a certain time.

…All this of course would not happen until the borders are secured, and we set up stronger laws to stop employers from hiring illegals in the first place, which is another thing the business wing of the GOP seems to balk at all the time.

This, along with our crappy economy, will cause many illegals to leave anyway without having to be chased down and deported. A rough breakdown: 25% sign up to be processed, 25% will have to be chased down, and 50% will just leave. Also any new law will need to end the sanctuary cities in this country.

The most important thing is as am alternative plan to what the democrats will fire away with. It is better than no plan at all…

We have to at least neutralize this issue…

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 1:28 PM

I was trying to just read earlier comments and refrain from participating for personal reasons (not feeling well), but, there are some important points being made by (see above) AND several others earlier that, obviously, would be impractical for me to reprint/quote…so I limited my quote efforts here to ‘just’ the above.

Some thoughts to add:

1. Hispanics by ethnicity are NOT some “natural fit with the GOP” contrary to what some in the GOP keep repeating, likely to try and remain potentially attractive to some votes they are coourting (or for whatever reason); it’s just a false allegation…

…most “Hispanics” either come from or their parents came from, to the U.S., Socialist and Communist countries. Really SOcialist and/or Communist countries. Far Left cultures. Areas of the world where tribalism is as demanded and acceptable as it is in most parts of Africa with as much hostility toward any who challenge tribalism/SOcialism/Communism with violence of attitude if not behaviors (means, there’s a great threat posed to these people by anyone who poses an different arrangement for their “group” lives);

So, no, they’re not a good fit to the GOP and most Hispanics have proven they aren’t when, after in the U.S.,they continue to support and vote for the Socialist/Communist offerings and remain hostile toward those opposite to that (which means, toward Capitalism, our Republic, the Right, etc.).

2. The ONLY illegal aliens, whatever their ethnicity is, who “leave on their own” are almost exclusively males who are here without families for work purposes only — they “go back home on their own” when illegal when they’re finding working here an obstacle to their wants and/or “back home” relationships are calling them;

MEANWHILE, the many OTHER illegal aliens remain here regardless BECAUSE they have children and other dependents (or shared-expense friends, “families” of various permutations) WHO ARE dependent on US welfare programs of various sorts — kids in US schools who are receiving “more and better” than “they do back home” (meaning, there’s financial and material benefit provided to children in the US that exceeds what is provided to them, if anything is, “back in” their own countries — the public school system in US is a BIG DRAW to females in other countries with children who are later in the US illegally); they won’t leave on their own, they’ll remain here because they’re living better even as illegal aliens here than they would in their own countries, and, they have since had children here or brought them here who are receiving direct assistance from the US);

3. So the only illegal aliens who “leave on their own” can be assumed only to be single male adults who have relationships in their own countries and are here illegally for jobs only;

4. Rubio refers to illegal aliens *somehow* showing up to report themselves “or” “leaving on their own” if they don’t qualify for various demands when reporting — WON’T HAPPEN.

IF there’s the possibility of NOT qualifying when they “report,” they aren’t going to report. Case closed. They’ll remain here illegally, whatever, but if and when they want to self-deport, they will but most won’t….if this was not the case, we’d have seen behavior up to now to support such self-responsibility of showing up and announcing one’s illegal and/or leaving on one’s own as some sort of acceptance of wrong doing.

Rubio’s premise is, on the explanations he’s provided, loopey. It’s political mumbo-jumbo made to “sound great” like Obama’s “hope and change” nonsense. It’s just rhetoric, is near meaningless.

More to come…

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM

More:

I realize the political leverage importance of the GOP getting out in front of this issue of illegal immigration, mostly because Obama’s using it to work his ongoing fevered wrongs.

HOWEVER, that’s no reason the GOP must show up with a Democrat-kind-of-solution, as if it’s a race among Leftwingers to court and spark with a voting ethnicity that isn’t specific about much of anything.

ABOUT THAT, what the GOP HAS TO attack and continue to work in public discourse is the confusing, misleading, hot-button lie that “Hispanic is synonymous with illegal alien” and “illegal alien is synonymous with Hispanic,” and that, therefore, one generally broad-based, impossible to qualify ethnicity pool commands control over what the entire nation of the USA is willing to bend and void and betray to accommodate, or even should.

I realize that the majority of illegal aliens at present is and has been for decades from among Latin nations, countries in Central and South America, with Asia being the follow up violator. BUT well over fifty percent of illegals are from South of us, from Latin countries, and from Socialist, Communist countries at that.

But we, the US, certainly the GOP, has to wrestle this confused, misleading assumption away from the Left and the Left’s need to assign human beings to ethnicity (as they do also to gender).

THE ISSUE IS BEHAVIOR and, also, our US law enforcement condition, what we’re as a nation willing to do to uphold our principles and ethics (and laws) to protect our nation and not be forced or coerced by foreign interests to void, violate and bust our ethics.

The Left uses this ethnicity madness (“Hispanics, Latinos”) to try and leverage the ongoing whittling away of our US ethics and the GOP should be addressing this problem in the public discourse: our laws, our enforcement, our economy, our Constitution comes first REGARDLESS of ethnicity, race, demands.

Last point is that our borders can’t ever be “secured” and we have to face that fact. Internal enforcement is the only possible way to make any nation wide process of securing our population possible: employee e-verify, FAR MORE STRICT ENFORCEMENT of who receives what from states and federal economic streams, etc.

And I agree with whoever earlier said that the WSJ is and has been pro-amnesty, their interests are in maintaining cheap labor to include illegal aliens, which is the part of the GOP that is behind Rubio’s ideas, needless to say, as they were/are behind Jeb Bush’s ideas for same.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Forgot to add this:

someone earlier commented that the “Hispanics (they) knew” (or “worked with/among”) considered Republicans to be “the rich” — and reject Republicans accordingly….

And doesn’t that just show in a nutshell how NOT aligned with the GOP so many of “them” (in that context, in this context) are?

The “rich” are detested, considered like mules there to haul everyone else economically, financially, to be beaten, ridiculed, rejected, looked down on in some class-warfare animosity called SOcialism/Communism/Tribalism…

People who think like that are just steeped in cultural values and beliefs that won’t change until or unless several generations among them do. They’re not in the US to become this country, they’re here to force the US become their tribal property.

I don’t mean to offend anyone but I find that animosity about “the rich” as synonymous with “the Republicans” to be exceptionally primitive in a dark, damaging, really awful way. Meanwhile, people who hold such prejudice are first in line to demand food stamps, housing vouchers, lunches for their children, hospital services they “shouldn’t have to pay,” etc.

It’s “the rich” in their view who should be stuck by the liabilities of those making those demands and it’s exceptionally brutal, disgusting anti-socialism. But it’s a common perspective among Communist nations and cultures.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM

@SWalker, I enjoyed your comments on Page 1, haven’t yet read up to Page 3…

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM

… Rubio on immigration, with a plan that Matthew Kaminski says “charges up the middle” and attempts to defuse a political land mine for Republicans“

The country is lost when simply advocating for “the rule of law” is considered a “political land mine” — especially by someone who claims to be on the only political side that’s doing that advocating …

ShainS on January 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Yes, what ShainS wrote there.

This is the misguided Leftwingism among the GOP, what Rubio is attempting, as also the remarks by Kaminski, quoted above, that ruins GOP success.

ALL the GOP has to do is get clear of “liberalism” and stop trying to imitate the DNC by coming up with something they call “the GOP version of the DNC ideas”.

Rubio is working the Left here.

I DO think we need a guest worker program.

BUT IT WILL ONLY WORK if and when the conditions are FIRST legislated AND ENFORCED — such as no anchor babies, no access to taxpayer-funded social helps, etc.

The conditions that are needed in order for a guest worker program to work successfully and well (as a guest worker program and not as another avenue for immigration and/or amnesty for illegals) are the difficult challenges and are not the challenges either party wants to address, unfortunately.

BUT those conditions need to be established first, then a guest worker program would be possible. Not the other way around.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I don’t mean to offend anyone but I find that animosity about “the rich” as synonymous with “the Republicans” to be exceptionally primitive in a dark, damaging, really awful way.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM

You aren’t offending anyone. Those who take exception to your comment(s) need only take a cursory look at the numbers, the stats. In this case, intelligent people know that the stats don’t lie.

I would add what I think is the most important hurdle to be overcome:
Clarify the Constitution to erase the term, and practice of, “anchor babies”. America is the only country in the Western World that allows this obscenity to continue.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 13, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The law has to be enforceable, practical, desirable and reasonably moral. Rubio is trying to come up with a plan to make our immigration laws fit those categories.

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I agree with the first part of what you said about “the law” but I disagree with what you said there about what Rubio is “trying.”

And we should never compare our immigration and citizenship requirements (‘laws’) with slavery and the rest of what you referred to there.

We can enforce our existing laws. We are under no obligation to accept lawlessness from other countries invading ours “just because” they’re cheering themselves on. And at this rate, people from other nations by using the US in their illegal behaviors DO represent an “invading” process.

It’s a strong, objectionable word but it’s unfortunately an accurate description for what’s taken and taking place.

The US has a distinct nation from Asian countries, from countries to the South of us. It’s their loss that they want to possess us and make us something we are not.

I think what Rubio illustrates is an acceptance of that consent to be invaded: “how can I help you,” he’s saying.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I would add what I think is the most important hurdle to be overcome:
Clarify the Constitution to erase the term, and practice of, “anchor babies”. America is the only country in the Western World that allows this obscenity to continue.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 13, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I completely agree with that.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:51 AM

* Create a guest-worker program for low-skill labor

Why? Given the unemployment rate why is this even under consideration?

sharrukin on January 12, 2013 at 2:31 PM

A guest worker program is necessary (so I think) for our US agricultural economy — they need SEASONAL and seasonal part-time employees to accomplish their annual production.

Since many here are referring to “the real world” and otherwise, to practicalities, I agree about our unemployed population as being the solution contrary to the need for a guest-worker program THEORETICALLY, but allow me to mention this:

a mere MENTION on twitter about our need to educate current youth in where their food comes from, how it’s created, reaped immediate violent condemnation from people accusing the sentiment as being an indication of slavery or insensitivity to slavery.

So it’s assumed urban kids today shouldn’t be asked to tour or, aaack, work in a garden growing food to learn about how food originates, because it’d be offensive to their “history of slavery” from centuries ago or something.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Some of you need to calm the heck down and use some common sense.

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 2:56 PM

That’s like saying to you, while you sit in an emergency room with a hemorrhage, to “calm down.”

Calm down, someone will be with you after we address the five million ahead of you in line.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Rubio “charges up the middle”

Seems most people are missing the grotesquely offensive nature of that statement, of what’s being said there.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 11:06 AM

what I am simply big timing a possible later arrival who now is trying to big time someone who arrived after them.

Big difference…:)

William Eaton on January 12, 2013 at 6:28 PM

First off, no one here is “trying to” do that and secondly, you’re the only person here who is referring to “it”, your irreverent accusation that people are somehow “trying to” do that.

Difference is you inserting bait in the stream and then asking why you put bait in the water, as if others would like to.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Rubio “charges up the middle”

Seems most people are missing the grotesquely offensive nature of that statement, of what’s being said there.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Hmmmmm …
“The Charge of the Light Brigade” methinks.
However, given the fact that he is “vertically-challenged”, who knows. *chuckle*
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM

“Here’s how I envision it,” he says. “They would have to come forward. They would have to undergo a background check.” Anyone who committed a serious crime would be deported. “They would be fingerprinted,” he continues. “They would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They would have to prove they’ve been here for an extended period of time. They understand some English and are assimilated. Then most of them would get legal status and be allowed to stay in this country.”

READ THAT CAREFULLY — it’s irrational.

Rubio is saying (irrationally or naively, certainly misleading either way) that people are just going to, ho-hum, come on out while once you’re out there’s this impending possible threat of you being deported once you’re out…

Illegal aliens ARE NOT going to float on down to the center stage to receive their free cars, err, “path to citizenship,” while knowing there’s the possibility that in all likelihood, they’re not going to get that free car but a free ride back to Meheeco (or wherever but I think Mexico is used as drop off destination for most illegal aliens from Central America).

Rubio’s expecting to be taken seriously and he goes and says something as Hugo Chavezian as that? Gahh.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 11:50 AM

The reason the Left, and illegal aliens, want amnesty (includes the DREAM mess) is because it doesn’t involve any accuracy or righting of wrongs.

People just, oh, you know, show up with that utility bill or canceled ticket to the Coliseum and, presto, they get a voucher for a lot of free citizenship. A simplification of that process, I realize, but essentially what’s being attempted.

No one’s held accountable. No one’s asked to pay restitution. No one’s required to make right the wrongs they’ve been committing. Instead they get a big, big reward.

It’s a corrupt concept as it is also a very corrupt goal by those pursuing it.

IF you were somehow smuggled into this country utterly without your consent at the age of a few months or years and you’re now 18 or older and you have not at any time made any attempts to apply for citizenship or create your own ethical life “back home” against your parents’ bad deeds, I can’t say, as a citizen, that the US owes you much more than a nice “farewell and have a nice day.”

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM

I was reading a story of what was presented as woe in a local newssite, about a family of several teen, college age “kids” who were identified as “undocumented immigrants from Mexico” (illegal aliens)…

that their mother who lived in the US for over a decade as an illegal alien had eventually been deported back to Mexico and how these “kids” (publicly identified as illegal aliens themselves) were coming and going in their “van” to and from Mexico to visit with their since-deported mother, while they continued to live, oh, woe, in this area in the US, illegally, while attending US colleges on US resource (grants, scholarships, article said) and living in a US subsidized, nice four bedroom apartment.

We the local readers were being told to feel the woe on their behalf and I was thinking, instead, they’ve lived illegally for decades in the US, with a mother who knew she and they were here illegally, all of whom lived on US social services, owned their nice van that they were driving back and forth to/from Mexico, OWNED the van and could afford those frequent trips, and schools, the apartment…

I can’t find anything about that to feel woe for. Their mother defied deportation orders and stayed here illegally, eventually forcing her deportation. Her children knew they were, too, here illegally but continue to stay here and continue to profit and pleasure themselves from US resources…

…the only woe I felt was for the USA, that our charity and generosity and, unfortunately, indulgence of wrong doing continued so exploited and exploitable.

I can see and support helping the impoverished. But in that case and many like them, there was no ACTUAL poverty, there was only greed and a family personality of presumption: someone else owes us these things and you’re mean if you don’t give it to us and continue to.

Article was written by woman of their same ethnicity who was promoting the DREAM mess and trying to shame America for these children’s situation, a well fed, well provided for situation.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM

And yet I was unable to obtain a driver’s license. I never drove without one, but it would have been handy as an ID. Still, I got around it.

Sharke on January 13, 2013 at 12:15 AM

How was that possible? How did you drive (“never drove without one”) and yet not have a DL?

I appreciate your acumen as to your financial success and responsibility as you’ve relayed it there but you write often about how you “found yourself” engaged in illegal activity after activity…found yourself here illegally, found yourself overstaying your visa, etc., while not admitting that you either were not cognizant of what your tourist visa (or work or medical or student, whatever, visa) permitted you to do as to your stay here OR you were defying your visa terms. No one simply, oh, ho-hum, look at that, my visa is now in expiration and I’m still here, how’d that happen…

You gained legality by marrying a US citizen. I’d say that was really convenient…

I question your motives, though. You remained here illegally, you also engaged in more illegality almost certainly while here, yet now you’re promoting some sort of “ease” of our laws. No surprise there.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Well Said.
America is the Land of LEGAL Opportunity.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Rubio is our best chance st the presidency…

Him or Cruz, I don’t care, I just want our county back…

MGardner on January 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Excuse the typos…

MGardner on January 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Permit a brief analogy:

A ship at sea has sprung a leak in the hull.

We can:

1. Fix the leak (secure the border).

2. Start bailing (enforce our laws and pass HR 2885, SAVE Act, etc. – implement mandatory E-Verify to promote attrition through enforcement).

3. Declare the incoming seawater to be “cargo” for the 8th time (yet another “amnesty”.

“Amnesty” as it is being used is a misnomer. Granting residency, even without a pathway to citizenship, is a REWARD OF THE ILL-GOTTEN GOODS TO THE CRIMINAL WHO STOLE THEM!!

Anyone advocating “amnesty” should be required to show an example of an illegal activity where REWARDING the criminal with his ill-gotten goods contributes to ending the illegal activity. Maybe try it on burglars in your own neighborhood by awarding them the stolen jewels??

Attrition is the most popular, efficient, humane, just solution.

And listen to this illegal alien explain how it works where it is tried, as in Georgia.

Anyone who advocates “amnesty” is ignoring the 7 failed amnesties so far.

fred5678 on January 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM

And down goes Rubio.

There cannot be amnesty until we secure the borders and we push the vast majority of illegals to leave the country due to a lack of jobs, welfare, education, anchor babies and free healthcare.

End the incentives and make them self deport.

astonerii on January 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM

From Ed:

Marco Rubio has the inside track, I wrote, as the most talented member of the Class of 2010, the Tea Party class that owes little to the pre-existing establishment.

I would strongly disagree. Rubio is a Bush man, 110%. He was hand-picked by Jeb.

BocaJuniors on January 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM

This like most other issues we discuss doesn’t even matter any more. We’ve already gone too far down this road to turn back. We lost on this issue just as we’ve lost on the others, betrayed by our own.

DFCtomm on January 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM

betrayed by our own.

DFCtomm on January 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM

By our supposed own.

astonerii on January 13, 2013 at 5:28 PM

THEY actually work, unlike the white and black men.

Redford on January 12, 2013 at 4:53 PM

And thats kind of offensive to a white man who used to work in construction. I definitely worked hard. There didn’t really seem to be a racial competent too it, there were lazy and hard working guys of every race on our job sites. The lazy ones didn’t keep their jobs for long.

Timin203 on January 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Sorry..I should explain. I know there are lazy people in all races, however this thread is illegal immigration related. Ride by any construction site in NC, and you do not see one white or black man who is working. Other than a ‘white’ super, the crew is Hispanic. All of our hog/turkey/chicken farms are Hispanic who work very hard. The most powerful lobbying firm from my state is the ‘hog farmer’.

This is not an illegal problem, it’s the companies on profit off of cheap labor. And why do u think neither party has secured the border? The people who line their pockets profits, so do the congressmen.

Redford on January 13, 2013 at 5:34 PM

I would strongly disagree. Rubio is a Bush man, 110%. He was hand-picked by Jeb.

BocaJuniors on January 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM

I think that is mostly true. He didn’t develop any anti-establishment credibility till he decided to ambitiously cut the line, and that was when he lost his establishment support. He, however, was smart enough to hop on the tea-party train as it was leaving the station, like a true politician.

DFCtomm on January 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM

we can’t round them up easily if the liberal states are protecting them.

We sure can..by denying and withholding the billions in Federal Funds these sanctuary cities and states suck up and give away to illegals. Let them sue…..they’ll be in court forever and spend millions more they don’t have…and then let their legal citizens and taxpayers see the SHTF and try to explain to them why they’re wasting money on protecting illegals rather than attending to the needs of CITIZENS!.

Next…kill that anchor baby obscenity….reform the 14th Amendment. Leave the second alone.

Twana on January 13, 2013 at 7:30 PM

This like most other issues we discuss doesn’t even matter any more. We’ve already gone too far down this road to turn back. We lost on this issue just as we’ve lost on the others, betrayed by our own.

DFCtomm on January 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM

You do know how right you are don’t you? Our party has been so exclusive where the Democrats are inclusive. We eat our own…dems unite. Going to lose gun control debate too. Bet on it. We never set the narrative…and 2014 Dems will retake the house

Bet on it. Without Rubio or another strong minority we’ll never win the WH again…

Redford on January 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM

How was that possible? How did you drive (“never drove without one”) and yet not have a DL?

I appreciate your acumen as to your financial success and responsibility as you’ve relayed it there but you write often about how you “found yourself” engaged in illegal activity after activity…found yourself here illegally, found yourself overstaying your visa, etc., while not admitting that you either were not cognizant of what your tourist visa (or work or medical or student, whatever, visa) permitted you to do as to your stay here OR you were defying your visa terms. No one simply, oh, ho-hum, look at that, my visa is now in expiration and I’m still here, how’d that happen…

You gained legality by marrying a US citizen. I’d say that was really convenient…

I question your motives, though. You remained here illegally, you also engaged in more illegality almost certainly while here, yet now you’re promoting some sort of “ease” of our laws. No surprise there.

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM

RE: the driver’s license. I did not drive without a license. I never said that. Please read more carefully. I said that a license would be handy as ID, but I’ve gotten around that. Meaning, I use another form of ID.

Next you accuse me of saying that I “found myself” doing this or that illegally. Didn’t use the phrase once in my post. Again, please refrain from being dishonest about what I said. In actual fact, I did get into a situation where I had outstayed my visa a little and had to make the choice whether or not to go home. I chose to stay, and you will never ever make me regret that.

Are you actually questioning the validity of my marriage? Stay classy dude…and like it or leave it, gaining legality by genuine marriage IS legal. You complain about me breaking US law, and when I get my green card 100% legally, you’re not happy about that either. Tough.

I have contributed to this country and continue to contribute. I have to ask you the following questions:

1) Have YOU contributed anything to the US economy in terms of creating jobs?
2) Have YOU ever broken a law?

Chances are you will admit that yes, you have broken a law. So how is it OK for YOU to break a law and not me? Are you actually going to suggest that as a US citizen, you have more right to break the law than me? LOL.

Sharke on January 13, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Lourdes on January 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Oh and by the way, what do you mean by you “question my motives”? Do you think that I’m here as part of some nefarious plan to steal from America, or some other kind of skulduggery? Lay off the drugs pal.

Sharke on January 13, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Why would we believe anything those who do not enforce the current laws are proposing?

Liars are unbelievable.

Pimps, thieves, traitors, whores and crooks, one and all.

profitsbeard on January 13, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Oh and by the way, what do you mean by you “question my motives”? Do you think that I’m here as part of some nefarious plan to steal from America, or some other kind of skulduggery? Lay off the drugs pal.

Sharke on January 13, 2013 at 7:46 PM

You don’t need ill intent in order to break the law, which you did by your own admission. You were lucky enough to not get caught by a system of people who don’t care, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Just don’t trust this guy Rubio. Its/he’s all to establishment motivated.

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM

have contributed to this country and continue to contribute. I have to ask you the following questions:

1) Have YOU contributed anything to the US economy in terms of creating jobs?
2) Have YOU ever broken a law?

Chances are you will admit that yes, you have broken a law. So how is it OK for YOU to break a law and not me? Are you actually going to suggest that as a US citizen, you have more right to break the law than me? LOL.

Sharke on January 13, 2013 at 7:45 PM

The sense of entitlement is strong with this one.

DFCtomm on January 14, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You don’t need ill intent in order to break the law, which you did by your own admission. You were lucky enough to not get caught by a system of people who don’t care, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Good, because I sense there will be plenty good conservatives breaking the “law” when or if certain states, or god forbid the U.S. government, passes gun legislation.

Wait…but you won’t be one of those will you? By you own admission you will submit to your gun grabbing overlords.

William Eaton on January 14, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Wait…but you won’t be one of those will you? By you own admission you will submit to your gun grabbing overlords.

William Eaton on January 14, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I break the law on a daily basis, practically by existing. And don’t even get me started on the difficulty of being a business owner.

The truth of the matter is, my right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Non-citizens have no such right to be here. As I said up-thread, they are here at the pleasure of our government and we don’t need a reason at all to ask them to leave. If this bothers you Willie, bite me.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Sure, let everyone in. Who cares? It’s not as though there is an America–that is to say, a land peopled and governed by Americans–anymore anyway.

Ostrich Egg on January 14, 2013 at 11:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3