Obama to oppose Senate bill’s border enforcement requirements in immigration speech today

posted at 10:31 am on January 29, 2013 by Allahpundit

I use the term “border enforcement requirements” loosely, of course.

I’m sticking with what I wrote yesterday, that Obama’s insistence on giving a big left-wing speech about immigration is really just a way to make the Senate bill look “moderate” by comparison. He has to walk a fine line in praising the bill to keep skittish Democrats on board while criticizing the enforcement parts so that skittish Republicans can sell it to their supporters as being “too conservative for Obama.” I think that’s what he’s up to today in Vegas, but you never know with The One. The urge to fatally polarize this issue by attacking Republicans in front of a microphone might simply be too great. A friend in politics e-mailed last night with the subject line “HAHAHAHAHA” linking to this piece, which describes how Obama “does not favor linking legal status to border security,” i.e. that he wants to get work on citizenship for illegals ASAP. My friend’s take: “Obama either wants a bill to fail so that he can continue clubbing Republicans as intransigent, or he can’t help himself effing up the process.” C’mon. Could O really be so stupid as to refuse the GOP’s insane offer to add millions more Democratic voters to the rolls via a path to citizenship? We’re about to find out, my friends.

Needless to say, after his snotty digs at Republicans in his inaugural, tone will be key:

“We see the Senate principles as a centrist set of principles, but we expect the administration to be more detailed to the left,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a leading immigration advocacy group. “I don’t think it’ll be an immigration advocate’s dream, but it will be a solid left-of-center proposal.”…

Immigration advocates said they expect Obama to be forceful in his public remarks Tuesday and offer details that go beyond the blueprint on the White House Web site. But there are risks for the president, who has accused Republicans of opposing his initiatives to avoid giving him political credit.

If Obama’s speech in Las Vegas, in a state with a growing number of Hispanic voters, is too tri­umphant or too hectoring, he could risk alienating Republicans whose support will be necessary, some lawmakers have said. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Obama against delivering a “divisive, partisan speech.”

Matt Lewis makes a good point too about the timing:

While some might view Obama’s insertion into the debate as a “poison pill,” my guess is it will benefit Rubio by allowing him to attack Obama — and simultaneously push the senate’s more prudent framework. One possibility is that this could help highlight the conservative principles Rubio has been fighting to include in the deal.

And it couldn’t come at a better time. Rubio is going on Rush Limbaugh today to talk about his plan. Now — thanks to Obama — Rubio will likely spend most of his time talking about the differences between Obama’s amnesty plan and Rubio’s alternate plan (where border security and other conditions must be met prior to citizenship).

Again: Is that O’s whole strategy here, to let Republicans use him as a punching bag in order to make it easier to sell the big legalization effort to skeptical conservatives? Or is he actually trying to sabotage the bill so that he can go on kicking Republicans as obstructionist? One point in favor of the latter theory is that yesterday’s joint presser with McCain, Schumer, Rubio et al. to announce the Senate bill wasn’t originally scheduled for Monday. As of last weekend, per WaPo, they were planning to announce their agreement “as early as next Friday,” February 1. Why’d they move it up to Monday? Because, according to Politico, The One was evidently prepared to bigfoot the entire effort by giving his immigration speech today whether or not the McCain gang had announced anything of its own yet. Which is insane: If O had gone first on this, it would have been branded the “Obama immigration push” and the McCain gang’s proposals would have been dismissed as an afterthought or as a mere derivative of O’s plan. And yet the White House was prepared to risk that. Keep looking that gift horse in the mouth, champ.


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

I’m not surprised.

22044 on January 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM

GOP will still cave on this. GOP caving to Obama since 2009!

Oil Can on January 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM

The best analogy for this issue has to be having a broken water pipe in your house with it streaming out and flooding everything.

Wouldn’t be prudent to first to fix the leak before you think of cleaning up the damage?

Galt2009 on January 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM

GOP will still cave on this. GOP caving to Obama since 2009!

Of course it will…..caving to Barry ’til 2016, by which time the GOP should be extinct.

Open Borders Barry.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

The Republicans will find a way to screw this up. THey always do.

gryphon202 on January 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Oh, Bark will be snotty all right, the man is a walking, flu-infected nostril when it comes to people who oppose him. There is no way Dog Eater won’t interject himself fully into this whole mess, he can’t stand not being in the spotlight.

Bishop on January 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Is there a word strong than loathe because I need that to describe how I feel about this POS.

gophergirl on January 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Wouldn’t be prudent to first to fix the leak before you think of cleaning up the damage?

Depends upon what the goal is….in this case it’s evidently to allow the leak to expand to flood level so the the damage is beyond cleaning up.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM

I think he less wants amnesty than he wants Republicans to be to blame when it doesn’t happen. Adding all those people to the welfare rolls legally, rather than through their kids, could collapse the system while 0bama is still in office to blame.

Sekhmet on January 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Again: Is that O’s whole strategy here, to let Republicans use him as a punching bag in order to make it easier to sell the big legalization effort to skeptical conservatives?

I have trouble seeing that the GOP cares about selling amnesty to conservatives, given that they’ve been cheerfully admitting enforcement is never going to happen. They’ve practically been smug about it.

Doomberg on January 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Treason. All of them.

Treasonous bas****s.

M240H on January 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The Republicans will find a way to screw this up. THey always do.

Evidently a party plank. It’s called the Stupid Party for good reason.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Ocommio es stupido y arroganto.

FlaMurph on January 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

While some might view Obama’s insertion into the debate as a “poison pill,” my guess is it will benefit Rubio by allowing him to attack Obama

I checked the calendar to see if it was April 1st.

Matt Lewis says the darndest things sometimes.

forest on January 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Is that O’s whole strategy here, to let Republicans use him as a punching bag in order to make it easier to sell the big legalization effort to skeptical conservatives?

I seriously doubt he or his handlers are really that smart.

Or is he actually trying to sabotage the bill so that he can go on kicking Republicans as obstructionist?

This. He just can’t help but whine about the other side. It’s campaign mode 7 x 24 x 365 x 8 years.

KS Rex on January 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Good.

I hope he’s his usual douchey self and pisses off all the Republicans and blows up this deal.

I’d rather have immigration used as a cudgel against the GOP in the midterms versus 20+ million new Dem voters.

Especially in swing states like FL and TX.

RarestRX on January 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM

If there were a God , tomorrow’s headlines would read :
Obama Blows Up Immigration Deal .
( I’m a believer …. just an expression )

Lucano on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Have faith. Obama is arrogant and thinks he can talk his way out of anything using the fawning media. But in actuality, his plan will be partisan and can’t be ignored- even by MSNBC. He’s painting himself into a corner.

The GOP has not taken the initiative in any prior debate yet now are proactively tacking the issues. They should do this on the debt too before the next battle.

Its working

Bensonofben on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Actually, the dream scenario for Republicans would be to have a bill with strong enforcement provisions pass and then have Obama veto it. The best of both worlds.

tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

While some might view Obama’s insertion into the debate as a “poison pill,” my guess is it will benefit Rubio by allowing him to attack Obama

I checked the calendar to see if it was April 1st.

With Barry’s admin and our GOP leadership, it’s ALWAYS April 1st.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

This is how Obama negotiates, furthest to the left as possible. Republicans start ’round the middle.

Dongemaharu on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Flange on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

The Republicans will find a way to screw this up. THey always do.

gryphon202 on January 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM

The House republicans stopped Bush’s amnesty, it will be up to them again.

We all need to be calling our reps, and demanding they vote against this insanity.

Rebar on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

i’ve said it many times before, and i will say it again: i’m only 41 years old! i feel like an 80 year old grouch who complains about the way the world is today!!!

GhoulAid on January 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM

He is Lucy with the football…….and the gop is Charlie Brown.

Same scene, same outcome.

PappyD61 on January 29, 2013 at 10:44 AM

The House republicans stopped Bush’s amnesty, it will be up to them again.

Yes, but Bush wasn’t nearly as good at signing EOs to do what he wanted, regardless of the House.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM

The gop is DEAD DEAD DEAD………

Leave the stinking corpse.

PappyD61 on January 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Is that O’s whole strategy here, to let Republicans use him as a punching bag in order to make it easier to sell the big legalization effort to skeptical conservatives? Or is he actually trying to sabotage the bill so that he can go on kicking Republicans as obstructionist?

6 of one and half a dozen of the other, either way, we lose.

Scrumpy on January 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM

He’ll be bringing same sex couples into the picture as well…
According to article on drudge above the fold

cmsinaz on January 29, 2013 at 10:46 AM

All according to plan.

The. Fix. Is. In.

Mr. Arrogant on January 29, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Obviously not as meaningful to our political elites in DC as intended by our founding fathers.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Let’s see if Rush Limbaugh swallows Rubio’s BS sandwich whole and washes it down with a gallon of Kool-Aid as Mark Levin appears to have.

bw222 on January 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Perhaps Marco Rubio cant get in on some of those highly successful “one on one” sessions with President Obama. Y’know, take a cue from Weepy McBoner and whatnot.

Jeddite on January 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

I realize that my listening preferences are certainly partisan but I’m hearing a lot of dissent from guests on radio shows. I’m starting to think I was right in the first place, neither party wants this to happen. Maybe the could just enforce the laws already on the books, that would be a novel approach.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Why does Dear Liar have to jet off to Vegas for a single speech? Doesn’t he care about his carbon foot print and the environment? How many polar bears is he killing with this stunt?

Maybe we can get a serious journalist to ask him. How about Steve Kroft?

rbj on January 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I admit being a bit perplexed.

One of the main legitimate functions of our government is to protect its citizens. It is one of the powers very clearly articulated in our Constitution.

Yet Democrats, under the guise of implied racism, use our protection as both a political tool and therefore endless point of negotiation.

So logically, one might conclude that our protection is paramount and therefore our border must be secured.

That’s not a point of negotiation- it is a right of the people living in this Constitutional Republic.

But that being said, should we wish to discuss this in a political context, there should be no immigration changes until the border is secured. Period.

By the way, we’ve seen past deals which have “promised” to secure the border. No thanks. You want an immigration “deal” and my support? Step one is to secure the border based on concrete, tangible, easily understood measures first.

Marcus Traianus on January 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Let’s see if Rush Limbaugh swallows Rubio’s BS sandwich whole and washes it down with a gallon of Kool-Aid as Mark Levin appears to have.

bw222 on January 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Mr. Producer…Levin is a joke.

Mr. Arrogant on January 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM

GOP will still cave on this. GOP caving to Obama since 2009!

Oil Can on January 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Winning the House in 2010 didn’t do much good, did it?

bw222 on January 29, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Ding ding ding sekhmet @10:39

cmsinaz on January 29, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Maybe the could just enforce the laws already on the books, that would be a novel approach.

What will likely be done is continued selective non-enforcement of existing laws.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Si se puede part dos

cmsinaz on January 29, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I truly hate to have to do this, but…

AP’s Old & Busted (so old that it is dated 3:51 yesterday afternoon):

“To my amazement, some commentators on the center-right think Obama might want to sabotage the bipartisan bill so that he can keep using immigration as a wedge issue against the GOP and/or deny Rubio credit for a “major legislative achievement” ahead of 2016. Could O really be that much of a sucker?

Intermission:

You do realise that you are talking about Obama, don’t you?

Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 4:11 PM

AP’s Not As Old & Busted As His 3:51 PM Old & Busted, But Still Old & Busted:

Because Republicans won’t get much credit. Obama will get at least as much for having made immigration reform happen, and more importantly Democrats will net many millions of votes from legalizing illegals. You’re treating O here as though he demagogues Republicans just to spite them, to be a jerk. You deeply underestimate him if you think that. He’s trying to build a permanent Democratic majority and making a deal with the GOP here helps him do that.

Allahpundit on January 28, 2013 at 4:11 PM

AP’s New 10:31 AM Hotness:

“Sabotage?”

Facepalm, Sybil. Just facepalm. lol

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM

So the guy with a diagnosis of NPD is filling the spotlight…shocking.

hillsoftx on January 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Why does Dear Liar have to jet off to Vegas for a single speech? Doesn’t he care about his carbon foot print and the environment? How many polar bears is he killing with this stunt?

Barry is the The Lightworker (TM), TEH WON (TM), the Obamessiah (TM)…whatever he does, wherever he goes, he transcends environmental concerns, doncha know.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I thought the Hispanic Caucus asked Obama not to introduce his own plan as that would sabotage bipartisan efforts. So how is this now a clever attempt to push the bipartisan Senate plan.I called Boehner’s office today and told him that I’m aware amnesty can be stopped in the House. So if amnesty does pass I’m done with the GOP and will be voting third party from now on. Just want the GOP to realize they may loose more then they gain.

Hera on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I think the White House is in a dead panic to destroy Marco Rubio. They have to try to turn this into a bill that Rubio can’t sign on to.

rockmom on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I thought the Hispanic Caucus asked Obama not to introduce his own plan as that would sabotage bipartisan efforts.

Hera on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

They did. They realise that anything he touches immediately makes it radioactive.

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM

And, the Vichy Republicans will go right along with him.

kingsjester on January 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Well, you know, the Republicans can never learn from their past mistakes. The Dems say “Sure, we’ll cut spending after you give us tax hikes”. Never happens. They told Reagan, “Sure, we’ll give you border and immigration enforcement after you give us amnesty”. Never happened.

What is that over-used definition of insanity again? Never mind. Let’s just call it the Wimpy syndrome from the Popeye cartoons – “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” The RINOs just keep giving the hamburgers and never get paid.

iamsaved on January 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM

This is surprising…maybe to Marco Rubio

Securing our borders gets in the way of implementing Agenda 21 people…Now Quit complaining & fall in line…

workingclass artist on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

The President should make this speach as an anchor baby is being born in the background.

Oil Can on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

The smallest most petty thug in American politics would allow the GOP to beat up on him for a greater policy goal?

not a chance this petty little son of a b***h woul set his Jupitor sized ego aside.. he is incapable of putting anything above his own pride.

The only certain things after death and taxes.. is Obama’s a thug whom the media will blow like the brazen whores they are while desperately seeking to label anyone to the right of Castro as to blame for the boy kings incompetence.. I no longer believe the media will ever put country ahead of their socialist one party state agenda.. treason is to mild for what the media does to prop their thug up anymore.

mark81150 on January 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Or is he actually trying to sabotage the bill so that he can go on kicking Republicans as obstructionist?

He’ll torpedo anything that comes out of Congress to further inflame the immigration issue. He’ll use it to divide the GOP and ‘pulverize’ it in time for the 2016 elections.

petefrt on January 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Barry is the The Lightworker (TM), TEH WON (TM), the Obamessiah (TM)…whatever he does, wherever he goes, he transcends environmental concerns, doncha know.

hawkeye54 on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Please forgive me, I momentarily forgot WHOM I was talking about. (God only gets a capital W, The Whine gets all capitals.)

rbj on January 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM

A Fair Warning To Those Promoting Open Borders, Amnesty, & Free Immigration

Surprise! That “Permanent” coalition idea didn’t work out so well when Labour set out to do change the demographics of the country.

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Let’s over think this…
Statist doctrine: STFU, bend over, and take it like the b*tch we fantasize you to be.

mjbrooks3 on January 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I think the White House is in a dead panic to destroy Marco Rubio. They have to try to turn this into a bill that Rubio can’t sign on to.

rockmom on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I think that’s a big part of it.

Weight of Glory on January 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

It does not matter in the long run, well, it will not so long a run, the current debt, $17 Trillion, the next $5 Trillion, then $4 Trillion, then O’s last year another $4 or $5 Trillion.

So, there they go the two party evil money cult trying to cover their over spending tracks on the backs of these poor uneducated wage slaves from Mexico.

Current debt service at the very low rate of 3% being rolled over at 10 year maturity =’s $480 Billion a year. End of Obama/Commie Democrat spending your at $30 Trillion.

The facts will be in then and the country will not be growing fast enough so the lenders , that would be U.S. citizens, the ones of China, the oil ticks, ect. will see a much greater risk buying U.S. Treauary notes so the intrest rate goes to say 5% or 6%.

At 5% the debt service =’s $1.5 Trillion a year.

So, what you have is a bunch of broke ass con men pushing judgment down the road cause its all the fools got now. More con job shit.

Old broke dick, broke on their ass fools.

The cards are delt, they are looking at the pair of 3′s and that after they got the dealer to try to fix it with under the table cards that also ended up worthless.

The True Demon of History Comes to Judge and it will not be nice at all.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

iamsaved on January 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Yep, they should somehow incorporate Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football into their stationary. Maybe get a patch made for their jackets. If I was wealthy I would have one made and send it to every Republican.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

In 1980, Carter received 56% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 37% — a difference of 19%.

In 1984, Mondale received 66% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 34.82% — a difference of 31.18%.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 a/k/a Simpson-Mazzilo into law, which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which were Hispanic.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis won 70.15% of the Hispanic vote while the Vice-President of the man who legalised millions of Hispanics, George H W Bush, received a mere 30.85% — a difference of 39.3%.

If Hispanics could be purchased with amnesty, then they would have overwhelmingly voted Republican in 1988. They didn’t so that should tell the “brains” in the GOP something.

Continuing on…

In 1992, Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote while President George H.W. Bush won 25% – a difference of 36%.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton won 72% of the Hispanic vote while Senator Bob Dole received a mere 21% – a difference of 51%.

In 2000, Vice-President Al Gore won 62% of the Hispanic vote while George W Bush won only 35% – a difference of 27%.

In 2004, Senator John Kerry won 58% of the Hispanic vote while President George W Bush won 40% – a difference of 18%.

In 2008, Senator Barack Obama, who voted AGAINST President Bush’s immigration reform, won 67% of the Hispanic vote while Senator John McAmnesty won a mere 31% – a difference of 36%.

In 2012, President Barack Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote while Mitt Romney won only 27% – a difference of 44%.

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

If an amnesty was successful, how would the Democrats get Hispanics to stay in their camp, faithfully voting for the Democrats even though they have major disagreements with many core Democrat issues? Let’s face it, immigration is a huge stick to get the Hispanic voters to the polls checking off the box for Democrats, local and national.

So…if the Democrats make a huge public show of supporting amnesty, but manage to scuttle it, blaming the failure on obstruction by Republicans for daring to insist that border security be addressed, they believe that they can continue to bank that Hispanic vote and further demagog and vilify the Republicans to their advantage.

The DREAM Act people will get amnesty, and in return there will be limits placed on ‘chain migration’ ( aka family reunification visas) which would have allowed the parents who shattered the law and brought those children into the nation illegally to profit by their child’s amnesty. These are the people for whom there will be a limited amnesty, likely in the form of a green card, no citizenship for most, and pay back taxes, establish how long they’ve been here, submit to background checks, etc. Deals will also be struck to concentrate on more visas for high skilled immigrants, and for seasonal visas for lower skilled agricultural workers, etc. ( but with increased border security and enforcement of E-Verify on a national level).

Both sides will then proclaim victory.

I expect a series of similar ‘deal’ to be struck on most key Democrat issues, since granting the LEFT their wish list would guarantee that they Democrats would find their base sitting at home on the couch, rather than going to the polls to vote. This is a base that is motivated, every electoral cycle, by fear and grievance. Remove those sticks to get them to the polls, and they’ll find something else to do on election day. Hence, a little bit on most of the issues will be accomplished, with both sides able to claim victory so their bases remain motivated.

thatsafactjack on January 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I think the White House is in a dead panic to destroy Marco Rubio. They have to try to turn this into a bill that Rubio can’t sign on to.

rockmom on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

This.

petefrt on January 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Meanwhile, jobs and the economy aren’t even on the radar screen. Terrific.

I’m not sure why the GOP is on board with this. They won’t get credit with Latino voters, and they’ll have granted the Dem Party millions of new voters. Better to stick with border security only than laughingly connect it with amnesty.

changer1701 on January 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Winning the House in 2010 didn’t do much good, did it?

bw222 on January 29, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Let’s not get too carried away here. Getting the House stopped some pretty bad things. We could have had carbon caps, draconian gun control, higher taxes, card check, validation of EPA over-reach and a host of other liberal dreams if Pelosi and Reid had maintained their control.

Yeah, Boener sucks, but there are some positives here.

AZfederalist on January 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM

If Obama’s speech in Las Vegas, in a state with a growing number of Hispanic voters, is too tri­umphant or too hectoring, he could risk alienating Republicans whose support will be necessary, some lawmakers have said. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Obama against delivering a “divisive, partisan speech.”

Obviously the Washington Post still does not get Barack Obama. He is a community organizer. A prefessional agitator. He is not a conciliator or a facilitator. He is not a leader. He does not care about solutions. He does not care about being mildly chastised by an otherwise compliant media about his tone or divisiveness. He cares only about arguments and agitation.

I don’t think he really cares about getting all those illegals on the voting rolls. There are enough legal Hispanic voters now to ensure a permanent Democratic majority, as long as they stay agitated against the Republican Party.

His primary goal is the destruction of the Republican Party and winning back the House in 2014. Making a deal with the Republicans, and especially with Marco Rubio, on immigration does not serve that goal.

rockmom on January 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Wasn’t there a story in the headlines yesterday stating that the Donks even want him to shut up about this because even they know he will cause this to crash it. He is evil incarnate.

D-fusit on January 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM

petefrt on January 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

It may be true but like AP pointed out yesterday, that will only help Rubio with the base. I thought it was pretty cynical, and it is, but it also might be good politics on Rubio’s part. Now I just have to convince myself that we might actually have someone on the Right that can play the game against Obama. I wish I didn’t care so I could watch in detached interest.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Let’s see if Rush Limbaugh swallows Rubio’s BS sandwich whole and washes it down with a gallon of Kool-Aid as Mark Levin appears to have.

bw222 on January 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Think Rubio will be on with Rush today in second hour .

Lucano on January 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

D-fusit on January 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Remember that stretch he had when every time he campaigned for someone they lost. Maybe the good times are back.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Because, according to Politico, The One was evidently prepared to bigfoot the entire effort by giving his immigration speech today whether or not the McCain gang had announced anything of its own yet. Which is insane: If O had gone first on this, it would have been branded the “Obama immigration push” and the McCain gang’s proposals would have been dismissed as an afterthought or as a mere derivative of O’s plan. And yet the White House was prepared to risk that. Keep looking that gift horse in the mouth, champ.

You’re implying that Socialists like Obama have some sort of sanity, which is highly questionable.

Spoiled children do not have an ounce of sanity in them. Spoiled children that are devotees of 60′s radicalism and Chicago politics have the exact same disposition as Dr. Strangelove.

Myron Falwell on January 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Need we say more about stocking up on guns and ammo? Forget about only 11 million illegals getting amnesty, those numbers will swell once the word gets out if it hasn’t already. The open flood gates will include drug cartels, gang members and anyone else who wants to do harm to this country. It’s kind of like inviting the vampire into one’s home. Don’t count on your friendly liberal government to help. They want to remove your means of self-defense.

Your calls to your congressmen and women will fall on deaf ears if they have an agenda. Your donations and support for the NRA may be your best defense.

Never thought I’d see the tyranny that’s unfolding so rapidly in my lifetime just a decade or so ago.

iamsaved on January 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

In 2004, Senator John Kerry won 58% of the Hispanic vote while President George W Bush won 40% – a difference of 18%.

In 2008, Senator Barack Obama, who voted AGAINST President Bush’s immigration reform, won 67% of the Hispanic vote while Senator John McAmnesty won a mere 31% – a difference of 36%.

In 2012, President Barack Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote while Mitt Romney won only 27% – a difference of 44%.

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Take a look at those 2004 numbers, folks. This is what the Democrats fear most – another Republican that can appeal to the EXISTING Hispanic voters. They cannot win an election with less than 90% of the black vote and less than 60% of the Hispanic vote.

It is paramount for the Democrats that they continue to attack and caricature Republicans as anti-immigrant. Making a deal with Marco Rubio will not help.

rockmom on January 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Have faith. Obama is arrogant and thinks he can talk his way out of anything using the fawning media. But in actuality, his plan will be partisan and can’t be ignored- even by MSNBC. He’s painting himself into a corner.

The GOP has not taken the initiative in any prior debate yet now are proactively tacking the issues. They should do this on the debt too before the next battle.

Its working

Bensonofben on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

and

I think the White House is in a dead panic to destroy Marco Rubio. They have to try to turn this into a bill that Rubio can’t sign on to.

rockmom on January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Interesting.

esr1951 on January 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Let’s see if Rush Limbaugh swallows Rubio’s BS sandwich whole and washes it down with a gallon of Kool-Aid as Mark Levin appears to have.

bw222 on January 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Hannity caved on immigration the day after the election, so it’s very probable.

Maybe Rush will surprise and hold firm, or he deliberately stays neutral, but in a deeply pessimist tone (the latter I consider most likely).

Myron Falwell on January 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM

President Pander Obama.

sadatoni on January 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM

All kabuki theater. Just like “professional wrestling” both parties put on a “show” battle, and end up getting what they both want in the end, more government and less freedom for the serfs. All hail the omnipotent federal government and their imperial city of DC.

djtnt on January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Its an impossible bill. How will an illegal alien gardener come up with the funds to pay taxes, fines and for English lessons. The whole thing is a joke.

ctmom on January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Now I just have to convince myself that we might actually have someone on the Right that can play the game against Obama.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

When you succeed at that, pls let me know how you did it, so I can do it too.

petefrt on January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I already hear John Boener asking if he can get his ballet slippers upgraded to rock shoes.

LoganSix on January 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM

So, there they go the two party evil money cult trying to cover their over spending tracks on the backs of these poor uneducated wage slaves from Mexico.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I do believe you have hit on the perfect idea!

This could be the straw that may break the dems back, this needs to be pushed out front every time!

Thank you for your insight!

Scrumpy on January 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I think AP’s analysis is essentially correct. I also think that Obama is a racist who hates a white majority America. We know that Obama is frequently insincere in what he is saying. But I can’t pull all this altogether well enough to predict the tenor of Obama’s speech.

thuja on January 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM

The GOP’s “negotiations” must consist of them standing in front of a mirror and doing a reverse Stuart Smalley routine for hours on end.

(“I’m not good enough, I’m not smart enough, and doggone it, everybody hates me.”)

Myron Falwell on January 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Smug arrogant jerk.

Everything has to pass through his anal oriface to be golden.

Sorry Barry, your excrement smells just like mine does.

itsspideyman on January 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Since Schumer wants to jump in front of cameras, rename the bill the Rubio-Schumer Act and make it explicitly clear that it was the product of a bipartisan agreement. Have everyone appearing on TV call it that and put Barky to the left of the New York Nut Job and have him lose all support. If Obama still puts his bill forward, pull out of negotiations and make Hispanics elect Rubio in 2016.

blammm on January 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Let’s actually go back to 1965 and see what our then-rulers predicted would happen following the passage of the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:

“This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power..This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here. This is a simple test, and it is a fair test. Those who can contribute most to this country–to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit–will be the first that are admitted to this land…The days of unlimited immigration are past. But those who do come will come because of what they are, and not because of the land from which they sprung.”

- President Lyndon B Johnson, signing into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 at the base of the Statue of Liberty, Liberty Island, 3 October 1965

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

- Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965. pp. 1-3

“I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle it [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there would be any great influx after that.”

- Attorney General Robert Kennedy, testifying on immigration reform, U.S. Congress, House, 1964 hearings, p. 418

“This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the numbers of newcomers permitted to come to America. Indeed, this measure provides for an increase of only a small fraction in permissible immigration.”

- Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965, p.8

“The present estimate, based upon the best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from India in the next five years … I don’t think we have a particular picture of a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States … There is not a general move toward the United States.”

- Secretary of State Dean Rusk – U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington D.C., 10 February 1965, p.65

“I am aware that this bill is more concerned with the equality of immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event that the great days of immigration have long since run their course. World population trends have changed, and changing economic and social conditions at home and abroad dictate a changing migratory pattern.”

- Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL), Congressional Record, 25 August 1965, p. 21793

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Ding ding ding sekhmet @10:39

cmsinaz on January 29, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I’m tech support. I’m used to being right :)

Anyway, working in the schools as I do, I see bilingual pre-K standing-room-only, elementary schools bursting at the seams, but middle schools and high schools into which these schools feed haven’t expanded much in a decade. This suggests to me that many illegal families have their babies, then GTFO before the youngest is 5 and can’t qualify the family for any more TANF. Mama and Papa don’t qualify, the kid does–but only for five years.

Sekhmet on January 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Not surprising. Barry evidently believes he has ‘the momentum’ to get his ideas on ‘immigration reform’ AKA amnesty passed without increasing border enforcement.

Therefore, HE will gather all the credit.

For some reason, HE believes that in the end, the Republicans will cave. Again.

GarandFan on January 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM

petefrt on January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Sometimes it looks like it is pleasant to be a low information voter, doesn’t it. Do you want to talk about Michelle’s new wig?

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Surprise! That “Permanent” coalition idea didn’t work out so well when Labour set out to do change the demographics of the country.

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The upside will be watching lazy union douchebags get replaced by Juan and Julio at a much cheaper rate. I look forward to their tears.

VegasRick on January 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I’m tech support. I’m used to being right :)

Sekhmet on January 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Please tell me you don’t ask if the computer is plugged in when someone reads the error message on their screen.

Cindy Munford on January 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM

To our Hispanic readers:

The democrats are willing to sacrifice YOU on the altar as wage slaves to solve our debt problems. Is this what you want? Do YOU truly think the democrats have YOUR best interests at heart? You really need to think this through.
Obama is USING YOU!

Do not allow yourselves to be used like this.

It will not go well for you.

Please think about this, do you really want to be the sacrifical Lamb on Obamas’ altar?

Los demócratas están dispuestos a sacrificar en el altar como esclavos asalariados para resolver nuestros problemas de deuda. ¿Es esto lo que quieres? ¿De verdad cree que los demócratas tienen sus mejores intereses en el corazón? Usted realmente necesidad de pensar en esto.
Obama lo está usando!

No os dejéis utilizado de esta manera.

No va a ir bien para usted.

Por favor piense en esto, ¿de verdad quieres ser el Cordero sacrificial en el altar de Obamas ‘?

Scrumpy on January 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM

This is pure gamesmanship. He is doing this so that the left/GOP can claim that there “are too tough enforcement provisions” in the bill.

Then, he will eventually compromise and support the bill “despite” the “tough enforcement measurements”.

this way, all the media will continue to talk about the “tough enforcement measurements” convincing the idiots American electorate that there are in fact “tough” enforcement mechanisms and therefore it is not just an amnesty.

This is a three card monte game that the GOP is involved in as well.

Monkeytoe on January 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM

And, even Republicans either bought into the BS or were in on the deception:

“Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States … with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 … the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population .. .Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.”

- Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI), U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965, pp.71, 119

“The preferences which would be established by this proposal are based, I believe, on sound reasoning and meritorious considerations, not entirely dissimilar in effect from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.”

– Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Congressional Record, 17 September 1965, p. 24237

Sort of like when Senator Hubert Humphrey said “I’ll eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas” when the Senate was debating Affirmative Action.

A few of people, who opposed The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, did see that the new system, even with tight controls to protect the labour force, would result in dramatic changes:

“We estimate that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more … shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?”

- Congressman William Miller (R-NY), Republican Vice Presidential candidate, The New York Times, 8 September 1964, p. 14

[Note: Although immigration did increase as dramatically as Rep. Miller predicted, it took longer than he thought. By 1968 — when the law fully took effect — the 1965 level of 290,697 had increased to 454,448, "only" a 56 percent increase.]

“What I object to is imposing no limitation insofar as areas of the earth are concerned, but saying that we are throwing the doors open and equally inviting people from the Orient, from the islands of the Pacific, from the subcontinent of Asia, from the Near East, from all of Africa, all of Europe, and all of the Western Hemisphere on exactly the same basis. I am inviting attention to the fact that this is a complete and radical departure from what has always heretofore been regarded as sound principles of immigration.”

- Sen. Spessard Holland (D-FL), Congressional Record, 22 September 1965, p. 24779

Among those who more accurately foresaw the future effects of the change in immigration law was a certain Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, who testified at a Senate immigration subcommittee hearing:

“In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world’s unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome … for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands….We should remember that people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian welfare handouts … lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural patterns …Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.”

– Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965, pp. 681-687

Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 11:24 AM

This President has always been incompetent or uninterested in dealing with Congress. He mismanaged Obamacare by leaving Congress to its own devices while he grandstanded and gave speeches, and now he’s going to mismanage immigration by pushing his own agenda, no matter how unpalatable it is to the people that he needs to pass it.

Jandric on January 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM

It’s kind of foolish to focus on “this will destroy the GOP”. The GOP is already dead. They died from from a disease that included, among many other things, their last attempt at passing amnesty in 2007. That’s when I left the party for good. All we have left are useful idiots that with any luck, we can use to stop this travesty.

This isn’t only amnesty it’s amnesty on steroids. Amnesty is the pardon for a crime committed. This is much more than that. Not only are the illegal aliens pardoned, they get to keep the spoils of their crime (their illegal presence in the country). Not only do they get to keep the spoils of their crime they are additionally showered with jobs, social services, education, Obamacare and through voting, reward the traitorous politicians who are doing this.

This must be stopped cold. Please join NumbersUSA. They helped us defeat amnesty in 2007.

If we don’t stop this, every conservative issue discussed on this board will be a lost cause as 15 million newly minted, low information, economically needy, voters tilt the scales to the liberals forever. Gun control will be a reality. Obamacare will enjoy permanence. Corporate welfare will find no effective political resistance. The means to which unrecognizable changes to the Constitution will be realized. The liberal utopia will be achieved once this is passed. Incrementalism will have won the final battle. This is the line in the sand for the future of this country.

voiceofreason on January 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

This President has always been incompetent or uninterested in dealing with Congress. He mismanaged Obamacare by leaving Congress to its own devices while he grandstanded and gave speeches, and now he’s going to mismanage immigration by pushing his own agenda, no matter how unpalatable it is to the people that he needs to pass it.

Jandric on January 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM

It looks like he’s incompetent, but in the end, he gets what he wants. Always.

He wanted to ruin health care for everyone and to destroy religious liberty – he got it.

He wanted to get massive tax increases on everyone – he got it.

He wanted to spend like there is no tomorrow with no budget getting passed through Congress – he got it and keeps getting it.

He wants to destroy the GOP and exterminate all conservatives – he’s getting it.

He wants to destroy America – he’s getting it.

Obama could, in the end, be the most ‘incompetent and uninterested’ pResident to have accomplished so much.

Myron Falwell on January 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM

This immigration argument is the Democrats pandering for your votes, do you sincerely believe you will be better off in the end?

We have high unemployment as it is.

Please do not get me wrong, I am just trying in my simple way to warn you of what is going to happen.

We both know the demographics, many millions of you will be relegated to doing drudge work.

Yes! You will make more money here, but in your heart of hearts, search for the truth, do you want to be wage slaves to the democrats?

I don’t believe so.

This is difficult for all of us.

I just want you to search your hearts, and see what the democrats are doing to you!

Este argumento inmigración es que los demócratas proxenetismo por sus votos, ¿usted sinceramente cree que va a ser mejor en el final?

Tenemos un alto desempleo como es.

Por favor, no me malinterpreten, estoy tratando en mi camino sencillo para advertirle de lo que va a suceder.

Los dos sabemos que la demografía, muchos millones de ustedes será relegado a hacer trabajo esclavo.

¡Sí! Usted hará más dinero aquí, pero en su fuero interno, la búsqueda de la verdad, ¿quieres ser esclavos asalariados a los demócratas?

Yo no lo creo.

Esto es difícil para todos nosotros.

Sólo quiero que usted busque sus corazones, y ver lo que los demócratas están haciendo para ti!

Scrumpy on January 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM

voiceofreason on January 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

There really is no way it can be stopped. All we can hope for is for the US to finally descend into permanent financial ruin, have the under-30 crowd rape, loot and pillage just like the Greeks did, and pray that either the Islamoafacists or the Chinese who conquer this country won’t kill us swiftly with the enriched nuclear weapons built by the Iranians under our nose for close to 15 years.

It isn’t just the GOP that’s dead. America as a whole is dead, and we are just starting to realize the rotten, smelling corpse it has become. It can’t be saved.

Myron Falwell on January 29, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Keep looking that gift horse in the mouth, champ.

Keep looking that gift horse in the mouth, champ. CHUMP!

FIFY.

belad on January 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2