Pushback: Gingrich, Vitter, National Review, Malkin, Coulter, Erickson oppose Rubio’s immigration plan

posted at 3:51 pm on January 30, 2013 by Allahpundit

The key subplot to Rubio’s immigration push, of course, is how much of a headache it’ll be for him with conservatives in the 2016 primaries. The talk-radio charm offensive is mainly designed to get grassroots opinion-shapers like Rush to at least wait and see what the bill looks like before lobbying against it, but more broadly it’s designed to move the Overton window on what positions are acceptable for a good conservative to hold. Rubio can afford to have immigration reform fail; he can’t afford to be RINO-ized over it. Like I said yesterday, whether or not a bill ends up passing, he’s already achieved something significant by getting Rush et al. to acknowledge that “recognizing reality” in terms of a grand bargain on immigration is something “admirable and noteworthy.” No matter what happens now, unless he ends up voting for a watered-down Democratic bill with token enforcement (which he won’t), he’s got that as a soundbite for his primary ads in 2016. James Antle makes a good point too in noting that none of Rubio’s would-be rivals for the nomination have attacked him on this yet. Jindal, Paul, and Christie have all kept quiet and Ryan has actually endorsed Rubio’s plan. The likely candidates don’t want to alienate Latino voters and the pundits with big audiences don’t want to kneecap a guy who might end up being the party’s best chance to regain the presidency.

So how’s all of this playing with conservatives in the Senate and online? Is Rubiomania enough in itself to convince people to reserve judgment until the first draft bill hits the floor in March? Not yet:

“I love and respect Marco. I think he’s just amazingly naïve on this issue,” Vitter said. “This is the same old formula that we’ve dealt with before, including when it passed in 1986, and that is promises of enforcement and immediate amnesty. And of course, the promises of enforcement never materialize. The amnesty happens immediately — the millisecond the bill is signed into law, and the same is true here. No, they won’t be citizens immediately. They will be legal.”

“Citizenship is guaranteed at that point as a practical matter,” he added…

“Look, as soon as you give these people a legal status, to say that you’re going to reverse that is ridiculous,” Vitter said. “It’ll never happen. As soon as you give them a legal status, they are here legally forever and probably they’re citizens pretty darn soon after. And if Marco thinks no matter what happens or doesn’t happen on the enforcement side that’s not going to happen, I just think he’s nuts.”

Yeah, Rubio’s wisely focused on the enforcement provisions in his chats with conservative media but even if he gets Schumer et al. to bend a little on those — which I think they will, if only because enforcement can be eroded over time — he’s got the problem Vitter mentions of immediate probationary legal status for illegals who are already here. I don’t think Schumer will be as yielding about that. Neither does National Review, which opposes the bill in part on grounds that, let’s face it, there’s no way Democrats can be trusted on this issue:

[B]roader reform measures must wait until credible enforcement mechanisms are in place. Those mechanisms include, at a minimum, a physically secured border and mandatory universal use of the E-Verify system, which confirms the legal status of new hires. We agree with Senator Rubio’s view that “we can’t be the only nation in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws. . . . Modernization of the legal immigration system is impossible unless we first secure the border and implement an E-Verify system.” We very much doubt that Senator Rubio will achieve meaningful border security in cooperation with Senators Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, and Bennet. The less-of-the-same version being developed in the House with the support of John Boehner and Paul Ryan almost certainly will suffer from similar defects, since it appears to be based on the same premises…

Senator Rubio, an exemplary conservative leader, is correct that our immigration system is broken. And he is correct that, at some point, we are going to have to do something about the millions of illegals already here. But he is wrong about how to go about repairing our immigration system, and wrong to think that an amnesty-and-enforcement bill at this time will end up being anything other than the unbuttered side of a half-a-loaf deal. And there is no reason to make a bad deal for fear of losing a Latino vote Republicans never had.

If you believe, as NR does and as even some liberals acknowledge, that Latinos are likely to go on voting Democratic in the medium-term at least, then it’s perfectly rational for Democrats to go on trying to weaken border security measures in the drafting process and later, after something’s passed. (Passionate supporters of organized labor may disagree, natch.) Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich objects to the bill partly because he objects to the process:

Gingrich, who won applause for his piecemeal immigration reform package during the 2012 GOP presidential primaries, said he would not endorse the bipartisan immigration reform pushed by McCain and Rubio–and that is extremely similar to President Obama’s offering…

“Frankly, I’m pretty tired of a handful of people in Washington, starting with the president, meeting in secret meetings in closed rooms to cut giant deals to come out with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote to then tell the rest of us that it will be a catastrophe if we vote ‘no.’ I think that’s really bad government and I don’t think it produces good ideas,” said Gingrich.

Read Erick Erickson and the boss emeritus for further objections. Conservatives on the Hill are evidently already worried about Rubio getting rolled by Schumer and hurting himself for 2016, but like I said, I think that’s overblown. If worse comes to worst and grassroots opinion turns decisively against the bill, Rubio will turn on it too. He’s already done most of the heavy lifting he needs to do on this issue by making himself a face of immigration reform, no matter what the eventual outcome. And no matter what you think of the bill, his media outreach effort is impressive. It’s not just Rush and Hannity he’s talking to; he came on Ed’s radio show the other day to speak directly to blog readers and he’s got an op-ed today at Red State responding to Erickson’s piece. If you think the GOP suffers from chronically poor messaging, as basically every conservative does, then take some comfort in the fact that this guy knows what he’s doing on that front even if you oppose his goal.

Here’s Coulter with Howie Carr, also in need of a lottttt of persuasion.


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 4

What does any of this have to do with the specific column that was written by Ann Coulter today that I said I agree with?

Answer: absolutely nothing.

If you like Rubio’s proposal, then defend it. Otherwise get off my back, jack.

JannyMae on January 30, 2013 at 6:39 PM

I don’t need to know what Christie’s plan is on immigration because Obama gave a speech on it yesterday.

Coulter-Christie-Obama: The Love Triangle.

William Eaton on January 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Hi Ann, I love your state!

jjnco73 on January 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Thank you, you would have loved it even more 30 years ago before the invasion from the south. When you see the damaging effects up close and personal, you fight alot harder to stop it than if you live in a place that’s isolated far and away from it.

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2013 at 7:14 PM

mike_NC9 on January 30, 2013 at 6:39 PM

You do realize that “sweet, hardworking mom” is either guilty of fraud or identy theft in order to be working here right? And she’s taking the job of an American citizen in a time of horrific unemployemnt. And what is she teaching her daughter about law breaking?

hopeful on January 30, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Why, high tech jobs of course. Pay no attention to the current legal Hispanic unemployment rate of 11% though.

xblade on January 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Maybe he needs to take a tutorial on fake crying, cause what he’s currently doing ain’t cutting it.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Gingrich, Vitter, National Review, Malkin, Coulter, Erickson oppose Rubio’s immigration plan

Only National Review is consequential.

The others?

They’re either hate-everything-that’s-not-far-Right (Malkin), self-inflicted irrelevant (Vitter, Gingrich), say-anything-to-sell-books (Coulter), or pretty much unknown (Erickson).

itsnotaboutme on January 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Hang in there, Newt! Oh wait……….

tommy71 on January 30, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Only National Review is consequential.

The others?

They’re either hate-everything-that’s-not-far-Right (Malkin), self-inflicted irrelevant (Vitter, Gingrich), say-anything-to-sell-books (Coulter), or pretty much unknown (Erickson).

itsnotaboutme on January 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Where in all that touchy-feely, bleeding heart crapola did you address my points, and Ann Coulter’s?

Oh, sure…wouldn’t want you to think of them as human or something.

I live in AZ. Barack Ovomit has been suing the state of AZ to PREVENT us from sealing the border.

John McCain lives in Arizona too…but I suppose he doesn’t count. What Obama says isn’t relevant in regards to Rubio’s position on the illegal immigration issue. And I’ve already said I’m all for securing the border. Build a moat and fillit with man-eating sharks if that’s what it takes.

They have not been sealing the borders, and they have no intention of sealing the borders.

Again, how is that relevant to Rubio’s points? I’m really disappointed I missed Ed’s interview with him on TEMS the other day…would have been very interesting.

Rubio is an utter fool if he believes that. All we have to do to know that is to look at what happened in ’86 when Reagan agreed to the “one time amnesty” with the promise the border would be sealed.

There’s that “amnesty” term again…and again, I’m not in disagreement with you over sealing the border.

Rewarding the illegals who are already here will only encourage more to come illegally. That’s what happened in ’86, and that’s what will happen now. It will make the problem worse, not better.

This isn’t about rewards, or the strawman argument that it’ll “encourage” more illegals to come. It’s not like all would be forgiven and the illegals will be forgiven. There are a variety of penalties, prerequisites, and certain requirements…not to mention, getting in the back of the line. McCain’s been saying this for years.

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Whether Rubio is right or not, he is still a freaking RINO. As is Chris Christie. And Coulter. And Hannity.

Faramir on January 30, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Not that I disagree, but I’m begining to wonder exactly what would make someone not a RINO? Maybe we can come up something else/better to describe them, or us non-RINO’s?

Nutstuyu on January 30, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Hey Nutstuyu………..Faramir is a Mark Levin fan. Everyone is RINO if Mark says so

AYNBLAND on January 30, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Rubio, unless he is soundly rejected, may succeed where even Obama could not in writing America’s epitaph.

VorDaj on January 30, 2013 at 7:26 PM

La Raza ♥ Rubio

Obama ♥ Rubio

VorDaj on January 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Only National Review is consequential.

The others?

They’re either hate-everything-that’s-not-far-Right (Malkin), self-inflicted irrelevant (Vitter, Gingrich), say-anything-to-sell-books (Coulter), or pretty much unknown (Erickson).

itsnotaboutme on January 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I did not say that was evidence.

I did criticize some folks.

Um, you did the same thing to me.

itsnotaboutme on January 30, 2013 at 7:29 PM

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Boo fricking hoo. Cry me a river. Why don’t you look into the eyes of 6 yr old Brandon Adams’ parents eyes and tell them that the illegal drunk driver that killed their child was only looking for a better life? That would be human compassion wouldn’t it?

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2013 at 7:30 PM

When will the US become “the Balkin’s” part 2? It’s true, history repeats itself!

jjnco73 on January 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM

fred5678 on January 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM

That may work for those that came here recently, but there are so many illegals that have been here so long it would be almost inhumane to force them to leave now in my humble opinion. But I also know that the influx of illegals could be dramatically reduced if we could enlist those that have been here for a time to help curb illegal immigration in exchange for citizenship. Attrition sounds good on paper, but I think we need a new approach. I’m with Marco.

mike_NC9 on January 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM

“sounds good on paper” — listen to the illegal alien explain how it actually works when applied!

Attrition doesn’t force people to leave – they just can’t get any jobs or benefits while here, encouraging them to leave on their own, as the guy in the GA video decided. If illegal grandma can live with her legal relatives, no problem. But if her illegal son can’t get a job, maybe they will all go home.

Amnesty is simply rewarding the criminals with their ill-gotten goods (residency). Why not try that brilliant strategy with the burglars in your own neighborhood? Reward the burglars with the stolen jewels. You think burglaries would increase or decrease?

There is no other activity other than immigration wherein ILLEGAL activity is even being contemplated being rewarded. Mind-boggling.

You can’t ignore human nature. If you REWARD illegal behavior, you will get more of it. If you STOP the rewards, benefits, etc. you will get less of it. Very simple.

fred5678 on January 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

There are children crying everywhere.

Their tears do not mean what you are trying to make them mean. You seem fine with tossing out the law because it might hurt someone’s feelings. Most of us are not.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

So using your logic, no mother or father should ever be sent to prison??

Straw man argument – the illegal parent should take his child with him to his home country, of course. Much more humane then sending the parent to prison!!

fred5678 on January 30, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Their tears do not mean what you are trying to make them mean. You seem fine with tossing out the law because it might hurt someone’s feelings. Most of us are not.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM

It’s like beating your head against the wall sometimes, isn’t it? No wonder I have to take Excedrin Migraine like M&Ms.

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Boo fricking hoo. Cry me a river. Why don’t you look into the eyes of 6 yr old Brandon Adams’ parents eyes and tell them that the illegal drunk driver that killed their child was only looking for a better life? That would be human compassion wouldn’t it?

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Don’t even pull that crapola with me…you know damn well what I meant.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM

It’s like beating your head against the wall sometimes, isn’t it? No wonder I have to take Excedrin Migraine like M&Ms.

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2013 at 7:36 PM

They seem to think that out of control emotionalism is actually an argument.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Don’t even pull that crapola with me…you know damn well what I meant.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Yes, American citizens need not apply for compassion.

jjnco73 on January 30, 2013 at 7:46 PM

fred5678 on January 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM

That video is 5 years old. Are there no illegal immigrants in Georgia any more? If so, how? Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not pro illegal immigration as some of the hateful asses here would like to imply. I just think we need to accept the fact that the American people played a part in getting us to this point just as we played a part in having the stores full of Chinese products instead of made in America ones. And some of the reasons are the same. I don’t claim to have the answers, I just know they’re not easy questions.

mike_NC9 on January 30, 2013 at 7:54 PM

If I break into a Costco at night and try to live there and raise a family, imagine how sad my kids will be when a police officer makes me leave.

Rusty Allen on January 30, 2013 at 8:03 PM

That video is 5 years old. …

mike_NC9 on January 30, 2013 at 7:54 PM

So what? Human nature hasn’t changed, has it?

If you REWARD any activity (residency, in-state tuition, drivers licenses, ability to work, DREAM Act, etc), you will get more of it.

If you DISCOURAGE an activity, you will get less of it.

That will ALWAYS be true – 5 years ago, today, and in the future.

fred5678 on January 30, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Kids see their parents go to jail all the time when they break the law. So the answer is simple “sorry Dora, daddy broke the law and has to leave”.

Rusty Allen on January 30, 2013 at 8:06 PM

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

I’m sure children are sad when their parents are taken away after being convicted of grandtheft auto, robbery or murder. But we don’t ignore the law. Entering the country illegally is a federal crime, its a felony on a second offense. Better to be deported right away then sent to prison and then deported.

Hera on January 30, 2013 at 8:17 PM

hopeful on January 30, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Okay, maybe you’re right. They just just leave. But someone is going to have to force them to. I don’t have the power or the heart to. My only crime is being willing to trade letting them (immigrants that want to assimilate into America) stay for border security and getting rid of the violent criminal illegals from any country not just Mexico. That may be wishful thinking on my part, but I do know that being dead set against IR at all costs is just making the matter worse and giving all sorts of political fodder for both sides to use against the other. When will it stop?

mike_NC9 on January 30, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Yes, American citizens need not apply for compassion.

jjnco73 on January 30, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Ole Jet doesn’t like to hear the dirty underbelly side of the illegal problem. Maybe it would be easier for him to stomach if it wasn’t a child that was killed, but maybe a police officer like Rodney Johnson.

The suspect was an illegal alien who had been deported in 1999, but illegally reentered the United States. On May 8, 2008 the suspect was convicted of capital murder.

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2013 at 8:20 PM

I will agree to NOTHING unless the border is sealed.
We are NOT going to be back in this same spot again…..

mmcnamer1 on January 30, 2013 at 8:28 PM

The key subplot to Rubio’s immigration push, of course, is how much of a headache it’ll be for him with conservatives in the 2016 primaries.

…well…look at his lips!…he sucks already!

KOOLAID2 on January 30, 2013 at 8:38 PM

I will agree to NOTHING unless the border is sealed.
We are NOT going to be back in this same spot again…..

mmcnamer1 on January 30, 2013 at 8:28 PM

…the Senile Senator and the rest of the $hitheads say you fell for promises numerous times before…and you will suck it up again…and like it!

KOOLAID2 on January 30, 2013 at 8:42 PM

A few (very serious) questions for Marco Rubio:
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/30/marco-rubio-better-answer-some-questions-first/?singlepage=true

onlineanalyst on January 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM

I will agree to NOTHING unless the border is sealed.
We are NOT going to be back in this same spot again…..

mmcnamer1 on January 30, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Too bad that 600 douchebags have taken you out of the equation on this and just about every other choice in your life.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Odd that AP considers Erickson deserving to be on that list with the others.

slickwillie2001 on January 30, 2013 at 8:58 PM

With Marco Rubio now calling amnesty, “earn-esty”, I am wondering when he will officially/legally change his name from Marco Rubio to Marco Orwell.

VorDaj on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Republicans hate children… and clean air. Can we please stop trying to pretend otherwise?

MT on January 30, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Conservatives have threatened to stay at home for a long time, but 2012 appears to be the first election where they really made good on that threat.

Doomberg on January 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I’m actually worried that 2014 is going to be the opposite of 2010. 2010 saw a surge of new voters and a huge landslide for the Tea Party. 2014 will be status quo for dem turnout(unions will work it 24/7 365 as usual) but a huge drop off in the republican turnout.

Are the Rs generating some excitement with this new “open” strategy? I don’t feel it. Are even the R hacks here getting jacked up over this new and improved GOP? I don’t see it. You might think,wrongly, that amnesty is the winning long term strategy but you have to admit you are going to get killed over this in 2014. You don’t think the Rs are going to get a wave of support over this in 2014?!? If this goes through then in 2014 R’s lose the base and gain nothing.

A massacre. The house flips.

BoxHead1 on January 30, 2013 at 9:06 PM

you = GOP

BoxHead1 on January 30, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Also this 11 million illegal number is bull crap. Hispanics voted in the last election at 10%. Yet the cencus said they are 17% of the population. That means about 7% of the population is illegal Hispanics. That is 22 million illegal hispanics. 7% of 320 million. This doesn’t even count the illegals of other races. Or that there might be a lot more who were afraid to answer the census because they were not here legally. It could be over 30 million. Think about that when you consider that only 12 million Hispanics voted in 2012.

KMav on January 30, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Agreed, in fact little Bammie would not have won the election of 2012 without the ILLEGAL alien vote.

Illegals vote in numbers greater than his margin over Romney.

slickwillie2001 on January 30, 2013 at 9:11 PM

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

.
I can do it, and send the child with them.

What do you mean by “for good?” Once they’re back across the border, they’re allowed to go through the immigration process and come back, legally.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 9:17 PM

It seems to me that anyone with false identity or stolen identity should be given the heave-ho with never a chance to apply for citizenship, a green card, or a worker’s permit.

onlineanalyst on January 30, 2013 at 9:20 PM

I agree with Newt and Rubio both. We need to demand border enforcement and at the same time accept the reality that we must come up with a doable plan for dealing with illegals already here. Those that don’t live in Realville always stop short of telling us how we should forcefully evict 19 million people.

mike_NC9 on January 30, 2013 at 5:54 PM

For the sake of discussion, why do ‘we’ think that something must be done? I’ll take the status quo before anything the democratics and their RINO allies have in mind.

slickwillie2001 on January 30, 2013 at 9:20 PM

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

.
I can do it, and send the child with them.

What do you mean by “for good?” Once they’re back across the border, they’re allowed to go through the immigration process and come back, legally.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 9:17 PM

On the other hand, maybe a family in Mexico will be jumping with joy because “Daddy’s coming home!”.

slickwillie2001 on January 30, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Once a homeless person or family breaks into your home, they should be allowed to stay as long as they want. If you force them out, you’re a real meanie.

MT on January 30, 2013 at 9:24 PM

So how’s all of this playing with conservatives in the Senate

Oh, man…stop, Allah…you’re killing me. I haven’t laughed like this in years.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Everyone keeps saying our immigration system is broken and needs to reformed. Except for the non-enforcement issues, which can be fixed by merely enforcing current law, exactly what’s broken?

Really, I’m just asking.

JackM on January 30, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Only National Review is consequential.

The others?

They’re either hate-everything-that’s-not-far-Right (Malkin), self-inflicted irrelevant (Vitter, Gingrich), say-anything-to-sell-books (Coulter), or pretty much unknown (Erickson).

itsnotaboutme on January 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Except for Andrew McCarthy and VDH and a couple of others, National Review is a joke, a soapbox for the GOPe and its flunkies and wannabes in the general population. Not even a shade of what it once was.

And what is “far right” anyway?

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 9:41 PM

I submit that illegal immigration exists only because we admit too few people legally. Ergo the solution to illegal immigration is to increase the number of people that we allow into the country legally the 2013 limit on the number of legal immigrants is the same as it was in 1924 when the US had 1/5 the population. Does this make any sense.

there is no need to make any special provisions for those here illegally if you raise the limit of legal immigrants. They will all find a way to legalize themselves.

oznerola on January 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Yes, coming from the woman who wants to have Chris Christie’s baby. The same Christie who made love to Obama on national TV….

William Eaton on January 30, 2013 at 6:25 PM

What does any of this have to do with the specific column that was written by Ann Coulter today that I said I agree with?

Answer: absolutely nothing.

If you like Rubio’s proposal, then defend it. Otherwise get off my back, jack.

JannyMae on January 30, 2013 at 6:39 PM

The problem is that Coulter has no credibility left, due to excessive and obvious Christie sycophancy. She’s going to blast Rubio because he’s an impediment to her darling’s winning the GOP nomination. So I really don’t care what she says. She’ll come out with a defense of RomneyCare and then take a “conservative” tack on immigration? Come on.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Rubio has lost my vote. Anyone who believes anything Senator Dumbdumb says is an idiot. We have a sufficent quantity of those with presidential ambitions as it is. Of course, considering the current attacks on constitutional amendments, Obama may just issue an executive order allowing himself to be elected president for life.

polarglen on January 30, 2013 at 9:51 PM

there is no need to make any special provisions for those here illegally if you raise the limit of legal immigrants. They will all find a way to legalize themselves.

oznerola on January 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM

That might make sense if the immigration laws existed to serve foreign citizens rather than the United States.

They don’t set the limit by their behavior.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 9:54 PM

One soundbite from Rush is like having one chip from the Keebler factory… they got lots more where that one came from and if you think one chip can define the factory, you got another think coming.

ajacksonian on January 30, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Only National Review is consequential.

The others?

They’re either hate-everything-that’s-not-far-Right (Malkin), self-inflicted irrelevant (Vitter, Gingrich), say-anything-to-sell-books (Coulter), or pretty much unknown (Erickson).

itsnotaboutme on January 30, 2013 at 7:17 PM

I don’t disagree with your take on the individuals, actually. But here’s the thing … discrediting those who disagree with you really only works if you can discredit their arguments, which you haven’t done at all.

And worse, you’ve cited NR as the consequential opinion … and their editorial opinion is absolutely brutal. It is so clear, logical, and accurate that any Republican who thinks they are going to support amnesty again needs to start right there and refute this piece. If they can’t … game over.

Minor point: if you want to argue by discrediting the opponent, then you have only Rubio to speak for you. McCain and Graham are about thisclose to the Nitwit Sisters in Maine for sheer RINOness. Graham is a closeted gay liberal JAG lawyer and McCain is McCain.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Sign of the RINO:

That wimpy chewing of the lower lip! See Boehner for typical example but do regard Rubio’s photo at top.

Sherman1864 on January 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM

I submit that illegal immigration exists only because we admit too few people legally. Ergo the solution to illegal immigration is to increase the number of people that we allow into the country legally the 2013 limit on the number of legal immigrants is the same as it was in 1924 when the US had 1/5 the population. Does this make any sense.

there is no need to make any special provisions for those here illegally if you raise the limit of legal immigrants. They will all find a way to legalize themselves.

oznerola on January 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Democratics are not interested in improving the legal process because any rational legal process would offer a more equitable distribution of visas to all the countries of the world. The illegal alien invasion offers the democratic party twenty million Mexican uneducated and unskilled but reliable voters. That’s their priority.

Is it right that over half of all illegal aliens are Mexicans? Why should we cater to one of the world’s nations to that extent? Aren’t there nationalities much more deserving of a break than Mexican?

slickwillie2001 on January 30, 2013 at 10:08 PM

I’m with Michelle on this one. No to amnesty, PERIOD.

Zorro on January 30, 2013 at 10:08 PM

If you think the GOP suffers from chronically poor messaging, as basically every conservative does, then take some comfort in the fact that this guy knows what he’s doing on that front even if you oppose his goal.

Agreed..I think Rubio has done a good job..:)

Dire Straits on January 30, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Is it right that over half of all illegal aliens are Mexicans? Why should we cater to one of the world’s nations to that extent? Aren’t there nationalities much more deserving of a break than Mexican?

slickwillie2001 on January 30, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Or as I like to ask … why do Democrats hate Africans and Asians?

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:15 PM

And worse, you’ve cited NR as the consequential opinion … and their editorial opinion is absolutely brutal. It is so clear, logical, and accurate that any Republican who thinks they are going to support amnesty again needs to start right there and refute this piece. If they can’t … game over.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM

That particular editorial isn’t exactly “brutal”, “cledar” or “logical”. I don’t have the link handy, but look up John O’Sullivan’s piece there a couple of days ago. THAT is brutally clear, and there is no hint of an attempt in it to cover Marco’s backside.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:15 PM

* clear

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Marco should go after the debt…

Seven Percent Solution on January 30, 2013 at 10:16 PM

That particular editorial isn’t exactly “brutal”, “cledar” or “logical”. I don’t have the link handy…

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Apparently not. And I never said it was cledar.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Apparently not. And I never said it was cledar.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM

I know. That’s why I corrected it, a$$hole.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:19 PM

^ Was that brutally CLEDAR enough for you? Hope so.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Boo fricking hoo. Cry me a river. Why don’t you look into the eyes of 6 yr old Brandon Adams’ parents eyes and tell them that the illegal drunk driver that killed their child was only looking for a better life? That would be human compassion wouldn’t it?

TxAnn56 on January 30, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Don’t even pull that crapola with me…you know damn well what I meant.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Happened just last week in San Antonio last week JetBoy:

http://www.kens5.com/news/Report-AirLife-to-respond-to-NW-side-accident-involving-pedestrian-188284611.html

The early stories IDed the driver as an illegal alien until the politically correct edited it out. A dead 6 year old is hardly crapola.

bw222 on January 30, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Apparently not.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM

By the way, here’s the link. Spelled properly and everything.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Anywho, I linked to the NR piece in my comment, and so did Allah in this post. And I think it is brutal, on both delusional Republicans and on the mostly pathetic Latino culture in the U.S.

Republican immigration reformers with an eye to political reality should begin by appreciating that Latinos are a Democratic constituency. They did not vote for Mitt Romney. They did not vote for John McCain. They did not vote for George W. Bush, and in the election before that they did not vote for George W. Bush again. In 1998, George W. Bush was reelected to the governorship of Texas with 27 percent of the African-American vote — an astonishing number for an unabashed conservative. Bush won 68 percent of the overall vote in that election, carrying 240 out of Texas’s 254 counties. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Gary Mauro.

And, if we are to take Hispanics at their word, conservative attitudes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their voting preferences. While many are in business for themselves, they express hostile attitudes toward free enterprise in polls. They are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to receive some form of government support. More than half of Hispanic births are out of wedlock. Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies. Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey.

Emphasis mine. Seems clear to me.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Spelled properly and everything.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Atta girl.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Spelled properly and everything.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Atta girl.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Thanks, snookums.

Anywho, I linked to the NR piece in my comment…

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Yeah, we noticed. And that’s “anyhow”, a$$hole.

ddrintn on January 30, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Gingrich, Vitter, National Review, Malkin, Coulter, Erickson

You’ll forgive me if I don’t give a damn what any of them say and make up my own mind.

Actually, if you closely examine that crowd you will find many of the ills which plague the Republican Party.

Do we really need to go through the wrong calls anyone in that group has made. How about the unnecessary infighting many of them have caused? Shortsightedness? Lack of leadership? Basic misunderstanding of wise negotiating strategy?

No thanks.

I may eventually come out against Rubio’s ideas. Especially if the border is not secured first and there are any federal benefits conferred on illegals. But it will be because I had the good sense to make my own decision.

I am finished listening to people whose prime concern appears to be what TV contract they can sign next.

Marcus Traianus on January 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Senator McCain has not said why he believes that the interests of Hispanic citizens are to be identified with those of non-citizens, why those interests should trump the interests of citizens (including Hispanic citizens) harmed by the lawlessness of our borders, or why a senator with an established record for supporting amnesty could not muster one in three votes from those Hispanic citizens.

McCain is a clown.

Jaibones on January 30, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Of one thing I am certain: the borders will never be secured.

Belle on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Coulter-Christie-Obama: The Love Triangle.

William Eaton on January 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM

+1000. Enough said!

HellCat on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 PM

If you think the GOP suffers from chronically poor messaging, as basically every conservative does, then take some comfort in the fact that this guy knows what he’s doing on that front even if you oppose his goal.

Rubio doesnt have a messaging problem. He is being massaged by the MSM.

Yeah, he got on Rush, and on Levin. I heard both of his presentations and my blood was boiling – from Rubio, not them

Rush was bent over backwards polite to Rubio. When Rubio ended. Rush played with a few callers. The first one, IMHO was a seminar caller. Rush played cuts to show the same arguments were used in simpson mazoli.

Rush dragged it out until near the end when he said, and I wrote it down:

rush: we are being whipsawed,
yesterday: guns
today: amnesty
who are the bad guys: rule of law types
[there is a] diabolical attack on the underpinnings of the country

If worse comes to worst and grassroots opinion turns decisively against the bill, Rubio will turn on it too. AP

He can turn on it, but I already know he would shove it up my keester if he could do it. He is working with McCain who is working with the DEMs to fast track this bill.

Rubio alienated me totally, because his solution to the law not being enforced, was to give amnesty to everyone, and then ask Obama to enforce the law on what’s left. If Obama does not enforce the new law, is the Senate going to impeach him? Oh, I forgot, Rubio can vote to impeach. There’s the ticket

Rubiomania? Barf

entagor on January 30, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Whether Rubio is right or not, he is still a freaking RINO. As is Chris Christie. And Coulter. And Hannity.

Faramir on January 30, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Not that I disagree, but I’m begining to wonder exactly what would make someone not a RINO? Maybe we can come up something else/better to describe them, or us non-RINO’s?

Nutstuyu on January 30, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Hey Nutstuyu………..Faramir is a Mark Levin fan. Everyone is RINO if Mark says so

AYNBLAND on January 30, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Rubio is Romney Lite. Or about the same. “Say anything to get along” is what Rubio does, same as Romney.

I really hope we do not see Rubio running in 2016. On the other hand, let’s see him fail, big time. He is as fake as his mentor.

But good try, pretty much keeps the list of morons, err, RINOs up to date. Thanks for chiming in.

riddick on January 30, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I guess when you can’t come up with a legitimate argument, a little straw is as good a substitute as any.

Sorry.. but you are demanding people agree with you 100%.

Ryan is a former losing VP candidate in the House of Representatives who has never won anything beyond his gerrymandered district in Wisconsin. He has already lost the 2016 election, lol.

A. So I’m assuming that Sarah Palin is also not a Presidential contender.. She’s also a failed VP district.
B. We’re talking the swing-y swing district that Ryan represents. Yes, that is really gerrymandered.
C. This has nothing to do with the Iowa caucuses. Ryan strikes me as fitting well there culturally. He is more circumspect and a better politician than Bachman and he is more charismatic that Pawlenty. The point I was getting at is that Rubio doesn’t have a natural inclination for the first two states.. If Ryan wins Iowa and Christie wins New Hampshire, then Rubio is quite screwed.

Well then, we better get 30 million new democrat voters here lickety split. By the way, any other democrat talking points you’d like to spew while you’re here? You do know no one here is buying your schtick, right? Now how about fixing you’re own screwed up state of Illinois before helping to destroy the rest of the country m’kay?

So there is basically no hope for the Republican party… Barry won the election without the 30 million voters. Republicans are extra screwed. And we’ve run out of white people.

As for Illinois.. I didn’t vote for Blago or Quinn and I’m not sure what you want this diva to do about her state. Not my fault that a large majority of the population is cool with corruption.

Illinidiva on January 30, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Malkin opposes everything…and Newt? Well, if I remember correctly Newt Gingrich was pretty soft on the issue in the primaries. The truth is Malkin and a lot of other political celebrities on the right had a big fit about this when Bush was president and the only thing they accomplished was to alienate an entire demographic…that and they made a lot of money.

Truth is this is not going to make as much difference in the primaries as some people think. I honestly do not think that by the time the 2016 primaries come around that people will be caring about Malkin and Rush and Laura etc shrieking about amnesty. After four more years with Obama in the White House we will have a lot of new stuff to worry about.

Terrye on January 30, 2013 at 11:11 PM

To all the Rubio azzkissers.

Rubio IS THE REASON we ended up with Romney last year. Thanks for continued your azzkissing AND STUPIDITY we may end up with another “Romney” in 2016. Although I am sure Rand Paul/Perry/Jindal will wipe the floor with the fake “conservative” (I have no idea about my family history) Rubio.

Go back to Koz, your ideas play well there.

riddick on January 30, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Neither does National Review, which opposes the bill in part on grounds that, let’s face it, there’s no way Democrats can be trusted on this issue:

Democrats won the last election..it really does not matter if conservatives trust them on this or not…they will push through something even more liberal anyway. That is what Obama is planning and a majority of Americans will support it in the end. That is just the truth of it. Like it or not. I am not happy about the way the election went, but I am not going to deny reality. Conservatives do too much of that. And look where it gets them.

Terrye on January 30, 2013 at 11:14 PM

To all the Rubio azzkissers.

Rubio IS THE REASON we ended up with Romney last year. Thanks for continued your azzkissing AND STUPIDITY we may end up with another “Romney” in 2016. Although I am sure Rand Paul/Perry/Jindal will wipe the floor with the fake “conservative” (I have no idea about my family history) Rubio.

Go back to Koz, your ideas play well there.

riddick on January 30, 2013 at 11:12 PM

What nonsense. We ended up with Romney because he was the best of the people we had to choose from. Let us remember where most of those people stood on immigration..in fact, Romney was pretty damn strong on this issue and in the end it did not help him in the general election. In fact, he won less than 22% of the hispanic vote…if TruCons had put as much time and energy into trying to come up with a viable candidate they could actually support as they did back stabbing Romney we might have had a better chance of winning.

Terrye on January 30, 2013 at 11:18 PM

if TruCons had put as much time and energy into trying to come up with a viable candidate they could actually support as they did back stabbing Romney we might have had a better chance of winning.

Terrye on January 30, 2013 at 11:18 PM

There is no ‘WE’ involved here. You and your liberal pals wouldn’t support any conservative candidate and have proven that time and time again. What upsets you is that the favor is now being returned.

sharrukin on January 30, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Rand Paul > Rubio

fatlibertarianinokc on January 30, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Rand Paul > Rubio

fatlibertarianinokc on January 30, 2013 at 11:36 PM

So like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio agree on this.

Illinidiva on January 30, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Rubio, unless he is soundly rejected, may succeed where even Obama could not in writing America’s epitaph.

VorDaj on January 30, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Unconvincing. Obama just indicated he ain’t interested in enforcement. Doubling-down, as he always does.

This will fail. The gang will disperse. Rubio will fight another day. Obama will try a few more executive orders to make sure he is still being liked.

As with guns, sound fiscal policy and pretty much anything else, the answer will be found by the states. Washington DC has nothing but theatre to contribute here.

virgo on January 31, 2013 at 12:14 AM

This isn’t about rewards, or the strawman argument that it’ll “encourage” more illegals to come. It’s not like all would be forgiven and the illegals will be forgiven. There are a variety of penalties, prerequisites, and certain requirements…not to mention, getting in the back of the line. McCain’s been saying this for years.

You go look into a young child’s eyes and tell that child that you’re shipping their family or a parent right away out of the country for good. That’s not “touchy-feely”, that’s human compassion.

JetBoy on January 30, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Strawman? Bullcrap. Not enforcing the laws has encouraged more and more to come here illegally. You are too far removed from a border state to understand that whenever enforcement increases, the illegals LEAVE, and whenever it’s relaxed again, they come back.

Yes, McCain is from AZ. No, he doesn’t count. He’s been promoting this horrible policy since 2007. It failed then because the people of this country didn’t want it. I didn’t vote for him. Governor Jan Brewer contacted him and told him she wants him to vote against this travesty. SHE IS THE ONE WHO HAS TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS created by the ILLEGALS on a daily basis, while he sits his RINO ass in D.C. trying to further muck things up.

If you think there will be penalties that even come close to the billions we’ve spent on them all these years, educating their children, providing them healthcare in the ER, etc. than you’re dreaming.

As for those poor, little children, (SOB!) their parents should have thought of that before they came here ILLEGALLY and had their little anchor babies. It’s NOT OUR FAULT that they broke our laws, it’s theirs. I have compassion for people whom I happen to KNOW who came here legally and they are against amnesty, too. And I know exactly what amnesty is. I don’t need you to educate me about it. You need to educate yourself on the impact that the illegals are having on border states. Then maybe you’ll take YOUR strawman about “compassion” and peddle it elsewhere.

JannyMae on January 31, 2013 at 12:19 AM

The Rubio plan is a good one. Conservatives screwed up in 2007 (that plan was better than this one because it got rid of family reunification as the main method of legal immigration replacing it with a system primarily based on skill) and I am afraid they are going to screw up again this time. I think that a lot of people do not understand the fact that a non immigrant visa DOES NOT give automatic access to citizenship. Getting illegals without crimes out of the shadows and placing them in non immigrant status while the border is secured and an e-verify type of employment verification is built is a great idea. Then, after many years, these people (mostly Mexicans), will be placed in the greencard queue, where, because there are many Mexicans waiting, they will probably have to wait another years before they can get access to a greencard. And then, once they have the greencard, it would take them another 5 years before they can apply for citizenship. It’s very likely that a big percentage of them will die while they wait their turn. We lost the opportunity of closing the door to chain immigration in 2007, and we are going to be sold again by the conservative punditry.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM

Getting illegals without crimes out of the shadows and placing them in non immigrant status while the border is secured and an e-verify type of employment verification is built is a great idea.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM

The border is not going to be secured. The federal government won’t do it, and they won’t allow the border states to do it. We got that song and dance in ’86! What do you stupid fools not understand about that?

We already have an e-verify system. It’s not utilized properly, because ICE won’t deport the criminals back to their own country, and they won’t prosecute employers who pay the illegals under the table.

This was a horrible idea then, and it’s a horrible idea NOW. We don’t need REFORM. Enforce the damned laws. Send them back when they’re detained. Seal the damned border, and don’t reward CRIMINALS!

JannyMae on January 31, 2013 at 12:37 AM

We lost the opportunity of closing the door to chain immigration in 2007, and we are going to be sold again by the conservative punditry.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM

Same bullsh!t that we were told in 1986.

It didn’t do what you guys were claiming then, and there was no enforcement either.

Now it’s back to the same problem and you trot out the same tired old excuses, the same tired old promises.

Why don’t YOU amnesty shills enforce the borders and enforce the written law and then, with some shred of credibility in your corner, we can talk?

Barring that, why would anyone sane believe that this isn’t just another scam, and in a few years the problem will be the same as it currently is?

sharrukin on January 31, 2013 at 12:44 AM

This was a horrible idea then, and it’s a horrible idea NOW. We don’t need REFORM. Enforce the damned laws. Send them back when they’re detained. Seal the damned border, and don’t reward CRIMINALS!

JannyMae on January 31, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Is this type of nonsensical opposition that keeps screwing us. If the 2007 reform had passed, sure we would not be talking about the issue now and sure we would be in better shape demographically speaking. The devil is in the details but putting these illegals in non-immigrant status UP UNTIL the border has been secured and UP UNTIL e-verify works is a fantastic idea. You know where they are and, with current law, if any of this were to commit any kind of crime, even minor ones, they could be deported. As I said, we had a golden chance in 2007 to get rid of chain immigration and people like you made that impossible. Logistically speaking, you cannot deport 11 million people. And sooner or later, the majority of them will be given some kind of legal status either by Obama or by some other president. But the problem is the longer we wait, the worse the deal is going to be.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Same bullsh!t that we were told in 1986.

It didn’t do what you guys were claiming then, and there was no enforcement either.

Now it’s back to the same problem and you trot out the same tired old excuses, the same tired old promises.

Why don’t YOU amnesty shills enforce the borders and enforce the written law and then, with some shred of credibility in your corner, we can talk?

Barring that, why would anyone sane believe that this isn’t just another scam, and in a few years the problem will be the same as it currently is?

sharrukin on January 31, 2013 at 12:44 AM

Again, people get confused about the difference between non-immigrant status and greencard status (something that Rubio has been insisting a lot). The 1986 law gave green cards, this does not. This puts the illegals in a probationary status in which they can stay indefinitely UP UNTIL the benchmark has been met. It’s the greencard that starts the clock towards citizenship. Non immigrant status can be maintained almost indefinitely. As I said earlier, sooner or later, the majority of the 11 million illegals will be given some kind of legal status either by Obama or by some other president. But the problem is the longer we wait, the worse the deal is going to be for us.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM

If the 2007 reform had passed, sure we would not be talking about the issue now

Why wouldn’t we be talking about it?
Do you think that illegals would stop crossing the border?

and sure we would be in better shape demographically speaking.

Get someone else to pay for your government bennies?

How about we stop the entitlement gravy train because it isn’t affordable even with foreign labor.

The devil is in the details but putting these illegals in non-immigrant status UP UNTIL the border has been secured and UP UNTIL e-verify works is a fantastic idea.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 12:45 AM

THEN SECURE THE BORDER AND START ENFORCING THE LAW.

If you won’t do that, then spare us the BS about how you are someday going to get that done.

sharrukin on January 31, 2013 at 12:53 AM

This puts the illegals in a probationary status in which they can stay indefinitely UP UNTIL the benchmark has been met.

According to whom?

Who decides if those benchmarks have been met? The same folks who presided over the construction of the non-existent border fence?

Non immigrant status can be maintained almost indefinitely.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM

Trust us isn’t going to cut it anymore.

sharrukin on January 31, 2013 at 12:57 AM

THEN SECURE THE BORDER AND START ENFORCING THE LAW.

If you won’t do that, then spare us the BS about how you are someday going to get that done.

sharrukin on January 31, 2013 at 12:53 AM

Pal, pal, pal, these illegals are going to be here to stay. The majority of them are not going anywhere because whole industries depend on cheap labor. Do you think that employers, like those in the agriculture industry, love breaking the law? Don’t you think that they’d rather hire Americans instead of the illegals if Americans were available to work as cheaply as the illegals are? These illegals will stay here because they do the cheap labor Americans do not bother even considering. So, you can be smart about it and put them into non immigrant status, which is a legal status that onto itself does not give access to any path to citizenship, while you fix the issues or, you can be like yourself, stupid about it and keep them protected from any legal enforcement whatsoever because nobody knows where they are.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 1:00 AM

Do you think that employers, like those in the agriculture industry, love breaking the law?

Yeah, I do.

They benefit from the cheaper wages so why wouldn’t they support it?

Don’t you think that they’d rather hire Americans instead of the illegals if Americans were available to work as cheaply as the illegals are?

The daily wage in Mexico is about 5$ to 10$ so why would we want that?

These illegals will stay here because they do the cheap labor Americans do not bother even considering.

Again BS. Americans work in all those industries. Just not at 5-10$ per day.

So, you can be smart about it and put them into non immigrant status, which is a legal status that onto itself does not give access to any path to citizenship, while you fix the issues

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 1:00 AM

You folks have been promising enforcement, but never before you get the deal.

It’s always AFTER YOU GET THE DEAL.

Why is that? It’s almost as if you have absolutely no intention of keeping the deal?

sharrukin on January 31, 2013 at 1:10 AM

Again BS. Americans work in all those industries. Just not at 5-10$ per day.

We Americans are full of contradictions. We wouldn’t work at those wages but we demand at the same time cheap agricultural products. It’s like the whole thing about consumer electronics being made in China. If they were to be made in the US, they would be unaffordable. Again, if you want to be competitive in agriculture you need to find people willing to work for very little money and that’s where the illegals kick in. It’s the same reason that pushes companies to outsource jobs. Americans demand cheap prizes. So long as that’s the case, there will be immigrants willing to work for the same wages that illegals work now. That’s the reality. You can do as liberals do on so many other issue -create your own fantasy land with rules detached from reality- or accept reality and deal with it. As I said, the 2007 plan was better than this one since it would have gotten rid of family reunification. Because of people like you, we still have it and with it the Hispanics that will keep voting Democratic.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 1:24 AM

I’m actually worried that 2014 is going to be the opposite of 2010. 2010 saw a surge of new voters and a huge landslide for the Tea Party. 2014 will be status quo for dem turnout(unions will work it 24/7 365 as usual) but a huge drop off in the republican turnout.

That is exactly what’s been happening. The whole reason we lost 2012 was because we ran a liberal for president and the 2010 Republican House failed to do basically everything they were elected to do; indeed, they couldn’t even be bothered to pretend to fight most of the time.

Are the Rs generating some excitement with this new “open” strategy? I don’t feel it. Are even the R hacks here getting jacked up over this new and improved GOP? I don’t see it. You might think,wrongly, that amnesty is the winning long term strategy but you have to admit you are going to get killed over this in 2014. You don’t think the Rs are going to get a wave of support over this in 2014?!? If this goes through then in 2014 R’s lose the base and gain nothing.

A massacre. The house flips.

BoxHead1 on January 30, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Yeah, I think you’ve predicted what’s going to happen pretty well. The current strategy is being implemented by a mix of RINO opportunists who see a chance to wipe out their hated conservative rivals once and for all (just like a Romney victory was supposed to) and well meaning idiots who have badly misdiagnosed the problem with the Republican Party.

I don’t really think we can afford to have a Whig-style collapse, but I also think if one is going to happen, best get it over with ASAP. A Republican Party stretching out its death throes over years would be a disaster.

Doomberg on January 31, 2013 at 1:52 AM

We wouldn’t work at those wages but we demand at the same time cheap agricultural products.

We get agricultural goods from all over the world. Canadian wheat, French grapes, Chilean strawberries, Moroccan oranges, etc.

The two biggest import sources? Canada and the European Union. Not low wage regions.

Labor costs are only a small part of the final price for agricultural produce.

You need to look into that talking point because it’s false.

It’s like the whole thing about consumer electronics being made in China. If they were to be made in the US, they would be unaffordable.

It would be more expensive, not unfordable and less so if you got rid of the unions.

Because of people like you, we still have it and with it the Hispanics that will keep voting Democratic.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 1:24 AM

Unlike Mexico where they have been voting for a socialist party for a hundred years?

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hispanics-favor-bigger-role-for-government/

75%

Three-quarters of U.S. Hispanics prefer a big government which provides more services to a small one providing fewer services. This figure is significally lower among the public at large.

Support for a larger government is highest among immigrant Latinos, with 81% holding this view. This share falls to 72% among second-generation Hispanics and 58% among third-generation Hispanics.

Hispanics vote for socialism because THEY LIKE SOCIALISM.

They aren’t going to be bribed to vote for small government, because big government will always deliver a better bribe.

sharrukin on January 31, 2013 at 1:52 AM

The two biggest import sources? Canada and the European Union. Not low wage regions.

The agriculture industry in the US is a net exporter.

Regarding Mexicans and their love affair with socialism, the same was true about Italians and now Italian Americans are a base constituency of the GOP. What you don’t seem to understand is that these people left their home country for a reason. I don’t buy this “Hispanics are natural conservatives” theory but I do know that when people emigrate is because they are seeking a better life. The GOP has a marketing problem. It should let this people know that what the Democrats defend is the very same policies that have ruined Mexico and every other country that has adopted them. Why would they work so hard to go to a country that is in the process of becoming Mexico? So it’s not their “Mexican” or “Hispanic” nature that we should be appealing to, but their risk taking, ambitious nature. It takes a lot of courage to leave behind the known and familiar to go to a strange land even to work in agriculture. Yet these people do it because they rather have a shot at making a better life than stay in Mexico suffering Mexican misery. The GOP has failed miserably reaching out to them. And thanks to ignorant people like you, it keeps failing. And every time, we lose the opportunity to bring about a good immigration deal.

p_incorrect on January 31, 2013 at 2:09 AM

“Look, as soon as you give these people a legal status, to say that you’re going to reverse that is ridiculous,” Vitter said. “It’ll never happen. As soon as you give them a legal status, they are here legally forever and probably they’re citizens pretty darn soon after. And if Marco thinks no matter what happens or doesn’t happen on the enforcement side that’s not going to happen, I just think he’s nuts.”

I agree.

Rubio may not be “nuts” but he is certainly pitching a nutty, corrupt, irresponsible, irrational plan.

Obama is doing likewise times ten but it’s no cause for the GOP to try and craft “Nuts Theme Pt. 2″.

Which is what Rubio is trying, some sort of variation of nuts, not that he himself is.

I conclude Rubio can’t be this stupid, so I’m thinking he’s not a reliable character.

Lourdes on January 31, 2013 at 2:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4