Obama agrees with Napolitano: We can’t make legalization contingent upon border security

posted at 11:21 am on March 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

The newsiest bit from yesterday’s interview with Telemundo. Rubio’s said since the beginning that the path to citizenship (which is different from initial probationary legal status) can’t happen until the border’s been tightened, so if O insists upon this then Rubio’s destined to walk away.

But would Obama insist upon it, to the point of veto? I’m skeptical.

While he expressed optimism that a final bill will contain a path to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally, Obama would not offer specifics on how long the process of obtaining citizenship should take.

And he declined to outline how the security of the nation’s border should be assessed, saying only that there should be no border security “trigger” that must be met before undocumented persons are eligible to begin the process of seeking legal status.

“We don’t want to make this earned pathway to citizenship a situation in which it’s put off further and further into the future,” he said. “There needs to be a certain path for how people can get legal in this country, even as we also work on these strong border security issues.”

He said something similar, and similarly ambiguous, in his big immigration speech at the end of January. (“But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship.”) But if he’s trying to drive a hard bargain here, why would he refuse to specify in the Telemundo interview how long the path to citizenship should take? Why not say “six years” or something ridiculous like that? My theory all along on O’s immigration maneuvering has been that he’s trying to create political cover for the GOP by issuing demands that he knows won’t be met so that Republicans can then claim “victory” over Obama later as a way to sell the bill to grassroots conservatives. Dan Pfeiffer, one of O’s top advisors, freely admitted last month that he’s happy to “serve as a punching bag every once in a while” so long as Rubio and the rest of the Gang of Eight are making progress. Unless and until he says plainly that he’ll veto a bill if it insists on a border-security “trigger” I’m treating this as kabuki, a proposal manufactured for the purpose of conceding it later in exchange for the GOP conceding on early probationary legal status for illegals, which is what Democrats really crave. Just to add to the kabuki vibe, remember that neither side within the Gang of Eight has been bickering publicly lately about the “trigger.” The bickering has to do almost exclusively with guest workers. Presumably they’ve already reached a deal on this issue, and since Rubio’s still part of the group, I assume it broke his way. And O knows it.

Another thing. If, as many righties (including Ted Cruz) believe, Obama’s intent on sabotaging the Gang of Eight, how to explain this from his interview with Univision?

“I’m actually optimistic that when they get back they will introduce a bill,” Obama said during an interview with Univision. “My sense is that they have come close and my expectation is that we’ll actually see a bill on the floor of the Senate next month.”

The president has repeatedly said that he would propose his own immigration bill should negotiations in Congress grind to a halt. But Obama refused to say that he would take such action even if the lawmakers fail to introduce a bill in April.

Why would he do that? This is his big chance to disrupt negotiations by putting external pressure on the Gang to come up with something before he bigfoots the whole process. Issue an ultimatum: “If there’s no bill by Date X then I’m taking over.” Republicans would instantly walk away, and then he could go about merrily demagoging them for the next 18 months. The fact that he’s not doing that suggests that he wants the bill to pass and is willing to keep a low profile to do it. Which is no small concession from this guy.

But let me play devil’s advocate. What if the White House wants a bill to pass but doesn’t want Rubio to be part of it? Is there a way for them to drive him away by digging in against the border security “trigger” while still gaining a majority in the Senate and House for final passage? That is to say, can they find five to 10 Republicans in the Senate and 30-40 in the House (plus Boehner, of course) who are so eager to build goodwill with Latinos that they’d rubber-stamp a bill that didn’t make border improvements a prerequisite for citizenship for illegals? I’m skeptical, but I also don’t underestimate the GOP’s panic about demographics. There are surely lots of Democrats in the leadership who are eager to see an “earned amnesty” enacted but are also very leery of seeing Rubio’s name attached to it, just in case he turns out to be more effective in attracting Latino voters in 2016 than most people expect. If they can force him out of this process so that he can’t claim credit for it later while still getting something passed, that’s optimal for them. But if that’s the plan, and even assuming that there really are 30-40 squishy GOP votes in the House, how would Boehner’s speakership survive if he violated the Hastert Rule to pass amnesty? He has no choice but to do this with a majority of House Republicans, I think, and it’s very hard to see how they’d rubber-stamp an even weaker bill than the Gang of Eight’s — without the political cover provided by Marco Rubio’s endorsement, no less — knowing that it would likely mean primary challenges for many of them next year. If Obama really does want to get this done, I think he and the Dems will have to live with Rubio’s demands.


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

We can’t make legalization contingent upon border security

Why not?

HotAirian on March 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

But let me play devil’s advocate. What if the White House wants a bill to pass but doesn’t want Rubio to be part of it? Is there a way for them to drive him away by digging in against the border security “trigger” while still gaining a majority in the Senate and House for final passage? That is to say, can they find five to 10 Republicans in the Senate and 30-40 in the House (plus Boehner, of course) who are so eager to build goodwill with Latinos that they’d rubber-stamp a bill that didn’t make border improvements a prerequisite for citizenship for illegals?

This is absolutely the plan. Why on earth should the Democrats play nice with the Republicans when the Republicans are salivating so obviously on all the news networks at the prospect of passing amnesty? Not only does Obama get some 30 million plus new Democrat voters, he also gets to embarass Rubio AND drive a wedge (yet another one) into the heart of the Republican Party.

Doomberg on March 28, 2013 at 11:26 AM

can they find five to 10 Republicans in the Senate and 30-40 in the House (plus Boehner, of course) who are so eager to build goodwill with Latinos that they’d rubber-stamp a bill that didn’t make border improvements a prerequisite for citizenship for illegals?

I would hope not. If the GOP passes amnesty, they’ll lose the House in 2014. If they pass amnesty without even a pretense of securing the border first, they’re effectively done as a party. I would never vote for another Republican again at any level of government if that happens.

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 11:26 AM

What a mess…

sandee on March 28, 2013 at 11:27 AM

And the check’s in the mail.

Speakup on March 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM

This merely means that the Dems have no intention of doing anything to secure the border. To the contrary, they want to open it even more.

tommyboy on March 28, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Do they have border security at the White House?

Look… who the heck lets their door unlocked all day and night? Do celebrities have high walls and locked gates round their houses? Why? Why don’t they just take down their walls and gates and doors and just let people roll right on into their mansions day and night!

This argument is so freaking juvenile. People are stupid. This is such a moronic argument. Border security doesn’t work? Well then why the heck do they have a fence around the White House? Why do they have armed guards at all the gates? Doesn’t the Secret Service check people over before they come in?

Just another hypocritical stupid statement that gets repeated by parrots and goes unchallenged.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Let 0bama queer the deal, y’all. I think this has been the Rubio plan all along. Make a lot of noise about reaching across the aisle for “reform,” let conservatives play the bad cop, making a totally non-racist case for opposing amnesty (dude, they don’t vote for us and we’d be muy estupido to admit more Democrat voters). Jabber jaw the issue either right into filing time for 2014 primaries, or until the Democrats hit a sticking point it is obvious we’d be stupid to agree to (such as not securing the border). Amnesty fails in a way much harder to blame on the GOP.

Sekhmet on March 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM

That was the deal LAST TIME with amnesty.

Except the border part was never implemented.

Amnesty benefits the politicians from both sides who get off the hook for doing nothing for 35 years.

Wander on March 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM

RUBIO IS NOT GOING TO WALK AWAY from his AMNESTY plan over the issue of border security. The AMNESTY plan that Rubio is pushing allows obama and Napolitano to unilaterally declare the border “SECURE” whenever they wish – under the Rubio plan, the minute that the border is declared “SECURE”, instant AMNESTY is granted to all illegals. Rubio has worked closely with ‘team obama’, the ‘Gang of 8′, McCain, Graham, et al, to create “his” AMNESTY plan. Rubio will not walk away from AMNESTY, because it is his SIGNATURE ISSUE, and he sees it as the key to his winning the GOP nomination in 2016 … he is mistaken.

Pork-Chop on March 28, 2013 at 11:36 AM

And let’s stop the “Nation of Immigrants” tripe now.

We became a nation of immigrants, but we began as a nation of Colonists.

And when you hear, “Work that Americans won’t do” remember when the slavers said they couldn’t get the cotton crop in without slaves.

Wander on March 28, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Obama would not offer specifics on how long the process of obtaining citizenship should take.

Barry is ALWAYS vague on “specifics”.

GarandFan on March 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Any path to citizenship is just Amnesty writ large.

chemman on March 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Isn’t this kind of treasonous talk by the Commander-In-Chief about actively NOT securing the nation- in effect betraying his oath of office- a “high crime or misdemeanor”?

profitsbeard on March 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Tap , Tap , Tap . That’s my foot . Rubio where the hell are you ?
Get your face out there or slink into the background with the other
weasels !

Lucano on March 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

It’s become obvious that the REB doesn’t want an agreement. He wants all those rubbed-raw sores of discontent ready for 2014.

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Why not?

HotAirian on March 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

‘Cuz we don’t want to limit increasing our voter base to a one time event.

-Hussein

antipc on March 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I guess that means Rubio will be pulling out of the gang of 8 then. Right?

BoxHead1 on March 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM

“We don’t want to make this earned pathway to citizenship a situation in which it’s put off further and further into the future,” he said. “There needs to be a certain path for how people can get legal in this country, even as we also work on these strong border security issues.”

Hey, Barry, if they aren’t legal, maybe (just maybe) they shouldn’t be here and we shouldn’t be looking for ways to magically make them legal.

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM

If the Secret Service found some guy wondering around in circles on the White House lawn… and then they confront him and he says “I came over the fence” how will they respond? Are they going to say “Oh.. he’s here now so give him a pass. Don’t ask his ID.. that would be racist.”

For that matter… who does this anywhere? If WalMart security found some guy wondering around in the staff lounge and asked “Who are you” and he responded. “I snuck in the back door” they’d escort him right out the front door ASAP.

Using the logic of the amnesty crowd.. Walmart should make that guy a cashier!

People lock their doors at night for a reason. People have locks on their cars for a reason. It’s called “border security!” If you find somebody in your house in the middle of the night uninvited… you don’t shake his hand and welcome him to the family. This is insane!

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM

And what does the Gang of Eight have to say?

McCain wiitness’s a woman climbing over the 18 foot security fence and Tweet’s it to his mindless followers as if he’s at the zoo.

With the current morons in Washington, who all will be reelected, let’s all face facts. America is losing.

Philo Beddoe on March 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM

You’re not going to win on this, Dems.

John the Libertarian on March 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Obama agrees with Napolitano: We can’t won’t make legalization contingent upon border security

They can, but for purposes of fundamentally transforming our republic into their statist utopia, they won’t.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM

They have been kidding you all along. They have been getting reports on the drug war for decades. They know a wall will not work.

DEA can’t keep drugs out with a limited number of players and predictable sources and activities. Why not a wall to stop that?

No wall is going to stop it.

We have 2,000 + miles of border, not 2,000 feet around a house or estate.

We also, as I have said 80 times, have a huge shoreline with marshes and bays and inlets and rivers.

Then we have a power base who want more Latinos in this country working to mess up ICE or anyone else in the way.

Look up Maginot Line.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Isn’t this kind of treasonous talk by the Commander-In-Chief about actively NOT securing the nation- in effect betraying his oath of office- a “high crime or misdemeanor”?

profitsbeard on March 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

My take as well, he is openly saying the border means nothing. Hell, he is openly working as a domestic threat to our nation in just about every meaningful regard.

DanMan on March 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM

And McCain will still vote for it.

astonerii on March 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM

I just like to slap his smarmy face.

avagreen on March 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM

There are precious few things that a president must do! Keeping the US safe from invasion is one of them and if you don’t think we are being invaded from the southern border, give a re-think!

But bho has not done alot that he put his hand on the Bible and swore to defend our constitution! In fact, bho has gone around the constitution, congress, and the courts!
L

letget on March 28, 2013 at 11:47 AM

We need a nationwide ID law. We need to remove the economic advantage of coming here illegally.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

If a border fence wasn’t going to work.. then the libs wouldn’t care about making one.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Accountability of any kind by any metric is anathema to the Left. How would they ever make any “progress” if they were held to account for their poisonous and failed policies and schemes?

rrpjr on March 28, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I guess that means Rubio will be pulling out of the gang of 8 then. Right?

BoxHead1 on March 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Well, Rubio is not actually a member of the ‘Gang’ – he just likes to hang out with them … we can learn a lot about Rubio from the company he keeps …

The current ‘Gang of 8″ …

John Boehner
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Mitch McConnell
Mike Rogers
Dianne Feinstein
Dutch Ruppersberger
Saxby Chambliss

Pork-Chop on March 28, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Then I guess there shouldn’t be a deal.

How many times have the Democrats promised something in return for what they want if their demands are met first and then proceed to renege on their part of the deal? Let’s see, the amnesty deal in the late 1980s comes to mind. We’ll fix the immigration laws after you grant amnesty to the millions of Hispanic Democrats who are here illegally. Guess what? The immigration laws are still broken but the illegal immigrants have filled the empty bottle up again wanting amnesty again.

How about the many times the Democrats promised spending cuts after they got their tax increases and reneged? Quite a few. I call that the “Wimpy” method of bargaining – “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”.

I’ve given up hope that the stupid party which is called the Republicans will finally figure it out that you can’t deal with immoral, lying, members of the Democrat party over and over and that they’ll suddenly become honest and men of character and do what they promise.

iamsaved on March 28, 2013 at 11:49 AM

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Any holes drugs use any enemy of the USA can use. They need to secure it as best as possible. Not try to be 100% perfect. It certainly could be enforced 100 times better than it is. Reducing illegal crossings by 90% or more. Including defending the coasts from boats and subs.

astonerii on March 28, 2013 at 11:49 AM

This is nothing new. Obama has said this before, as have Schumer and Leahy.

As bad as the amnesty of 1986 was, any amnesty under Obama will be far more devastating to our country.

bw222 on March 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM

We are not nearly cruel enough to stop illegals.

The media, the RINOS, the Dems and the sweet little old ladies and even ‘my brother’s keeper’ Christians would go nuts.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM

With the current morons in Washington, who all will be reelected, let’s all face facts. America is losing.

Sadly, too many aren’t morons, but calculating schemers who know full well what they do. They want America, as we’ve known it, to fail, as soon as possible. The better by which to punish us for our past success as an arrogant and selfish and bullying world superpower and stealing resources from the poor around world and also usher in a One Party Ruling Class Utopia.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Actually , this might be pure theatre. Obama will “cave” on no-border enforcement giving the Rs a “victory”. It doesn’t really matter because the status of illegals changes to legal when the coming bill is passed and that has nothing to do with the border. The question of citizenship or amnesty is almost irrelevant after the legalization. Also, there are a 1000 questions to be asked on this that have nothing to so with the border.

This is a crock and anyone who supports it without knowing what’s in it is LIV, sheep and a lib whether they know it or not.

BoxHead1 on March 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM

This morning, local talk radio spoke to the Maryland delegate on who is pushing issuing drivers licenses to illegals. Truly a squirrel in a hailstorm kind of idiot.

She started the discussion by attacking the host for using the term illegal immigration because they are undocumented human beings and “illegal” dehumanizes them or something.

But the truly amazing part was she couldn’t explain how an illegal might be able to meet the requirements to get a drivers license without breaking other laws. Specifically, how do you file taxes for two years without a SSN? How do you get insurance without documentation? Clearly this is nothing more than Democrats trying to get more votes by giving these filthy criminals government-issued ID to better commit voter fraud.

The host’s hard questions completely flummoxed her to the point at one point she’s talking about undocumented colonists coming to America on the Mayflower. Really.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM

We need a nationwide ID law. We need to remove the economic advantage of coming here illegally.

We’ll eventually get one, maybe even an implanted microchip ID, the better with which to track our locations and activities.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM

If a border fence wasn’t going to work.. then the libs wouldn’t care about making one.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM

The wall is, and will always be, just an inconvenience.

As far as your comment about Dems, look on this thread. Never judge anything on what a politician says. They just play issues.

For one thing, what about those here?

Well, we keep drugs out! LOL

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM

OF COURSE he agrees with Nepolitano about IGNORING U.S. LAW

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Pork-Chop on March 28, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Thanks.

BoxHead1 on March 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM

We’ll eventually get one, maybe even an implanted microchip ID, the better with which to track our locations and activities.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Right.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Fluke you, Punk.

You and Napolitano are criminals. You and her released criminal illegal aliens amonst the population you’re supposed to protect.

Go to Hades, both of you.

I celebrate today that 130 nations fund the Punk wanting and have a low opinion of the USA, even though he received the Nobel, for nada.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM

amongst

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM

We’ll eventually get one, maybe even an implanted microchip ID, the better with which to track our locations and activities.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Right.

It’ll be for the children…..if we can save just one life by being able to know immediately the whereabouts of a missing child, it will be worth it for all of us to have one.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Whatevs. Call me when the shooting starts. Until then, we’re just whining while they do their best to destroy us as quickly as possible.

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

OF COURSE Obama agrees with Nepolitano that we should IGNORE ENFORCING U.S. LAW – this is, after all, the President who ordered the Head of the Justice department NOT to detain, arrest, sentence, or jail any illegal who commits a crime LESS than a Felony….

OF COURSE Obama agrees with Nepolitano about ignoring the security of our nation – this is, after all, the President who completely ignored the 2 previous terrorist attacks against Ambassador Stevens and his compound in Benghazi prior to the final attack on 9/11/12, who REJECTED the continued requests for aditional security after those attacks, who IGNORED the report from Stevens saying if there was a 3rd attack HE WOULD DIE!

This is, after all, the President who gave thousands of automatic weapons and grenades to Mexican Drug Cartels which resulted in the 300+ & counting deaths of civilian – to include a U.S. Border Patrol Agent!

This is, after all, the President who is GIVING the terrorist Group the Muslim Brotherhood 24 new F-16 fighter jets and 200 tanks (which they realistically can only use against our ally Israel) and who allowed and particpated in the attack on our U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt on 9/11/12!

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 12:07 PM

It’ll be for the children…..if we can save just one life by being able to know immediately the whereabouts of a missing child, it will be worth it for all of us to have one.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM

They had that as a toy in the film Father of Invention.

I don’t like the ID necessity but you people tell me of a way to remove the economic inducement of coming here.

If my attitude and ideas are so stupid, vandalism to my property and other responses, augur otherwise.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM

See how the discussion has changed?
Legalization has become stated goal, and security is not important enough to stand in the way.
They have just changed what is on the table to be bargained for, and no one will call them on it.

Mimzey on March 28, 2013 at 12:11 PM

This is, after all, the President who gave thousands of automatic weapons and grenades to Mexican Drug Cartels which resulted in the 300+ & counting deaths of civilian – to include a U.S. Border Patrol Agent!

C’mon. You are such a petty person.

He hid those records with Executive Privilege.

If there was anything important there, the media would have gone nuts like they did with the Watergate scandal. All that was, was a burglary for them to chase Nixon from office!

So the F & F must have been nothing or there would be big trouble from our watchdogs.

OK?

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Don’t talk like that.

They have bullets by the billions brother.

Watch Spartacus on Starz.

Get your violence and sex fix and stay peaceful. Look what happened to the gladiators when an empire turns on people in its borders.

Not at all pretty.

WACO.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Republicans negotiated themselves into a bad position by making public statements that they are in favor of amnesty rather than just saying they are open to constructive dialog on immigration. Why would Obama and the Democrats give anything in return if they think Republicans are desperate to pass amnesty? The RNC even has it in their autopsy and they almost never recommend specific policies. The Stupid Party lives on.

Democrats know McCain and Graham will vote for any legalization regardless and maybe a few other RINOs like Murkowski and Collins would too. They could be at 60 without Rubio and damage him either way. He votes yes on a bill with no border security first and alienates Republicans or he votes no on “comprehensive immigration reform” and loses Hispanic support.

Wigglesworth on March 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM

He votes yes on a bill with no border security first and alienates Republicans or he votes no on “comprehensive immigration reform” and loses Hispanic support.

Wigglesworth on March 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Ah yes, the myth of Hispanic support for Republicans.

Have you been asleep for a year or so?

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Actually , this might be pure theatre. Obama will “cave” on no-border enforcement giving the Rs a “victory”. It doesn’t really matter because the status of illegals changes to legal when the coming bill is passed and that has nothing to do with the border. The question of citizenship or amnesty is almost irrelevant after the legalization. Also, there are a 1000 questions to be asked on this that have nothing to so with the border.

This is a crock and anyone who supports it without knowing what’s in it is LIV, sheep and a lib whether they know it or not.

BoxHead1 on March 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM

That is the most likely scenario.

Wigglesworth on March 28, 2013 at 12:22 PM

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:21 PMz

Rubio has good support among hispanics so the dems would love nothing more than to bludgeon him for bailing on “immigration reform”.

Wigglesworth on March 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

The question of citizenship or amnesty is almost irrelevant after the legalization. Also, there are a 1000 questions to be asked on this that have nothing to so with the border.

This is a crock and anyone who supports it without knowing what’s in it is LIV, sheep and a lib whether they know it or not.

BoxHead1 on March 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Did you geniuses ever consider that, without enforced voter ID at the polls, the whole legalization thing is a big, red herring?

All those new voters showing up faster than you can say bilingual ballots!

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Republicans negotiated themselves into a bad position by….

It is no longer about Republicans…or Democrats. as pointed out, the dialog has changed from what ius CONSTITUTIONAL, what is LEGAL, from ENFORCING THE LAW and DOING WHAT IS RIGHT to pushing an agenda, doing is what is most beneficial personally and for the party!

All of these politicians are the ones who voted for Sequestration then allowed it to go into effect, inflicting damage THEY created on the rest of us. They are the ones who take ‘political stands’ knowing it is not what is best for us or the nation, knowing it will hurt people but being content to do so because their actions will have no impact on them.

I don’t care who they are – as mentioned, they voted for Sequestration so they should ALL BE FIRED! If Americans had b@lls and/or brains they would vote for whoever the challenger is in future elections and orchestrate a complete and uttter changing of the guard in Washington. That is the ONLY way to ever change things. Instead, however, too many will continue to vote for what is in their own best interests short term – for continues entitlements.

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM

No, you shoot them.

tngmv on March 28, 2013 at 12:29 PM

We can’t make legalization contingent upon border security
Why not?

HotAirian on March 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Because the Democrats DO NOT WANT:
- border security
- e-verify
- national cross checks on Social Security fraud
- national cross checks on WELFARE fraud
- national cross checks on voter fraud
- no citizenship, no benefits

The meltdown is coming, and for the have-nots, its not gonna be pretty…

Khun Joe on March 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

….to pushing an agenda, doing is what is most beneficial personally and for the party!

Yea. But it is all a game about votes and winning elections.

Many think the US Constitution is a joke, anyway.

It inconveniences our POTUS more than a border fence would illegals.

Bunch of old white guys in wigs and stockings…women and blacks couldn’t vote…

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I don’t like the ID necessity but you people tell me of a way to remove the economic inducement of coming here.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Make it impossible for them to find a job, by making it unbearably painful for anyone to hire them – astronomical fines and imprisonment for business persons hiring them, perhaps even accidentally. Businesses will *have* to make very sure they are not hiring an illegal.

Make it impossible for them to find a place to live, by imposing the same kind of penalties on people that would house them.

Make it painful for hospitals and doctors to provide medical care and *not* immediately call ICE, and deport them immediately after. Treat them, but they must be reported and deported immediately after.

No free education. No welfare or any other taxpayer funded benefits (beyond the humanitarian medical treatment at your one-time visit to a hospital that gets you a one-way ticket out of the country). No jobs. No place to live. Add anything else to this list that is an attraction to them and turn it into a very painful incentive *NOT* to be here, both for the illegal and for anyone that might want to help them.

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM

the path to citizenship (which is different from initial probationary legal status)

Seriously? Where’s the difference? Once these people are given legal status of any kind, it’s a fait accompli for the whole enchilada.

jnelchef on March 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Did you geniuses ever consider that, without enforced voter ID at the polls, the whole legalization thing is a big, red herring?

All those new voters showing up faster than you can say bilingual ballots!

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Anyone remember the organized marches across the country for Illegals to show how muych they are needed? The 1st march was filled with hate-filled signs carried by illegals saying things like “We don’t want citizenship – we ant Texas back” & “We don’t want to be Americans – we just want you money’. Orgnaizers were so worried about a backlash that they organized a 2nd march & passed the word to carry pro-American signs. During BOTH marches, televised on bnational TV, there were clips showing DNC Groups in the crowd attempting to register the illegals to vote!

Americans are required to show a picture ID to cash a check or carry a picture ID to drive a car — of course why do you think Liberals are so against picture ID cards for voters?!

I don’t care what anyone from the Left says, this last election was STOLEN, so blatantly & so ignored by the media that it is mind-numbing. There were 5 ‘swing’ states up for grabs Obama HAD to win to win the election. In EVERY SINGLE ONE there were blatant, reported problems/CRIMES reported. In one district that had several thousand registered Republican voters that had participated in the GOP primary, not ONE vote was passed (recorded) in the Presidential election! In another key district, 140% of the voting population voted – that is 40% more votes cast than there were voters! In another district, Poling officuials admitted afterwards that they had voted NUMEROUS TIMES. (If anyone does some diggih they may find the tiny blurb in the media not long ago about how the Justice Department stepped in & dropped charges that were brought up against one of them!) This is an ilegitimate President, the system has been rigged by criminals, & just like in Cyprus the crimes against our nation & people are being openly perpetrated against us…and we can’t do a thing.

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM

The meltdown is coming, and for the have-nots, its not gonna be pretty…

Khun Joe on March 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM

There is probably no huge meltdown coming. If it does, they will blame the capitalists.

Catch The Factor last night? The left is hanging the whole 2008 mess on Wall Street. Unchallenged.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM

You guys would be twice as upset if you talked to left wing nuts on how the “tide of history” is with them.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Catch The Factor last night? The left is hanging the whole 2008 mess on Wall Street. Unchallenged.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Serves you right for watching O’Reilly.

Speaking of FNC, you see where Rachael Madcow talked about what a great anchor Shep Smith is. She didn’t say it in so many words but apparently stuff like his little hissy fit in the wake of Hurricane Katrina is a turn-on for radical leftist lesbian newsreaders.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 12:47 PM

What can you expect from a man that promised he wouldn’t take private contribution as a candidate and soon evolved & collected more than 3 times more than McCain who funded his campaign with public money, He promise transparency, would air his presidential issues on CSPAN, go through the entitlements in the budget line by line, promised that Obamacare would not burden the middle class in the form of additional taxes or fees. Five years later, he ntinues to blame Bush for the “Biggest recession evah” or the the GOP for not letting him spend us into oblivion in order to get us out of the biggest financial hole of all time. How does this guy get away with it.

RdLake on March 28, 2013 at 12:49 PM

The Left can hang the whole 2008 thing on anything they want, and as long as we allow them to continue to do so unchallenged they will win. The last 2 years of Bush’s Presidency the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, yet they blame Bush for everything. For the 1st 2 years of the Obama admiistration they contrlled the House, senate, & White House. And on and on and on….

The GOP has an uphill battle because the vast majority of media push the Liberal lie…

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 12:50 PM

There needs to be a certain path for how people can get legal in this country, even as we also work on these strong border security issues.”

Isn’t there already a path in place, Obysmal? We have immigration law that determines who is legal and who is not.

onlineanalyst on March 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I don’t know why but I think TRILLIONS in weak mortgages (which the left wanted) were kinda of a problem on their own without Wall Street brokering them everywhere.

For some reason the media keeps missing that.

little hissy fit in the wake of Hurricane Katrina is a turn-on for radical leftist lesbian newsreaders.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 12:47 PM

YES! Smart! They are in their own world.

In the most extreme form, the major networks have lost contact.

The left loves to co-opt people. I just hope they show up with my bribe and soon!

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:52 PM

The entire FARCE of a ‘super secret negotiation’ between various members of the senate, and other shadowy characters, confirms exactly what is WRONG with these politicians!

Let ME be the first to criticize Marco Rubio for participitating in this process.

It is simply not possible to elect someone that works in secret to the Presidency of the US when CORRUPTION is one of the major problems of the day!

Freddy on March 28, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Big deal! He doesn’t have to agree with her, but she Has to agree with him or hit the bricks. The normal content of Hot Air is really pretty good, but you definitely need new and competent lede writers.

Old Country Boy on March 28, 2013 at 12:54 PM

onlineanalyst on March 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Everything is part of the Democrat game plan for 2014 and 2016.

They want a big win.

Did you see the Star Trek episodes with the Borg?

They want to crush the GOP.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Art of Negotiation rule 7:

Whoever has to fear daylight and public opinion due to their position(s), requests secret negotiations.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The wall is, and will always be, just an inconvenience.

As far as your comment about Dems, look on this thread. Never judge anything on what a politician says. They just play issues.

For one thing, what about those here?

Well, we keep drugs out! LOL

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I’ll take an inconvenience over a red carpet. Just put the fence down there and put guards around it who have orders to actually do something when they see people sneaking across… then we can all argue over how effective it is or not.

Drugs are a different matter. We’re not fighting that war either. Our President is selling guns to drug cartels.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM

And he declined to outline how the security of the nation’s border should be assessed, saying only that there should be no border security “trigger” that must be met before undocumented persons are eligible to begin the process of seeking legal status.

I still think Ted Cruz is right. Obama can’t just come out and blow it up in an obvious fashion because in one of those rare MSM moment’s of honesty they have already been critical of Obama to NOT blow it up by saying stupid stuff. So Obama knows he can’t do that, but he can do it in a more subtle way which is what this we don’t need a security “trigger” stuff they have been pushing for the last few months. Basically the message is if you give the executive branch the power to determine that trigger they will not enforce it because they already think it is secure. That will cause enough Republicans in the house to vote against it, assuming the bill puts the trigger in the hands of the executive branch of government. It will die and Obama can give lots of speeches on the subject, etc.

I still think this has been theater from day one. Rubio wants to help himself with Latinos without going all the way to kill him with immigration hawks in 2016, Obama wants to give more speeches to cult members, etc., etc…they both have more to gain from failure personally if it is done in the right way. They are not working together by any means or anything like that, it just the way the chips fell.

William Eaton on March 28, 2013 at 1:07 PM

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM

What about the 12 million here?

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 1:28 PM

The 12 million already here will be an election force. The left is salivating.

We will not have voter ID enforced.

Then, I repeat, they will come by boat and the funding and etc. on the wall will be cut constantly.

We need a way to remove the economic advantage of coming here, or we will have another 12 million in less than a decade.

If not my national ID idea, tell me something else, with the wall, I think we are toast.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Super duper anecdotal evidence here, but I still can’t figure out where there is much support for immigration “reform”.
I’ve hunted around quite a bit on liberal websites for the topic. Comments on the matter seem either practically non-existent (on normally busy sites)- which to me seems like the sheeple are just staying quiet – or…they seem very split on the issue with plenty of comments disapproving of an amnesty. Yeah, I know, the polls say… but I sure as heck can’t find all the supposed support.
Are Democrats fighting this also much more than we think?

lynncgb on March 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Drugs are a different matter. We’re not fighting that war either. Our President is selling guns to drug cartels.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Without some drastic change in our laws and the trajectory of this thing, we are due to become Northern South America.

Now I can adjust or move but, make no mistake, that looks like where it is going.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM

but I sure as heck can’t find all the supposed support.
Are Democrats fighting this also much more than we think?

lynncgb on March 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Dems know it is not popular THAT is why they want secret talks! Now watch the Repubs NOT make a public issue of this!

In the medium term, the illegals will swing this whole country left and President Obama knows it. So he is in an awkward situation.

SOURCE:
60% Say Focus of Immigration Policy Should Be Border Control source: Rasmussen, Thursday, April 26, 2012

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Without some drastic change in our laws and the trajectory of this thing, we are due to become Northern South America.

Now I can adjust or move but, make no mistake, that looks like where it is going.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I tried for years to point Latin American nations as shining examples of what happens when drugs run rampant, then to Sweden’s disaster at legalizing just ONE drug.

If giving the liberaltarians their pot would make them shut the hell up because they were too busy getting high, I’d let them have it because we’d have more pressing issues. But this is another issue where we hold the line or we will fall.

MelonCollie on March 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM

We can’t make legalization contingent upon border security

Why not?

HotAirian on March 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Because the Dims have no intention of ever securing the border, that’s why.

AZCoyote on March 28, 2013 at 2:45 PM

I’ll take an inconvenience over a red carpet. Just put the fence down there and put guards around it who have orders to actually do something when they see people sneaking across… then we can all argue over how effective it is or not.

Drugs are a different matter. We’re not fighting that war either. Our President is selling guns to drug cartels.

JellyToast

Drugs aren’t really a different matter. It’s all connected. The border is just as wide open for drug dealers as it is for illegals. Make no mistake, there is no incentive by this country’s government to keep either out. If they wanted to drastically reduce illegal border crossings, they could do so. It wouldn’t even be difficult. If North Korea can do it, we can too.

xblade on March 28, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Legalization should only come with (1) border enforcement, (2) registration, (3) payment of a not insubstantial fine, and (4) strict deportation laws for anyone that remains here illegally without complying with (2) and (3).

Citizenship should only be possible through existing mechanisms – and any “legalization” should not count as an instrument toward any citizenship path.

besser tot als rot on March 28, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Whatevs. Call me when the shooting starts. Until then, we’re just whining while they do their best to destroy us as quickly as possible.

Midas on March 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

call me, too.

8 weight on March 28, 2013 at 3:12 PM

And he (Obama) declined to outline how the security of the nation’s border should be assessed, saying only that there should be no border security “trigger” that must be met before undocumented persons are eligible to begin the process of seeking legal status.

We were promised secure borders with the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in 1986. Not only have we never had truly secure borders, the federal government has rarely even pretended to want secure borders.

Secure the Borders First! Only then will we talk about immigration reform.

RJL on March 28, 2013 at 3:17 PM

We can’t make legalization contingent upon border security

Wait for it…

Wait for it…

YES WE CAN!!!

Othniel on March 28, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Of course we cant’ . . . we’ve got to herd those suckers over the border fence and right into the voters booth. How silly of us to want to first secure the border.

rplat on March 28, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Got it backwards AP.
0bama doesn’t agree with Butch Napolitano; Napolitano is carrying out The Punk’s orders.

Back when she was Governor of Arizona, she was FOR border control.

LegendHasIt on March 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Quite right, Mr President!

Nobody should earn anything. That’s your entire philosophy in a nutshell, isn’t it?

jangle12 on March 28, 2013 at 3:58 PM

24/7/365…..GAYS GUNS AMNESTY!!

Welcome to the Media spin cycle.

PappyD61 on March 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Obama is not a necessity, more of a student demostration of the Williams Ayers kind.

On the other hand if you have a Constitution your first order of bussiness to the country is border security, for without borders you do not need a constitution or a Senate, a House or an Executive branch.

How to get there, a hard learned method, in fact the method used to find the targets for the drone wars.

http://thefutureofthings.com/column/6369/igloo-white-the-automated-battlefield.html

The elected “ear marked” ones in Washington D.C. betray U.S. for less than 30 little silver coins.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 28, 2013 at 4:11 PM

ps

Rubio is over his head and is getting bad advise and his lust for power has over come his understanding. The lust for the Mexican Vote is a fools choice.

He has no rudder except for his ego.

Close the border, illegals self deport as they do every holliday and wedding in Mexico, take the “Mexican Bus Lines” home.
If they want back in use the legal way.
If the legal way is not up to par fix that.

Do not sell the U.S.A. out for this fools gold.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 28, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Too,

What the hell are all these pandering fools doing slinking around on Telumondo any how?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM

We can’t make legalization contingent upon border security

Why not?

HotAirian on March 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Because the Dims have no intention of ever securing the border, that’s why.

AZCoyote on March 28, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Very simple. Legalization is a one-time act, irrevocable. Border security requires an ongoing commitment, and we can’t trust democratics to keep that commitment.

That would be as foolish as giving the ‘palestinians’ their own state if they promise to stop terrorist attacks.

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Border control 2.0
–bayam

tom daschle concerned on March 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2