Video: Rubio’s closing argument on immigration reform

posted at 4:01 pm on June 27, 2013 by Allahpundit

When I asked on Twitter whether any video of his speech this afternoon was available, someone snarked back that I should just read his RNC speech from last year since they’re basically the same. Not true, but it’s not totally untrue either. Every Rubio speech has the same template: Lots of biography, lots of shining-city-on-the-hill platitudes about America, and then, almost as an afterthought, some remarks on the subject at hand. Obama’s famous speech at the 2004 Democratic convention is the eternal model, which makes sense because Rubio’s following the same path that O did: He, personally, is The Change. By virtue of his youth, optimism, and distinct personal identity, he can lead his party and the country to a degree of success that no one else can. This is what he’s counting on, in fact, to smooth things over with conservatives who are angry with him over immigration come 2016. You guys want your own Obama to steamroll the opposition through the sheer force of his charisma and only-in-America personal success story, don’t you? Well, here he is. Cut him some slack on amnesty, which was designed as a pander to win national elections in the first place, and let’s roll. Fired up, ready to go!

John McCormack of the Weekly Standard was reminiscing on Twitter a few hours ago about interviewing candidate Rubio in 2009 and being reassured, repeatedly, that he wouldn’t support amnesty even for a hardworking law-abiding (except for crossing the border!) illegal immigrant family because it would be unfair to people who followed the rules to let anyone who didn’t off scot-free. Four years later, now that he’s a legit presidential contender, the rule of law has sunk into a gooey soup of dreams:

Here they brought their language and their customs. Their religions and their music. And somehow, made them ours as well. From a collection of people from everywhere, we became one people. The most exceptional nation in human history.

And even with all our challenges, we remain the shining city on the hill. We are still the hope of the world.

Go to our factories and fields. Go to our kitchens and construction sites. Go to the cafeteria of this very Capitol. There, you will find that the miracle of America still lives.

For here, in America, those who once had no hope, will give their children the life they once wanted for themselves.

Here, in America, generations of unfulfilled dreams will finally come to pass.

I support this reform.

Not just because I believe in immigrants, but because I believe in America even more.

That last line is almost a self-parody of Rubio’s strained non-sequitur attempts to sweep away legitimate differences on policy with sunny city-on-the-hill rhetoric. Forget whether the bill is terrible, or whether it creates incentives for employers to hire illegals over Americans, or whether it’ll lead to another amnesty in 25 years, or whether it’ll worsen the entitlement crunch when legalized illegals start retiring. We’re talking about dreams here. And so I repeat a point I made recently: Did candidate Rubio, the staunch amnesty opponent, never consider “dreams”? Did he never think deeply about this issue until after he was elected, despite debating it with Charlie Crist repeatedly in 2010? What changed between the time McCormack interviewed him and today, besides the political expediency involved in supporting amnesty? The answer, I think, is that America is the last, best hope of mankind, and a miracle birthed by the Founders, and we are not blue states or red states but the United States, so stop asking questions already, okay?

But now let me repeat another point I made recently: This speech isn’t aimed at you and me. We’re ideologues, and he kissed off the ideologues when he decided to support an amnesty bill. It’s aimed at the majority who pay attention to the news one or two hours a week, like the idea of bipartisan compromise and comprehensive immigration reform even though they really don’t know what’s in the bill, and will enjoy listening to a fluid hopeful communicator like Rubio talk about the promise and glory of America as a contrast to stiffs like McCain and Romney. The guy knows who his audience is, and he knows what he’s doing. That’s the one consolation for border hawks if he ends up as nominee — he’ll certainly, certainly be better at getting his message out than the last few nominees were. Who knows? Instead of losing 73 percent of the Latino vote next time, we might only lose 65.


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

Hearing a lot of commercials on Rush’s program from a group called “American’s for a Conservative Direction” telling us all how great this immigrations bill is.

Anyone want to bet that “American’s for a Conservative Direction” will be nowhere to be found in 2014 supporting conservative candidates for office?

dirtseller on June 28, 2013 at 12:55 PM

But fact is, momentum is building here because this is indeed the right direction to be moving in – something understood, accepted, and supported by most of ‘the population’.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM

 
So we’re all clear, you understand, accept, and support the harsh effect it will have on the wealth accumulation and employment opportunities of ~60% of black American males.
 
Here’s the cursive:
 

The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers: A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC
 
…illegal workers are estimated to account for as much as one-third of total immigrants in the United States, and that illegal immigration has tended to increase the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available. The Commission found also that about six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market in likely competition with immigrants.
 
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf

 
How was it you put it above? Oh, yeah:
 

this is indeed the right direction to be moving in

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Hearing a lot of commercials on Rush’s program from a group called “American’s for a Conservative Direction” telling us all how great this immigrations bill is.

Anyone want to bet that “American’s for a Conservative Direction” will be nowhere to be found in 2014 supporting conservative candidates for office?

dirtseller on June 28, 2013 at 12:55 PM

That is on Faux too and it is NOT “conservative”.

It’s the joint the very leftist Facebook Zuckerberg runs, in his aim to help obama’s initiative.

It’s a total farce. Wake up America!!!

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2013 at 12:58 PM

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 12:57 PM

verbie is not very deep.

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Hearing a lot of commercials on Rush’s program from a group called “American’s for a Conservative Direction” telling us all how great this immigrations bill is.

Anyone want to bet that “American’s for a Conservative Direction” will be nowhere to be found in 2014 supporting conservative candidates for office?

dirtseller on June 28, 2013 at 12:55 PM

They have a facebook page too. And there is another group also pushing this.

I just tipped HA to an article I read about a guy traveling to Moscow without a visa.

Does Russia give amnesty to illegal immigrants? I wonder, Does Russia have a “guest worker” program? I am considering researching these questions for all the countries in the world to find out how many embrace illegal aliens and give them EBT cards and free emergency room service…

dogsoldier on June 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM

But fact is, momentum is building here because this is indeed the right direction to be moving in – something understood, accepted, and supported by most of ‘the population’.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Wow, you’re as dumb as a box of rocks. It’s not supported by most of the legal citizenry.

dogsoldier on June 28, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Who is Marco Rubio representing?

Who are the Progressive Republicans that voted for this representing?

Certainly NOT hard working Americans.

Talk radio host Laura Ingraham said she could not imagine anyone who is for the working class voting for the “immigration reform” legislation. She said the bill’s consequences would be ugly for working class Americans.

Rosemary Jenks, a Harvard Law graduate who is the director of government relations at Numbers USA, appeared on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125 and said it was “frightening” that the immigration bill would replace “American workers with a whole new foreign workforce” by granting more green cards in 10 years than the country has awarded in the last forty years.

She said the elite who live in gated communities and want an influx of cheap labor will never have to worry about their jobs, crime, or sending their kids to public schools because they “don’t have to live in the same world that we do and face the impact of immigration on a daily basis.”

Victor Davis Hanson echoed Jenks’s concerns in National Review, writing that “for ethnic activists, huge annual influxes of unassimilated minorities subvert the odious melting pot and mean continuance of their own self-appointed guardianship of salad-bowl multiculturalism.”

“Meanwhile, the upper middle classes in coastal cocoons enjoy the aristocratic privileges of having plenty of cheap household help, while having enough wealth not to worry about the social costs of illegal immigration in terms of higher taxes or the problems in public education, law enforcement, and entitlements,” Hanson wrote. “No wonder our elites wink and nod at the supposed realities in the current immigration bill, while selling fantasies to the majority of skeptical Americans.”

Last Friday, a panelist on Fox News’s Hannity’s panel of black conservatives, which included Sirius XM Patriot’s David Webb and Breitbart’s Sonnie Johnson, emphasized that the Senate’s immigration bill would have a “detrimental impact” on black Americans.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), one of the most critical opponents of the immigration bill, noted that the bill would hurt working class Hispanics in addition to all working class Americans and the “poorest among us.” Sessions noted that according to the CBO report, the bill would have a devastating impact on wages of Americans looking for job security, and it would raise the unemployment rate while only solving 25% of the illegal immigration problem. He posited that between 30 million and 50 million workers will be added to the labor force in the next ten years, completely destroying the possibility of upward mobility of working class Americans of all backgrounds. Yet, Republican senators like Murkowski (R-AK), Rubio (R-FL), Ayotte (R-NH), McCain (R-AZ), and Graham (R-SC) voted for the final bill.

“Why would any Member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a time of high unemployment, falling wages?” Sessions asked on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/25/Palin-Defend-American-Workers

PappyD61 on June 28, 2013 at 1:06 PM

But fact is, momentum is building here because this is indeed the right direction to be moving in – something understood, accepted, and supported by most of ‘the population’.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Also said by Germans during the 1930s.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Even the Weekly Standard realizes the travesty.

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I’d say you’re the one working the ‘morally authoritative’ angle.
(And the juvenile ones.)
Nobody is defining the word ‘amnesty’. It is being dismissed.
The debate is finally being had sans the ‘outrage’ rhetoric.
Well, for some.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 12:35 PM

What “angle”? The law? Common sense? In that case, yes — I bring greater moral authority to the issue.

Dismissing a term is in fact defining it. You don’t see that? Because the term isn’t going away, or being truly dismissed. Therefore it must be putatively “dismissed,” which is to say, redefined. And, to repeat, to arrogate to oneself the power to “dismiss” is in fact to arrogate to oneself illegitimate moral authority.

I don’t care how an issue is “trending” among the HA commentariat. The comment about trains of thought leaving stations, i.e., how opinion-fashion signifies some kind of unimpeachable consensus, was childish. That’s all my quarrel had been about.

But if you wish to twist it into something greater, fair enough.
The debate cannot be honestly “had” outside the context of the “outrage,” because for many of us, the bill is objectively outrageous. That’s the issue. And it is akin to Orwellian (and familiarly Leftist) to attempt to turn the righteous indignation involved in such a momentous debate into evidence of non-seriousness or an absence of adultness. But I get it: the contempt for law and common sense, the moral righteousness and the precatory need to appease the idols of opinion embodied in this foolish bill naturally extend to condescension and fearful eagerness to marginalize opposition, to caricature objections as less than adult.

That, of course, is what enablers of amnesty would like, i.e., to present their judicious-seeming accommodation to lawlessness as a form of “adult” debate in which we all accept the terms and premises of their bill as the negotiating base line out of fear of appearing “unreasonable.”

We won’t have it. There is a time and season for everything: now is the time and season of outrage.

rrpjr on June 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM

But fact is, momentum is building here…

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Wrong. The “momentum” is in fact not building, but showing more signs of reversing. Which is why the rush.

rrpjr on June 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM

I’ll see your Henny Penny and raise you one United States Civil Rights Commission report…

Civil Rights Commission: “Granting Illegal Immigrants Effective Amnesty Would ‘Harm Lower-Skilled African-Americans’”

Unlike you, I don’t rebut arguments with faerie tales.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Actually, one guy that was once on the CRC wrote a letter that said that. But of course you know that. Peter Kirsanow, a back door Bush appointee. Predictable stooge who offered testimony critical of Kagan and Sotomoyer at their confirmation hearings…and offered glowing praise for Alito. His appointment to the CRC was a cynical ploy designed to offer cover to those in fact opposed to the CRC’s work and advocacy. It allows some to conveniently toss out inaccurate and misleading bits like Civil Rights Commission: “Granting Illegal Immigrants Effective Amnesty Would ‘Harm Lower-Skilled African-Americans’”

Unlike you (in this case), I don’t rebut arguments with rank and provable b.s.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Also said by Germans during the 1930s.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Gawd.
Man, bringing the weak tea today.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Flashback 2009: Rubio says Reagan made a mistake with 1986 amnesty

‘In 1986 Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million people. You know what happened, in addition to becoming 11 million a decade later? There were people trying to enter the country legally, who had done the paperwork, who were here legally, who were going through the process, who claimed, all of a sudden, ‘No, no, no, no, I’m illegal.’ Because it was easier to do the amnesty program than it was to do the legal process.

If you grant amnesty, the message that you’re sending is that if you come in this country and stay here long enough, we will let you stay. And no one will ever come through the legal process if you do that.’

- Marco Rubio 2009

‘But, but, but, it’s not amnesty like 1986!!!’

I Recall the 1986 Immigration Act Rather Differently

Karl Rove’s recollection of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (“Immigration Reform and the Hispanic Vote,” op-ed, June 6) is, shall we say, highly selective. That law, he writes, “essentially told those here illegally that if they had arrived in the U.S. prior to 1982 and wanted to become citizens, simply raise your right hand.” He asserts that the Gang of Eight bill is different because it “has plenty of penalties and hurdles for those here illegally who seek citizenship.”

Well, I was there in ’86. I read that bill carefully. (We did that back then.) And I can tell you that Mr. Rove’s blithe description of the bill is way off the mark.

The 1986 act didn’t turn illegal immigrants into citizens on the spot. It granted temporary resident status only to those who could prove they had resided continuously in America for five years. After 18 months, their status could be upgraded to permanent residency, and only after another five years could they become U.S. citizens.

But advancement to citizenship was not automatic. Immigrants had to satisfy various requirements along the way. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

Sound familiar? It’s pretty much the same “penalties and hurdles” set forth by the Gang of Eight. Today they call it a “roadmap to citizenship.” Ronald Reagan called it “amnesty.”

The ’86 reform bill also had supposedly “rigorous” border security and immigration law enforcement provisions. So how did that pan out? On the day Reagan signed “comprehensive” reform into law, only one thing changed: Millions of unlawful immigrants gained “legal” status. The promised crackdowns on security and enforcement never happened. Only amnesty prevailed.

Since the ’86 amnesty, the number of illegal immigrants has quadrupled. That should teach Congress a very important lesson: Amnesty “bends” the rule of law. And bending the rule of law to reach a “comprehensive” deal winds up provoking wholesale breaking of the law. Ultimately, it encourages millions more to risk entering the country illegally in the hope that one day they, too, might receive amnesty.

On legislation as important as this, lawmakers must take the time to read the bill, not rely on others’ characterizations of what it says. We can’t afford to have Congress “pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

Edwin Meese III, Attorney General
Washington

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Gawd.
Man, bringing the weak tea today.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Also said in the United States relative to eugenics.

Thanks for proving that people like me, WHO OBEYED US IMMIGRATION LAWS, WAITED, PAID, AND HAVEN’T ASKED FOR ANYTHING FROM THE GOVERNMENT, were total suckers.

BTW, if you want to see what IS NOT ‘weak tea,’ take a good look at Mexico’s immigration laws.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Man, bringing the weak tea today.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 1:36 PM

So sayeth the person who brought the faerie tale, Henny Penny, to a CBO-Civil Rights Commission fight.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Mexican Immigration…

• Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

- Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

- The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

- A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

- Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

- Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working without a permit — can also be imprisoned.

• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:

- “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

- Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Mexican Constitution:

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.

Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics.

Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.”

Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

• The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.

If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.

“Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Article 27)

• The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector.

“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.” (Article 32)

• The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.

Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”

• An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

• Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

• The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

• The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”

• The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.

Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.”

Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.

According to Article 33:

‘The Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.’

Press #1 for Mexican Constitution in Spanish

Press #2 for Mexican Constitution in English

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:59 PM

So sayeth the person who brought the faerie tale, Henny Penny, to a CBO-Civil Rights Commission fight.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I know Henny Penny is a faerie tale.
And as I showed above, so is your ‘CRC commission’ claim.
So really, faerie tale vs faerie tale.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Press #1 for Mexican Constitution in Spanish

Press #2 for Mexican Constitution in English

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:59 PM

:)

Axe on June 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

But fact is, momentum is building here because this is indeed the right direction to be moving in – something understood, accepted, and supported by most of ‘the population’.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM

 
The Commission found also that about six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market in likely competition with immigrants.
 
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf

 
verbaluce,
 
1) do you understand, accept, and support the effect this legislation would have on wealth/employment of 60% of black males and their children, or
 
2) are you just now becoming informed on the effects of this legislation on the majority of black men and well-being of their families?

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I know Henny Penny is a faerie tale.
And as I showed above, so is your ‘CRC commission’ claim.
So really, faerie tale vs faerie tale.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

You haven’t rebutted anything and I notice that you failed to address either CBO report.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

:)

Axe on June 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

~~wink, wink~~

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I see you have no defense on the CRC b.s.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I see you have no defense on the CRC b.s.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Of course I do. The CBO backs it up.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Wow. Thats what I was talking about doing for each country and creating a database.

dogsoldier on June 28, 2013 at 2:34 PM

‘The United States cannot regain its competitive standing in the world by importing low wage workers from other countries. On the one hand, it engenders conditions this country cannot and should not tolerate. On the other hand, in the modern age, a nation’s wealth and prosperity is secured by high worker productivity and capital investment, not by the availability of low-wage labour.’

– Senator Eugene McCarthy

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 2:46 PM

So sayeth the person who brought the faerie tale, Henny Penny, to a CBO-Civil Rights Commission fight.
 
Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM

 
I know Henny Penny is a faerie tale.
And as I showed above, so is your ‘CRC commission’ claim.
So really, faerie tale vs faerie tale.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

 
Of course I do. The CBO backs it up.
 
Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM

 
The United States Commission on Civil Rights members:
 

Gordon Hanson, UC San Diego Professor of Economics; Pacific Economic Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations; Director, Center on Emerging and Pacific Economies

 

Gerald Jaynes, Yale Professor of Economics and Professor of African-American Studies

 

Vernon M. Briggs Jr., Emeritus Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations

 

Harry J. Holzer, Georgetown Professor of Public Policy, faculty director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy

 

Julie Hotchkiss, Research Economist and Policy Adviser, Latin America Research Group of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

 

Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies

 

Richard Nadler, president of the Americas Majority Foundation

 

Carol M. Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University. Her fields are race relations, immigration, representation, evangelical politics and the US constitution.

 
For a while I thought they probably knew what they were talking about since they’re all experts at the top of their fields and even presented this to the President of the United States and Congress:
 

The Commission found also that about six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market in likely competition with immigrants.
 
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf

 
But I’ve reconsidered since an anonymous poster named verbaluce said it’s a fairy tale.
 
Even though couldn’t back it up with his own links or facts, I like his faith-based religious approach to the topic and I’m going to believe him instead of these folks.

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I see you have no defense on the CRC b.s.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Of course I do. The CBO backs it up.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Backs up what?
That that the CRC didn’t at all say or determine what you claimed they did?
But before I dig into the CBOs, shall I take it that you never question assumptions/conclusions from that source?

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I reply to you only to let you know that you are clearly not following – at all.
RWM is more than capable.
Stick to what you don’t know.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM

The CRC claimed that African-Americans, because many are unskilled, would be adversely impacted. The CBO report backs up the assertion that unskilled, low-wage employees will be most hurt.

These are the takeaways from the CBO reports:

No End To Illegal Immigration

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., may be making bold pronouncements from the Senate floor about how “illegal immigration will be a thing of the past” if his bill becomes law, but the CBO disagrees. They write: “Unauthorized residents would find it harder both to enter the country and to find employment while unauthorized. However, other aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents—in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers.”

Overall, CBO estimates that Schumer-Rubio would only decrease illegal immigration by just 25 percent. Combine that future flow of illegal immigrants with the 3 million illegal immigrants who CBO estimates will not qualify for legalization this time around, and you have a growing cohort of future illegal immigrants who are guaranteed to demand another amnesty years from now.

Higher Unemployment

In addition to not ending illegal immigration, CBO estimates that Schumer-Rubio will also make unemployment worse too. “Employment would increase as the labor force expanded, because the additional population would add to demand for goods and services and, in turn, to the demand for labor,” the report reads. “However, temporary imbalances in the skills and occupations demanded and supplied in the labor market, as well as other factors, would cause the unemployment rate to be slightly higher for several years than projected under current law.”

Lower Wages

Not only will more Americans be unemployed if amnesty passes, but those with jobs will also suffer lower wages as well. “The legislation would particularly increase the number of workers with lower or higher skills but would have less effect on the number of workers with average skills,” the report says. “As a result, the wages of lower- and higher-skilled workers would tend to be pushed downward slightly (by less than ½ percent) relative to the wages of workers with average skills.”

Ponzi Scheme Deficit Reduction

Even the CBO’s top line $197 billion deficit reduction number does not stand up to scrutiny. That number is only valid if you believe the Social Security and Medicare trust funds don’t exist. It includes all payroll taxes paid to those programs that are supposed to be saved to pay for them decades from now. If we maintain the fictions of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, then S. 744 actually adds $14.2 billion to the deficit over ten years. But like any Ponzi scheme, those paying into the system now will eventually want to get paid what they were promised years from now.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Palin coming through.

rrpjr on June 28, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Yep…coming through…very dependably.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM

So we’re all clear, you understand, accept, and support the harsh effect it will have on the wealth accumulation and employment opportunities of ~60% of black American males.
 
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf

 

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 12:57 PM

 

verbaluce,
 
1) do you understand, accept, and support the effect this legislation would have on wealth/employment of 60% of black males and their children, or
 
2) are you just now becoming informed on the effects of this legislation on the majority of black men and well-being of their families?
 
rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 2:02 PM

 

 

I reply to you only to let you know that you are clearly not following – at all.
RWM is more than capable.
Stick to what you don’t know.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM

 
Hey, remember when you told us:
 

But posting this kind of ad-hominem drivel, Liam and HAL simply illustrate an inability to substantively argue or debate.
 
verbaluce on June 24, 2013 at 10:19 AM

 
Nicely done.

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 4:38 PM

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Well now, your drivel isn’t ad-hominem.
It’s just ad-nauseam.
But leaves you in the same place.
Have a great 4th. Next year too.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 4:28 PM

If Sandra O’Connor says something tomorrow, can I quote as ‘according to SCOTUS’?

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM

verbie is not very deep.

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Maybe I should start calling folks ‘scumbag’.
You know, deep and intelligent stuff like that.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM

If Sandra O’Connor says something tomorrow, can I quote as ‘according to SCOTUS’?

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Sandra Day O’Connor is no longer on the Supreme Court – and, I’m very grateful for that.

OTOH, the CBO reports are current.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Maybe I should start calling folks ‘scumbag’.
You know, deep and intelligent stuff like that.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM

 
It’s amusing that you think “scumbag” is any different than “your drivel isn’t ad-hominem, it’s just ad-nauseam” or any other personal attack.
 
You nailed it five days ago when you said any words like that are there for the same simplistic purpose.
 

But posting this kind of ad-hominem drivel, Liam and HAL simply illustrate an inability to substantively argue or debate.
 
verbaluce on June 24, 2013 at 10:19 AM

 
Like you said, the words themselves don’t matter, because it’s just an attempt to distract when one is too uninformed to argue or debate.
 

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 7:42 PM

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 4:38 PM

 
Well now, your drivel isn’t ad-hominem.
It’s just ad-nauseam.
But leaves you in the same place.
Have a great 4th. Next year too.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM

 
So a legitimate question is asked with the supporting .gov link
 

So we’re all clear, you understand, accept, and support the harsh effect it will have on the wealth accumulation and employment opportunities of ~60% of black American males.
 
rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 12:57 PM

 
asked again
 

verbaluce,
 
1) do you…
 
rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 2:02 PM

 

and an ad hominem is the response, followed up with another ad hominem after the hypocrisy of the first ad hominem is noted.
 
At which point, by your own standard
 

But posting this kind of ad-hominem drivel, Liam and HAL simply illustrate an inability to substantively argue or debate.
 
verbaluce on June 24, 2013 at 10:19 AM

 
and strange self-admittal throught the second ad hominem, you simply illustrate an inability to substantively argue or debate that recently-illegal citizens will compete with 60% of black American males for their jobs.
 
(I’m going with “didn’t know until today”, personally. I can’t see anyone actually understanding and supporting the destruction of black families. Shame you couldn’t figure out a way to discuss the topic, though.)
 
And happy Independence Day to you as well.
 
Sorry, 4th of July. Probably not much resonance with “Independence Day”, eh?

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 7:45 PM

OTOH, the CBO reports are current.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 7:19 PM

You are 100% just ignoring your CRC claims now.
Good.

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 9:40 PM

If Sandra O’Connor says something tomorrow, can I quote as ‘according to SCOTUS’?

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Sandra Day O’Connor is no longer on the Supreme Court – and, I’m very grateful for that.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Correct. She no longer is.
So you follow the analogy…right?

verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM

This is all so senseless, they will not enforce the immigration laws as they stand, so they create a new bunch of Bull#X*^ that they have no intention of enforcing in the first place. Then they will come up with the excuse that they have to have more funds to make it work. How has that worked in the past for anything that they have needed more funds for? How has shoveling out more tax dollars for schools worked out?

You young folks don’t get it yet. You can’t look back far enough to see how all your freedom, morality, social responsibilities, education have been slowly eradicated from your lives, and everything these conniving legislator’s are doing is just eroding them more. Just look back and see if there is any legislation that has been signed into law that benefits the nation within the limits of the Constitution. They all benefit the legislators whom in most cases are immune to them or allow them to over reach their authority.

I feel sorry for all you young folks, you will never know the freedom and pride I had in this once great nation that I knew in my youth.

N4646W on June 29, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4