Jan
12
2013

Marco Rubio and the Immigration Controversy Time Bomb.

I could live with this. More importantly: so could probably 50+% of the electorate, which I suspect is getting thoroughly tired of this issue.

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

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

Now, I know very well that a lot of people are going to be opposed to something like this, but here’s an uncomfortable truth: you can either have a significant easing of immigration policy done by Republicans, or you can one done by Democrats (the alternative of ‘don’t ease immigration policy’ died with Mitt Romney’s electoral prospects*).  And while the Republicans may annoy you, the Democrats want you to die in a grease fire (I am only slightly exaggerating with that last bit).  Your call.

Moe Lane

*In 2008 I had to swallow hard and support a candidate who I was utterly opposed to wrt campaign finance reform.  In 2012 I had to grimace and support a candidate who I severely disagreed with wrt immigration.  I insist on having in a 2016 a whole new policy position that will make me grit my teeth.

10 Comments

  • BigGator5 says:

    I fully support Senator Marco Rubio’s efforts here.

  • CBart says:

    Yawn. I believe I did take this deal in 1986. I might take it again if I believed the other side was negotiating in good faith. By the other side, I mean the entire government, the media, and most of the business community vs. most of the citizens. I’ll be d****d if I take that fake deal again. There’s enough youngsters who weren’t around last time, that I expect my country will lose.

  • Spegen says:

    Laying down that 2016 groundwork i see. What will interesting is how important this issue is in the primary, its something that the argue about but how many votes does it effect im the primary vs the general

  • Luke says:

    The devil, as always, is in the details.

    Needless to say, enforcement first.

  • Subotai Bahadur says:

    As Luke says, enforcement first. Every attempt to deal with immigration in living memory has ended with the Left promising enforcement “later” and “later” never has come. If we can rightly complain about the Institutional Republicans getting taken in again and again on fiscal issues, and being lied to each time about budget cuts “later”; why can’t we see the same tactic when dealing with immigration?

    To be honest, immigration as an issue is not that hard to deal with conceptually. I have written a number of pieces on the subject. Short form:

    1) control the borders, using the military.
    2) EXPAND the number of legal immigrants, and institute a new system for the quotas. Set a quota for each continent [so we get the best and brightest from everywhere, not just largely Mexicans and Central Americans]. Set subquotas for each country within the continent annually with input from State and Defense. If a country is hostile to us, do we really need immigrants from there [see Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya]? The granting of a quota in any year is totally at the discretion of the US alone.
    3) What I call the “Ellis Island” tests. If you have some nasty disease we do not want, you can’t come in. If you are a convicted felon [common law offenses, not political ones. You should get bonus points for telling your local dictator to shove it.], we have enough felons so you can stay home.
    4) Go back to the sponsorship system, with no public assistance or criminal convictions until you get first papers [4 years]. Either means you go home. Return to basic English fluency as a requirement for the citizenship test, not because of a hatred of foreign languages, but because fluency in English in addition to your home language, whatever it is, means you can survive independently anywhere in the country you choose to live.
    5) Current illegals here have 6 months to register. If they do so, and pass #3, they can stay IF they find a US citizen sponsor and follow #4 for EIGHT years [penalty for being illegal]. Failure to register means immediate, permanent, deportation upon capture without appeal or recourse to the courts beyond proof of illegal entry.
    6) Anchor babies: If born here, they are US citizens. However, parents determine where and how minor children live as a matter of law anywhere in the world. If they choose, and can find, a US resident to act as guardian, the US citizen children can stay if the parents have to leave from the requirements above. OR the children go with them. This does not void their being US citizens. Before they leave; DNA samples, fingerprints, and retinal scans will be taken and stored at the State Department. Upon reaching the age of 18, the children can present themselves at any US foreign mission and claim citizenship. There, DNA samples, fingerprints, and retinal scans will be taken and sent back to the United States. If they match what is on file, the child will be returned to the US at government expense, and upon arrival new confirming samples will be taken and tested. If they match, the citizen will be furnished documents and given aid in reintegrating into US society anywhere in the US.

    This requires the “to be honest” mentioned above. Democrats and other Leftists aren’t.

    Subotai Bahadur

  • acat says:

    Enforcement first.
    .
    I will *settle* for enforcement *provably* starting at the same time as benefits are offered.
    .
    I will not accept anything that starts benefits prior to enforcement.
    .
    I am very tired of this issue… both sides of it.
    .
    Mew

  • commonsenseobserver says:

    More box-ticking from the pandering opportunist from Florida.

    Someone who is clearly doing everything in an insider’s playbook to aim for the Oval Office, who seems to think that the era of carefully-worded statements and twisting and turning to be everything to everyone has just begun afresh, someone who is only interested in voting and winning, and not in serving and leading.

    Let’s streamline legal immigration, let’s enforce the law well on the border and inside, let’s have a temporary worker program, then we can talk about providing a pathway to legal residency that is consistent with the above, including and especially for the DREAMers as they are called by the media.

    I don’t believe in mass deportation, but I was also shocked by the mass hysteria about self-deportation, which was a reasonable policy of firm enforcement with opportunity based on merit and need.

    And I really disagree with the idea of “quotas” that some have mentioned. Every legal immigrant should be accepted based on merit and security and necessity.
    I can take this from anyone but the person who thinks that “short-term answers” are “welcome news” for those who will be most severely harmed by band-aids, uncertainty, election time goodies, and no small amount of tyranny.

    In any case, current illegal immigrants should be given the chance to wait in line like other people, only from the US itself, and any form of amnesty should only take place after the border is secured and all enforcement procedures are in place, and only for those who bothered to register and wait in line.

    A step-by-step approach should have the Sensenbrenner bill first, followed shortly by the DREAM Act, before any form of McCain-Kennedy.

  • qixlqatl says:

    Oh, please. If anything changes, it will be to straight amnesty with no border enforcement. Anything else opens the republican party up to charges of “racism”, which is they consider to be an automatic loss. Nothing will be done. NOTHING.

  • LiberExMachina says:

    Which part of that statement was the exaggeration? Was it the grease part (you know, wanting us to die in a normal fire), the fire part (you know, wanting us to die in grease), or the fire part plus the spelling of grease (you know, wanting us to die in Greece)?

  • Freddie Sykes says:

    I am all for open boarders with criminal and health background checks but we cannot afford that and a welfare state.

    I would make the act of voting illegally punishable by deportation.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com