Neither Marco Rubio Nor His Amnesty Plan Is Conservative

[FrankRep]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Marco_Rubio,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg/220px-Marco_Rubio,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/15467-neither-rubio-nor-his-amnesty-plan-is-conservative)



Rubio's amnesty plan is debunked for the sham that it is.


Neither Marco Rubio Nor His Amnesty Plan Is Conservative (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/15467-neither-rubio-nor-his-amnesty-plan-is-conservative)


The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
22 May 2013


Not so long ago, such conservative movement notables as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and many of their colleagues were singing the praises of Florida Senator Marco Rubio. The latter, we have been told, is a rock-ribbed conservative and GOP star who could very well be the next president of the United States.

Doubtless, it is courtesy of the pivotal role that he’s played in promoting the amnesty agenda of “the Gang of Eight” that accounts for why the enthusiasm for Rubio among movement celebrities at least appears to have cooled some. Hopefully, appearance here coincides with reality, for Rubio is not now, nor has he ever been, a conservative. His position on immigration is just the latest proof of this.

Yet it isn’t just that Rubio has been tenaciously advancing amnesty for millions upon millions of illegal immigrants, though this is bad enough. What’s worse is the dishonesty that he’s shown in his pursuit of this end.

Rubio features in an ad that is played incessantly in Republican-friendly venues in which he tries to convince his party’s base that his amnesty plan is “bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.” But, observes Jon Feere from the Center for Immigration Studies, given “all the exemptions and waivers” contained in his bill, “it is difficult” to buy this.

Rubio also promises that for the 11 million or so amnestied immigrants, there will be “no federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare,” and “they [will] have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.” Feere’s response: “Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions.” He explains: “Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that.” Moreover, Rubio’s plan “would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.”

Rubio claims that his plan deals with the problem of illegal immigration “once and for all,” but as Feere points out, the 1986 amnesty on which Reagan signed off also promised to deal with this problem “once and for all.” It failed abysmally to deliver. Why think things will be different now?

According to Rubio, his bill does not incite immigrants to come to America illegally. Feere remarks that, evidently, Rubio is not paying any mind to “border officials” who have testified to the contrary before Congress. Feere cites a Washington Times article in which Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher’s testimony before the Senate is relayed. Fisher is blunt: “We have seen an increase in attempted entries.” The article continues: “He [Fisher] said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.”

Rubio’s claim that amnesty is not “unfair to the people who have done it the right way” is just as bogus as his other assertions. Feere writes: “The reality is that illegal aliens get to stay in the country the moment they apply for amnesty.” As soon as they pass “the simple background check, they receive legal status and nearly all the benefits of citizenship.”

Rubio’s ad calls for us to “stand” with him in putting an end to “de facto amnesty” while supporting “Conservative Immigration Reform.” Feere replies that “Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty that we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here.” At the same time, he “asks you to ‘stand’ with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as ‘conservative’ in any sense of the word.”

Feere does a thorough job of exposing Rubio’s comprehensive amnesty plan for the sham that it is. However, just a modicum of common sense is enough to see that Rubio and his accomplices in the Gang of Eight are trying to pull one over on us.

Our government has proven itself to be either incapable of or unwilling to enforce our immigration laws up until this point. Now, after Rubio and company heap new conditions upon the old law books, we’re expected to believe that the government will finally do what it has neglected doing for decades.

But if you believe this, then you’ll believe that Marco Rubio is a conservative.

[Warlord]

“Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty that we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here.” At the same time, he “asks you to ‘stand’ with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as ‘conservative’ in any sense of the word.”
-

That's a pretty good summary.

[sailingaway]

He was never conservative, he was Leader of the Senate or some such in Florida and an establishment hack. He was just MORE conservative on a FEW things than Crist.

[Christian Liberty]

“Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty that we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here.” At the same time, he “asks you to ‘stand’ with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as ‘conservative’ in any sense of the word.”
-

That's a pretty good summary.

Is that talking about ANDREW Napolitano or Janet?

Becuase if its talking about the Judge, even putting his name next to that serial killer in the White House is offensive. And immigration is NOT the problem here.

[FrankRep]

Is that talking about ANDREW Napolitano or Janet?

Becuase if its talking about the Judge, even putting his name next to that serial killer in the White House is offensive. And immigration is NOT the problem here.

Janet Napolitano obviously.

[JorgeStevenson]

I don't understand what is non-conservative about amnesty. Why do we want big government deciding who does and doesn't get to live here? What's wrong with a contract between 2 individuals? If there is a landlord offering rent and a lessee willing to pay the rent, why should the government step between that? Sorry, I guess I'm not up to speed on the topic of immigration - I'm honestly curious what the "conservative" reasoning is?

[FrankRep]

I don't understand what is non-conservative about amnesty. Why do we want big government deciding who does and doesn't get to live here? What's wrong with a contract between 2 individuals? If there is a landlord offering rent and a lessee willing to pay the rent, why should the government step between that? Sorry, I guess I'm not up to speed on the topic of immigration - I'm honestly curious what the "conservative" reasoning is?

Ron Paul is also Anti-Amnesty.


Ron Paul: No Amnesty!
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/

The Immigration Question
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

[sailingaway]

I don't understand what is non-conservative about amnesty. Why do we want big government deciding who does and doesn't get to live here? What's wrong with a contract between 2 individuals? If there is a landlord offering rent and a lessee willing to pay the rent, why should the government step between that? Sorry, I guess I'm not up to speed on the topic of immigration - I'm honestly curious what the "conservative" reasoning is?

the rule of law is conservative and rewarding breaking it is one issue, but the Obamacare and welfare and free education for all plus chain migration bringing more by self selection from each legalized person, onto Obamacare and the welfare state.... it is definitely not conservative.

Without a welfare state it would be different, but there is the welfare state, at a time when benefits by those who paid into it are being rationed. For the specific people who have been here a long time and havent broken other laws, I can see a 'cruel and unusual' element to splitting families up, but nothing requires taxpayer funded benefits, getting the vote or automatic right to bring in their family before others, to the same welfare state, as a reward for coming illegally and, to be frankl, breaking all the laws it takes to continue to be here illegally all that time, imho.

If the welfare state weren't in it, I wouldn't be paying much attention to this issue. But as it is, it is such an obvious detriment to all who fund and use schools, health care, social security or any other tax funded program, that even considering this particular bill just shows how little Congress cares about the true welfare of the people, imho.

Having said all that, we don't seem to have any champions in Congress on this point, who are looking at it rationally. They are mouthing the words along culture lines, and that isn't going to get us to a decent bill.

[JorgeStevenson]

I know that is Ron Paul's position, but it is completely incoherent with his other positions. It's a black eye on his otherwise stellar resume. All of his arguments against immigration seem to be utilitarian arguments where he focuses on the outcome of amnesty.

We can't have amnesty because they don't learn how to speak English.
We can't have amnesty because there it will lead to some sort of Mexican-Canadian union.
We can't have amnesty because it will encourage more people to immigrate.

...who cares?

I don't see a fundamental moral reason for overriding a contract between 2 human beings. So it was against the law for them to move here - the law was stupid! The law was wrong. If person A & person B enter into a contract, THAT is the law. Why do we say, "Oh, that's only the law if person A and person B were both born in the same geographic area?"

In short - where is the moral reason? We don't argue about outcomes when we talk about minimum wage, free markets, etc. Sure, the outcomes are a bonus. But the fundamental fact is that it's wrong to get the government involved in a contract between two free individuals - that would be wrong no matter what the eventual outcome would be.

Again, I'm not an expert politician or anything. I was apolitical until I was 25 years-old and heard Ron Paul talk about the IRS. His positions are outstanding on just about everything - but doesn't immigration stick out like a sore thumb?

[sailingaway]

see , you are egging the cultural lines. See my post above for my response.

[JorgeStevenson]

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm asking a legitimately honest question -

Do you apply this utilitarian, outcome-based argument to every aspect of politics?

Because if you did, you would be pro-choice, would you not? Your argument would be as follows:

"This wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have the welfare state. But, since we do, I have to take the unconservative position that it is okay to murder fetuses because, unfortunately a lot of fetuses are born to poor people. And since poor people live off of the welfare state, supporting choice allows us to avoid further rationing of our welfare system."

Just honestly wondering. Not trying to start any fights. I want to understand.

[RDM]

Ron Paul: You Can't Deal With Immigration Unless You Deal With Welfare State - Bloomberg 4/23/2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GYXKelZ3bw

[sailingaway]

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm asking a legitimately honest question -

Do you apply this utilitarian, outcome-based argument to every aspect of politics?

Because if you did, you would be pro-choice, would you not? Your argument would be as follows:

"This wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have the welfare state. But, since we do, I have to take the unconservative position that it is okay to murder fetuses because, unfortunately a lot of fetuses are born to poor people. And since poor people live off of the welfare state, supporting choice allows us to avoid further rationing of our welfare system."

Just honestly wondering. Not trying to start any fights. I want to understand.

that is demagoguery and I'm really not interested in that. I think I made myself clear. Ron addresses it in part in that ^^ video, but I don't think at all you are trying to understand. I think you are trying to spin, and I'm not going to bother with that.

[JorgeStevenson]

Ok, fair enough. Thank you for your time and thoughts.

[Southron]

I don't understand what is non-conservative about amnesty. Why do we want big government deciding who does and doesn't get to live here? What's wrong with a contract between 2 individuals? If there is a landlord offering rent and a lessee willing to pay the rent, why should the government step between that? Sorry, I guess I'm not up to speed on the topic of immigration - I'm honestly curious what the "conservative" reasoning is?

The future of this country and its government is determined by those people who will be its citizen. Amnesty means future citizens. Most immigrants are not conservatives. It's pretty simple.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

The future of this country and its government is determined by those people who will be its citizen. Amnesty means future citizens. Most immigrants are not conservatives. It's pretty simple.

Most American citizens are not "conservatives".

[HOLLYWOOD]

Manchurian Marco Rubio... the guy is a "Tinsel" as they come. A plant by the Aspen Institute, this is the establishment's new generational 'political polished turd'

So what is there, like 5 million Hispanics in Florida? I wonder how many are on the government dole?

Rubio, the shallow con man... Gesus, if their were 5 million Canadian immigrants in Florida, Marco Rubio would give Maple Syrup Amnesty.

[The Free Hornet]

I know that is Ron Paul's position, but it is completely incoherent with his other positions. It's a black eye on his otherwise stellar resume. All of his arguments against immigration seem to be utilitarian arguments where he focuses on the outcome of amnesty.

...

Again, I'm not an expert politician or anything. I was apolitical until I was 25 years-old and heard Ron Paul talk about the IRS. His positions are outstanding on just about everything - but doesn't immigration stick out like a sore thumb?

Yes, you could not be more correct!

Consider his platform pre-resiquite for reform:


Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

You'd have to be high off your ass to believe this nation will NOW secure its borders after decades of failure in the war on drugs. Of course, "failure" equals success to all the people that benefit from millions in jail and competition stifled. His immigration-reform talk should START with ending the war on drugs which will not only help the border situation but can improve the lives of Mexicans and other North/South Americans who have been roped into this war.

It baffles that he would talk about border security without mention of the war on drugs. Unbelievable and sad and most likely contradictory with other stated positions ("physically secure" how then?) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/ron-paul-immigration-nevada-caucus-2012_n_1247589.html).


No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

3 felonies a day. When is Ron Paul packing his suitcase? Anyway, there is a lot that could be said about innocent until proven guilty. I'd like to see a jury trial required for deportation (if the person requests it). We can increase Paul's taxes to pay for it.


No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

This goes triple for old people who are largely FDR-style socialists. Kick them out as they aren't - by Ron Paul's standards - "true citizens" (more below - they might be true citizens - Ron isn't clear on the point).


Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

So 10 million become 60 million by all or some then "current reform proposals". This math is like the racist Heritage Foundation report (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/12/racist-immigration-disaster-as-jim-demint-botches-his-heritage-debut.html). Anyway, it is not a "same rules and waiting periods". IT'S A LOTTERY! (http://www.usgreencardlottery.info/) And I'm not sure why we would treat all other nations equally unless it is equal in disregard to the issue.

Why did Ron Paul insist on stealing tax payer money to pay future social security/medicare so-called "obligations"??? Why not just turn it into a lottery system and have every geezer face the "same rules"??? Or end it?

Let's look at that classic essay:


But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again.

How does "legal" matter? Guantanamo is still open with 166 prisoners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detention_camp) with annual per-inmate costs of $900,000 (http://www.examiner.com/article/900-000-per-inmate-cost-of-guantanamo-bay-most-expensive-prison-on-earth).

Can you imagine the cost of getting 10 million back to wherever the hell Ron Paul thinks they belong??? Using only 1 year of Guantanmo as the cost, it is $9 TRILLION DOLLARS. That is how effective we are at dealing with out of towners. Although this figure could be as low as 125 billion (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-estimate-deportation-costs-12500-person), I'm sure many of those were close to the border. I would guess $2 trillion.

As to "no chance of returning home again", this isn't a factor in deportation hearings, AFAIK. I'm not even sure what the hell it really means other than he thinks he can use my money to force people to leave and somehow this was less convenient "in the late 1800s and early 1900s".


They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

There are people more fluent and well spoken in English than most natives, and they are still deported or turned down for jobs (can't pass e-verify). If Ron wants this as a requirement, he can advocate it. I'd support a constitution test and other reasonable requirements.

Let's be honest, most people even at the time of the American Revolution were statists. Coming over on a on a boat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU) doesn't change that. Few Americans are worth a damn liberty wise. Deal with it, because it is all we got!


And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume — especially medical care.

If this argument ended with the deportation 10 million law-breaking, pill-popping, doctor-seeing, ssn-check cashing seniors, in exchange for 10 million healthy tax-paying workers, then I might be able to follow his logic.


We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form.

Unreal. He should denounce that statement. Rejecting in "any form" makes it look like pure racism because he is saying that speaking English, paying taxes, and respecting the Constitution don't mean a damn thing! "reject" in "any form"....

Did he oppose the pardoning of draft dodgers??? Somehow fleeing our war on drugs isn't quite the same thing!


Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

I'm not insulted when somebody else doesn't pay their taxes. It is not my business, no skin off my ass. Maybe the taxes can be ended for me next.


Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped.

Birthright citizenship IS THE LAW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Federa l_law). You may not like it, but note how easily a law is disrespected when one disagrees with it. This also meets Ron Paul's standard of "no chance of returning home again". There is no "back" for them to go back to w. Maybe if they were conceived somewhere else, he'd have a point. "no chance of returning home again" is a nonstandard.


True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States.

There is no standard for this. And "allegiance" is a tricky thing as everyone here ought know. Anyway, creating "citizenship" and "true citizenship" as separate concepts is sketchy. George HW Bush wanted atheists to leave America ("No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists." -attributed (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)). Does Ron Paul want the ******s and ******s to follow? What is the standard and how is his article complete without a clear, pro-liberty definition of "true citizenship"?


We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

NO! We need to spend less. End the drug wars. End the terrorizing of Americans (TSA, Homeland Security). End the income taxes. End welfare. End social security. End medicaid. End welfare. Those are all legitimate answers. Asking that government do something it can't and is highly vested in not doing in order to get liberty is a clear and unambiguous anti-liberty position.



Anyway Jorge, you could not be more correct. And it is still possible to be anti-amnesty and anti-immigration if one - somehow - manages to make reasonable arguments on the issue. In the 2 FrankRep links, he doesn't.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/

Why not take emotion out of it and put a price tag on citizenship? Keep in mind that the price will apply to all of your kids born here too.

And for those who don't click all the links, having ancestry in the Americas for thousands of years (http://genealogy.about.com/od/mexico/a/records.htm) isn't how you become a "true citizen", this is the only way:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I know I've posted this before but Stanhope sums up the libertarian position on immigration perfectly:

"What the fuck are you doing to me? Every time you have a kid because it's American, I should pull up a chaise lounge and wave a flag while 15 of those things come out of you and pay for every one?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4