If I Were Marco Rubio

Monday, June 9th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Immigration

Senator Marco Rubio spent the better part of last year joining together with Democrats to make a bipartisan push for amnesty and comprehensive open borders.  The message to the third world was clear and unambiguous.  We have not learned the mistakes of the past and we will continue granting amnesty because we lack the stomach to leave any illegals behind.

Not surprisingly, starting late last year there was a surge in border crossings.  Now, there are rampant rumors throughout Central America that as long as you come here with children, you will never be turned down.  How uncanny that the rumor tracks almost identically with the statements put out by politicians in both parties propagating a desire to care for the world’s poor and place their needs over those of Americans.

If I were Marco Rubio, I would hang my head down in shame for helping engender this new wave of illegal immigration.  At the very least, I would have issued the following statement:

“Although I have previously expressed support for amnesty, it is now abundantly clear that calls for amnesty before the enforcement measures are implemented will always spawn endless cycles of illegal immigration.  The approach I pursued last year was deeply flawed and I am now committed to shaming and embarrassing this administration into following the laws and preserving our sovereignty.  I still wish to deal with some other immigration-related issues, but none of that can be addressed until the lawlessness ends and this country is shielded from the harmful effects of illegal immigration.”

Instead, Rubio put out this ambiguous statement:

“There is evidence that unfounded rumors in some countries that if you come as a child to the U.S you can stay have contributed to it,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “Beyond that, I think that it’s illustrative of the need we have in this country to address immigration reform in all of its aspects.”

He said the surge “calls out for a long-term approach in terms of improving our immigration system: both the way the legal immigration system works and addressing those who are here illegally.”

It’s literally a Potomac mental disorder.  Every deleterious effect of illegal immigration, even those directly caused by their version of “immigration reform,” is used an excuse to double down on those very policies.  So by granting benefits and citizenship to those illegals already here before the fence is constructed, exit-entry is working, and interior enforcement is restored…..that will dissuade others from coming here illegally?!!

Over the weekend, Eric Cantor engaged in similar cerebral gyrations by suggesting that the way to solve the border crisis is by offering more “kids” citizenship.

At a time when Americans are suffering from protracted stagnation, diminished wages, and joblessness, it is unconscionable for Washington politicians to spend money supporting new illegal immigrants.  Yet, shame is one attribute lacking from any of the career politicians.

Read More

The Veiled Anti-American Sentiment of Open Borders Politicians

Monday, June 17th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration

When it comes to the issue of immigration, the open borders “right” has adopted the parlance, tactics, and ad hominem attacks that traditionally emanate from the left.  They impugn the motives of those who desire strong border security and orderly/gradual immigration as racist.  However, in recent days, it is they who have been exposed as individuals who harbor deep-rooted prejudges…against native border Americans.

It started with Jeb Bush on Friday when progressive Kevin McCarthy invited him to speak before a group of House Republicans.  Reading between the lines of his speech, he was propagating a sentiment that is borderline immigrant-supremacist.  He suggested that we should embrace the Schumer/Obama immigration blueprint of amnesty and endless immigration because immigrants are more “fertile” and hardworking than their native-born counterparts.  Essentially, he was saying that native-born Americans suck.

Then, over the weekend, Ryan Lizza quoted a Rubio aide saying, “there are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”

Why do we need to tear down native-born Americans in order to extol the virtues of immigrants and exaggerate the virtues of illegal immigrants?  And at what point does this land make people suck?  Is it second generation?

Now, the latest rationale for amnesty is that these [mostly poor] immigrants are needed to fund border security.  Wow – why didn’t we think of that idea before?  On the one hand, we supposedly need the affluence of the illegals to purvey the security measures, but on the other hand Rubio needs the illusion of border security so Republicans will “be able to go back home and tell people that they have taken serious steps to make sure this never happens again.”

Read More

1986

Thursday, June 13th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration

Were George Orwell alive today he would write a book titled 1986.  It would include a narrative of all the cast of characters who lied to us about immigration enforcement 27 years ago, yet are now serving as the problem-solvers to fix the lies they originally propagated.

It would include a character of John McCain demanding to “build the dang fence” in order to win reelection, and then running around two years later to demand that we build the dang amnesty, with no fence.

It would include a character of Chuck Schumer saying on the House floor in 1986 that the bill won’t bring “millions of people cascading across the border,” and then, 27 years into the cascade, leading the effort to do the same thing.

It would include a character of Marco Rubio proposing amendments to his bill that he claimed and still claims were in his original bill.

The storyline would portray a liberal opposition party spending millions on ads portraying the amnesty bill as the antithesis of what it really is.

And finally, it would include characters of credulous GOP senators entrusting the same people who have refused and continue to refuse to implement any laws on the books with the promise of implementing new laws…..after they get the amnesty “candy.”

Welcome to 1986.

Folks, this issue is real simple.  It can be solved overnight.  If these people really want amnesty, they would implement the laws on the books first and demonstrate that the circuitous cycle of insanity is over.  Yet, they made it clear that enforcement-first is a dealbreaker.  But, amazingly, Republicans like Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn are trying to find common ground where they can add some language to border security… ten years after all these people are legalized.

This proposal, and similar proposals offered to bolster enforcement after initial legalization (RPI status), represent the height of credulity and insanity.  These people have lied to us for 27 years about enforcement, and yet we are to entrust them with enforcing the laws after they get their candy?  Moreover, does anyone really think that the amnestied illegals will really be denied green cards and citizenship after remaining in “good standing” for 10 years…simply because exit-entry is not fully in place?  Do we really think they will last in that status without a subsequent change in law to expedite citizenship –no matter what happens with enforcement?  If there is such enormous pressure (inside of DC, not in the real world) to legalize them now – when they are totally illegal – will anyone have the stomach to withhold the promised citizenship from a legal and legitimate constituency?

Clearly, any amnesty that passes before enforcement is implemented will serve as a mere down payment that can only be augmented and never diminished or retracted.

Amazingly, McConnell and the entire establishment are defending their position as the only way we ensure border security in a bill that can actually pass.  They assert that if we fail to “pass something,” we will continue to have “defacto amnesty.”

Read More

Beware the Rubio-Cornyn Amnesty Rope-a-Dope

Thursday, June 6th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration

The most dangerous thing for supporters of open borders is public scrutiny of their plans.  They have already noted that the administration’s endless scandals have provided them with cover to slip into the amnesty end-zone without anyone noticing.  Fortunately, despite the divided attention of the conservative movement, most of the egregious provisions of the amnesty bill have been thoroughly exposed and disseminated throughout talk radio.  With the understanding that this bill cannot pass sans support from representatives of conservative-base constituencies, the lobbyists for foreign interests are now employing a rope-a-dope strategy.

Senator Rubio is running around the media circuit asserting that he will vote against his own bill if the security measures are not strengthened.  Now, stop and ask yourself this question: Why did Rubio spend three weeks challenging conservatives (his “fact vs. myth” series) who pointed out the blatant loopholes in his bill?  Why is he still starring in the obnoxious Zuckerberg ads touting the very provisions of the bill he now repudiates?

It is quite obvious that Rubio and his staff are flummoxed by the degree of opposition from the conservative base.  He knows that Democrats have the votes to pass the bill with just the GOP gang members and a few other usual reliable moderates.  Just today, several red state Democrats indicated their support for the bill (laying waste to the myth of the moderate Democrat).  Yet, Rubio doesn’t want to be a part of the misery he helped orchestrate unless he is joined by a large group of Republicans.  Likewise, Schumer and the Democrats want Republicans to own this unpopular boondoggle so as to remove the political albatross from their necks.

Enter the Rubio-Cornyn amendment that will be offered next week.  Now that Rubio is feigning outrage over the most blatant shortcoming of his bill – the lack of definitive enforcement – he is now trying to co-opt the outrage with a vacuous amendment designed more to give Republicans cover than to actually solve the problem.

On the surface, this amendment sounds like everything we have asked for.  Here’s how CQ explains it (subscription req):

His proposal would require that federal agents have full control, or “situational awareness,” of the entire border and that they apprehend 90 percent of all potential border crossers in all border sectors.

It also would mandate fingerprint scanners or other biometric controls at all land and sea ports and the full implementation of the E-Verify employment verification system before those in provisional legal status can transition to green cards.

Cornyn wants the Department of Homeland Security to issue a comprehensive strategy to gain control of the border while also cutting in half the wait times at land crossings.

Right now, the bipartisan immigration bill (S 744) only requires that the Homeland Security secretary implement a plan to improve border security at three of the most high-risk border sectors. The government must also implement E-Verify and roll out an improved visa processing system at airports and seaports — although one that stops short of nationwide biometric screening — in order to set in motion the path to citizenship.

The floor amendment revisits language that Cornyn proposed during the bill’s Judiciary Committee markup. Those proposals were rejected and Cornyn voted against the bill in the committee.

Cornyn’s latest amendment also would boost funding for border protection efforts by $1 billion a year over six years and authorize 10,000 new border control agents over five years. Some misdemeanors — such as aggravated assault, domestic violence, child abuse or drunken driving — would become grounds to disqualify people from earning legal permanent residence.

Read More

Will Republicans Reassert the Rule of Law?

Monday, June 3rd, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration, News

In June 2011, Obama announced that he would suspend our immigration laws and grant administrative amnesty to those who qualify for the DREAM Act – a bill that never passed Congress.  This was just one of the many egregious steps taken by the administration to subvert the rule of law and threaten our sovereignty.  Yet, unlike with the IRS scandal, Republicans were largely silent.  Obama punched us in the stomach and challenged us to hit back, yet all we did was scamper away like a bunch of cowards.

The GOP insouciance towards Obama’s “deferred action” program is particularly jarring in the context of the debate over the Schumer/Rubio/Obama amnesty bill.  The entire premise of the bill is predicated on overlooking how Obama has already dealt with his illegal amnesty.  From ‘legalization before enforcement’ and major restrictions on future deportations to wide discretion granted to DHS, we don’t need a crystal ball to ascertain the results of the bill.  Obama’s DACA program has served as a test run for the mass amnesty.

An astounding 99.5% of all those who applied for the amnesty were approved by the administration.  Yup, obviously none of them said they planned to start a conservative organization when they filled out the application.  Moreover, as ICE agent Chris Crane has repeatedly noted, it is virtually impossible for ICE to detain and deport anyone because almost any detainee could potentially be eligible for this illegal amnesty.  So now we have millions of young impoverished illegals who are on a fast track to receiving benefits on behalf of their families.  We have now raised the specter of anchor babies to include ‘anchor young adults.’  As long as you come here with at least one child under age, you are here to stay.

The idea that we will ever be able to deport anyone after this bill passes is simply absurd, in light of what we’re seeing from DACA.  Almost anyone could potentially be eligible for the multiple eligibility status loopholes, and the bill forces all law enforcement to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to come forward.  Even an administration that is committed to the rule of law would find it nearly impossible to resume deportations after the amnesty, much less an administration that has already promised never to enforce the law.

Meanwhile, in a bid to inveigle other GOP senators into supporting the bill, Rubio said that he plans to announce his own border security plan.  But as we’ve seen from DACA, you can come up with any plan you’d like; it’s only Obama’s plan that counts.  This has been, and always will be, an executive branch problem, not a legislative problem.  It’s real simple: the only way any amnesty would ever work is if Obama begins to demonstrate enforcement of existing laws first.  Everything else is just window dressing used to entice other Republicans into kicking Charlie Brown’s football.

The uncanny irony is that a federal district judge is prepared to vitiate Obama’s deferred action, yet Republicans won’t take yes for an answer.  Aside for the few border hawks, none of them will even issue a press release making notice of this expected victory for the rule of law.

Read More

The Big Amnesty/ Social Security Lie

Monday, May 13th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration, Taxes

It looks like we’ve discovered the panacea for all of our economic and social ills.  We’ve found the solution to the entitlement crisis as well.  We’re going to find the poorest countries in the world and import as many of their people as possible within a short period of time.  That way we will have millions of people paying into Social Security, purveying the “trust fund” with endless bounty.  This is what passes for sane analysis from the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary.

In an effort to buttress the Democrat Voting Act of 2013 aka the gang’s amnesty bill, Stephen Goss, Social Security’s independent chief actuary, released an analysis last week opining that amnesty will solve the Social Security deficit and *prevent*future waves of illegal immigration.  Goss finds that by 2024, this bill will have created 3.22 million jobs, and grow GDP by 1.63%.  With regards to Social Security, Goss concluded, “overall, we anticipate that the net effect of this bill on the long-range OASDI actuarial balance will be positive.”

Wow – why didn’t we think of importing mass poverty to save Social Security before?  Oh wait…that’s exactly what we’ve been doing for the past few decades.

This analysis was requested by Marco Rubio and is being bandied about by the open-borders elements on the right.  The irony is that Goss’s preposterous assertion is predicated on two long-standing left-wing deceptions, both of which have long been rejected by libertarians who are now pushing amnesty.

Read More

The Marco Rubio We Once Knew

Thursday, May 9th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration, News

With Marco Rubio appearing all over the media to talk about this disastrous immigration bill, I felt it would be worthwhile to go back and examine his comments on illegal immigration while he was running for office:

  • Interviewer:  “Are you pro-amnesty for illegal immigration?”

Rubio:  “No, No, Never have been, in fact, I am strongly against amnesty for a number of reasons” (interview with Human Events, 2010)

 

  • “I will never support- never have and never will support- any effort to grant blanket, legalization amnesty to folks who have entered this country illegally.”
  • “Nothing will make it harder to enforce existing laws.”
  • “It demoralizes the people who are going through the legal process.”
  • “You’re never going to have a legal immigration system that works if you grant amnesty.”
  • “I believe we must fix our immigration system by first securing our border, fixing the visa and entry process, and opposing amnesty in any form.

–          Marco Rubio, 2010 campaign website quote

  • “Immigration was nowhere to be found in the book of 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future he compiled as House Speaker; now it’s among the 9 issues addressed on his campaign website.”

–          Miami Herald, Nov 10, 2009

  • “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, Nov 2009

  • “His (Marco Rubio) tone has changed on the subject (immigration), and to me it’s very obvious it’s for political reasons.”

–          State Rep. Juan Zapata, Miami

“First of all, earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty. It’s what they call it. And the reality of it is this. … It is unfair to the people that have legally entered this country to create an alternative pathway for individuals who entered illegally and knowingly did so. And all I’m saying is that if you do that … you will never have a legal immigration system that works. No one is going to follow the law if there is an easier way to do it.”

-Marco Rubio, 2010, debate with Charlie Crist

  • “I would vote against anything that grants amnesty because I think it destroys your ability to enforce the existing law”

-Marco Rubio, 2009

  • “I would vote against anything that has amnesty in it”

-Marco Rubio, 2009

 

  • As far as amnesty, that’s where [Charlie Crist] and I disagree. He would have voted for the McCain plan. I think that plan is wrong…if you grant amnesty…you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America. [Marco Rubio, Fox News Sunday debate with Charlie Crist, March 28, 2010]

Egregious Ads and Polls from Mark Zuckerberg’s Front Group

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration, News

Imagine the biggest conservative donors in America banding together to form a group, “Progressives for Retirement Security,” for the purpose of promoting private retirement accounts.  Imagine that group running ads starring Chuck Schumer promoting private Social Security accounts as examples of bold progressive reform.

Don’t worry, hell will freeze over from global warming before that happens.

If you’ve been watching Fox News or listening to talk radio this week, you’ve been subjected to the most nauseating duplicitous ads ever unleashed on conservatives.  Ubber-leftist Mark Zuckerberg’s Orwellian-front group, “Americans for a Conservative Direction,” which is run by Arlen Specter Republicans, is running ads calling the 867-page immigration reform bill “the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States” and “conservative reform” designed to end “defacto amnesty.”  The ad shows Marco Rubio discussing all the triggers and qualifications for amnesty, even though he has now admitted that they need to be strengthened and that he’d like to work with conservatives to do so.

What’s next?  Ads from ‘Conservatives for Obamacare,’ funded by George Soros?

To buttress the lies expressed in the ad, Zuckerberg’s group put out a push-poll showing how 71% of voters, and 74% of conservative Republicans(!), support the Senate gang bill.  Take a look at the wording of the question:

As you may have heard, there is a proposal facing Congress to reform the nation’s immigration laws.  This proposal would establish a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants presently in the country as long as they pass a criminal background check, pay a fine and back taxes, learn English, and wait at least 13 years.  The plan would also allow more high-skilled immigrants into the country in technology, science and engineering fields and create a guest worker program to address labor shortages in industries like agriculture and construction. Finally, the plan would require a series of increased border security measures before anyone here illegally can apply for citizenship – including greater enforcement, extended fencing along the border and a requirement that all employers verify the legal status of individuals before hiring them….Do you support or oppose this proposal?

Wow – sign me up…I’m surprised there are even 20% who would oppose such a plan when expressed that way.

Now take a look at real polling data that is as plain and innocuous as can be:

Fox News poll

Do you favor or oppose requiring completion of new border security measures first — before making other changes to immigration policies?

68 percent are in favor; 22% are opposed.  Even 66% of Democrats agree support enforcement first.

Rasmussen Poll

Should those who are now in this country illegally be granted legal status right away or should that come only after the border is secured?

Similar to the Fox News result, 66% favor security first.  Byron York has the crosstabs:

The majority in favor of security-first cut across all party and demographic lines.  Seventy-one percent of men support it; 60 percent of women; 59 percent of young people; 67 percent of middle-aged people; 75 percent of older Americans; 68 percent of whites; 62 percent of blacks; 56 percent of others; 82 percent of Republicans; 53 percent of Democrats; 65 percent of independents; 81 percent of conservatives; 59 percent of moderates; 51 percent of liberals; 77 percent of people who make under $30,000 a year; 66 percent of those who make between $30,000 and $50,000 a year; 66 percent of those who make between $50,000 and $100,000; 55 percent of those who make between $100,000 and $200,000; 51 percent of those who make more than $200,000; 75 percent of veterans; and 64 percent of non-veterans.

Then, when asked “how likely is it that the federal government would secure border and prevent illegal immigration,” just 30% answered in the affirmative while 57% said it was not very or not at all likely.

The reality is that no amount of left-wing money can ameliorate this pig.  The GOP base is not like the pool of low-information voters they are used to manipulating, and they will not be sucked into this sham.  That is…all of them except for the few Mark Zuckerberg conservatives in the country.

Cross-posted at RedState.com

Protect America First

Friday, May 3rd, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration, News

When Jim DeMint delivered his farewell speech in the Senate, he touched on a salient point that is often lost in the raucous of political discourse.  The entrenchment of political interests and allegiances has often made commonsense ideas that transcend political ideology impossible to implement.   Nowhere is this more evident than with the push to hold national security hostage for mass amnesty.

We have a wide open border, through which crossings have tripled amidst the push for amnesty.  We have no way of tracking those who overstay their visas.  We now know that the third suspect in the Boston bombing was a young student from Kazakhstan who violated the terms of his student visa and was let back into the country without a new one.   In 2002, Congress created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which required those visa recipients from countries that represent a security risk to register with an ICE office and report regularly about their plans.  That system would have exposed this terror risk, yet it was essentially abolished by Obama’s DHS in 2011.  Why is that system not restored immediately?  Moreover, why do we let these people into the country in the first place?

These are all questions that We the People – both Democrat and Republican – care about.  Yet these are the issues that are being glossed over in the current debate over immigration.  Isn’t it commonsense that before we embark on any massive immigration expansion, we protect America first?  National security might not be the ephemeral aspect of immigration – one which attracts a plethora of special interest money – but shouldn’t that be the priority of any elected official?

Even those who are sympathetic to amnesty must admit that it doesn’t have to be done this month.  It could wait another few years until we implement comprehensive security.  Yet, the policies that protect and benefit We the People are not represented in Washington.  The illegal immigrants have Big Business, Big Ag, Big Labor, Big Environment, Big Ethnic, Big Religion, and Big Media shilling and inveigling others on their behalf.  Border and immigration security-related policies have no lobby, and in fact, are vociferously opposed by the aforementioned coalition.

Read More

The Madison Project: Gang of 8 Immigration Bill Has “Serious Flaws”

Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Immigration

For Immediate Release:

May 1, 2013

Contact: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel@madisonproject.com

Madison Project Releases Analysis of Flawed Senate Immigration Bill

Washington, DC – Today, the Madison Project PAC released a comprehensive analysis detailing many of the flaws in the Senate “gang of 8” immigration bill (S. 744).

“After viewing all of the provisions of the bill in totality, it is clear that this legislation was designed to ostensibly grant amnesty and legal status to all those here illegally before any of the tepid enforcement measures are ever implemented,” said Daniel Horowitz of the Madison Project.

“This proposed legislation has serious flaws in it. It is yet another ‘amnesty now, enforcement later’ bill that will help engender a new wave of illegal immigration and grant perennial defacto amnesty to anyone who comes here illegally,” said Horowitz. “Moreover, when coupled with chain migration and unqualified birthright citizenship, this bill will chart a pathway to welfare benefits for millions of low-skilled illegal and legal immigrants within just a few years.  The bill also liberalizes our refugee and asylum policies at a time when we should be scrutinizing our system, which has let in numerous immigrants that represent a national security risk in recent years.”

“Moving forward into this next election cycle, we view this issue as one that cuts across all three legs of the conservative stool – fiscal, social, and national security,” said Drew Ryun of the Madison Project.  “We will not support any candidate who favors any sort of legalization or amnesty before the proper security and enforcement measures are implemented and the rule of law is restored.”

The Madison Project’s full analysis of the bill can be viewed here.

The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found at http://madisonproject.com/

# # #