Let’s start with the obvious: the immigration issue is the third rail of modern politics. No one has managed to get any traction on this and those who have tried have been destroyed. Yet, Rubio is succeeding. And not only that, he’s succeeding beyond anything anyone could have expected.
For one thing, Rubio has managed to create a bill that has broad support on the left and the right. I know some people don’t want to believe that, but it’s true. Conservative support for this is both deep and wide. The latest “RINO” to jump on board is Tea Party darling Sen. Kelly Ayotte. She joins other RINOs like Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Sean Hannity, the American Conservative Union, CATO, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Susan B. Anthony List, the Manhattan Institute, the Hudson Institute, Paul Wolfowitz, Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and on and on and on. The RINO Southern Baptists are apparently lobbying for the bill.
Others like Rand Paul are posturing, but clearly intend to support the bill after claiming to make it better. RINOs Tom Coburn and Rob Portman appear ready to support the bill as well with some minor tweaks. RINO John Cornyn might too if the border security provision are tightened up. RINO Pat Toomey also is considered a likely supporter as he has expressed support for reform generally but has yet to say if he supports this bill.
Ultimately, this bill will pass. Rubio has set a target of getting 70 votes in the Senate and there is a fair chance he will get that. The House will be closer, but I expect it will pass by at least 25 votes, though the number could be much higher.
This is an impressive achievement.
Even more impressively, Rubio has kept the publicity positive and focused on the GOP’s support. This is a real trick. For one thing, this is the kind of bill the Democrats need to take the credit for if they want to keep getting Hispanic votes, and the MSM knows this. Obama in particular needs some better legacy than “he ruined healthcare and spied on us,” so one would assume he would take credit for this. Yet, Rubio has entirely shut Obama out of the process by creating the Gang of 8. They have actually rebuffed White House efforts to get involved and have refused to meet with Obama for photo-ops on this. Consequently, his name never comes up in relation to this.
Moreover, Rubio has made himself the salesman of this bill to such a degree that few even know who the other seven are or that there are others. He is selling this thing everywhere and the MSM even calls it “Rubio’s bill” or refers to him as “the architect.” Unless something truly unusual happens, it appears almost certain that the credit for this will fall in Rubio’s lap. That is really good news for fixing some of the GOP’s tolerance problem because it means this will be seen as a Republican initiative.
More impressively yet, Rubio has kept the publicity on this positive despite the best efforts of talk radio. Throughout this process, Rubio has faced a series of lies, more lies, smears and childish taunts from his conservative flank (naive, nuts -- arrest Rubio as an enemy combatant -- liar, clueless -- Rubio’s folly, etc.). Rubio’s handling of these people has been a tour de force of public relations. He has engaged them by going on talk radio, writing articles and meeting with prominent conservative opponents. He has done so with a smile and by sticking to the facts. Then he has reported on the meetings as positive and constructive even as the various hosts went right back to their tantrums. Did this win them over? No, but that was never the point because they’re unwinnable. The real point was public perception and, in that regard, the end result has been that the MSM has focused on Rubio’s positive assessments rather than the nasty things being said by the talkers, with the result of that being that Rubio has managed to shield conservatism from what is not its finest hour. In fact, outside of the conservative echo chamber, you just don’t hear the things these people are saying.
The bill has now entered the next phase of the process and, again, Rubio has shined. As with any legislation, the initial bill wasn’t perfect. It actually addressed all the things conservatives have always claimed to want from immigration reform, but the border security issue was viewed as insufficient. Rubio has now said that he believes the border security provision needs to be amended and he has proposed that Congress, not the President, vote to certify that the border is secure. I doubt that will pass, but his criticism will likely result in a stronger enforcement mechanism, which should win over the last few rational holdouts.
There are several aspect of this that are interesting. First, Rubio has managed to kill off all the attempts to add poison pills to the bill – everything from impossible requirements to pro-gay amendments. Being able to stop those things is unusual, but the process set up with the Gang of 8 has given them the power to do that. That is what made this possible. It also resulted in an amazingly pork-free bill. Secondly, Rubio has made himself so important to the process that his suggestion that he couldn’t support the bill without stronger border security was enough to shake everyone up -- and he’s the only with that level of power. That’s pretty impressive and it shows a level of control that one would never expect from a junior Senator.
All in all, I am honestly amazed. Rubio tackled what is probably the hardest issue in the Congress and he has produced a bill that objectively addresses all the concerns conservatives have always cited and he has managed to find broad-based support for that bill across the political spectrum. That is an achievement that should not be underestimated. At the same time, he has kept the publicity extremely positive, despite a vehement, irrational opposition from his own flank and an MSM that knee-jerk seeks to help the Democrats. Again, that is truly an impressive achievement.
Right now, it looks like this thing will pass with overwhelming support and with his name on it. If that happens, I genuinely suspect that he will be our next president.
54 comments:
Totally unrelated: If you haven't seen this, it's worth seeing. It's about 30 seconds and it involves fishing.
We're Gonna Need A Bigger Boat
well, a lot can still happen, but Marco seems to have the look of a "winner"
Jed, A lot can happen, but I have to say that so far he has truly impressed me with his political skill on this. He's done some things that didn't seem possible and he's shown skills that I haven't seen since Reagan. I would be very surprised if he didn't ride this to the top - unless it fails unexpectedly, but I don't see that happening. I would bet they already have the votes.
Saludos mis nuevos ciudadanos, el folleto línea comienza a la izquierda.
Actually, that's a pretty snazzy website Rubio has.
Excellent article Andrew! I had a lot of doubt about Rubio before the election, but since the election he has impressed me. I think a Rubio/Rand ticket would be unbeatable!
Thanks Terry. I wasn't too sure about him either because I saw little in the way of achievements and his speech at the convention struck me as little more than the usual pablum. So needless to say, I've been really impressed with how he's handed this.
Andrew, Do you really think Rubio can overcome the base in the primaries? That's what worries me, that they're going to go for a "genuine" conservative like that ass Santorum.
Are you saying there may be a "Statesman" amongst us?
Terry, I do. The last election proved to me that "the base" is smaller than they think they are. ALL of talk radio tried to destroy Romney for two years and yet they weren't able to give Santorum anywhere near enough support to even threaten Romney. All they managed to do was delay the inevitable.
Further, Romney showed that if you have enough money to make it through the first couple months in the South, then you can win the whole thing fairly easily in the North and on the coasts where "the base" barely registers. And don't forget, Rubio will win Florida easily. He should win California, New York, Virginia and the other coastal states. I would bet he'll win Texas easily as well. That alone is enough to win the nomination.
Moreover, look at the names of the "RINOs" I've mentioned above. The image being portrayed by talk radio of "conservatives v. Rubio" is simply false. There is a wide swath of the conservative world that is fully on board with this. The opposition really is just the tail of the dog and they're fading fast as many of their heroes jump ship.
So yes, I think Rubio can win the primaries fairly easily and he'll win the national election even easier, even if the same conservatives who stayed home last time stay home again this time. That's what a lot of this is about actually -- finding a new base... one the Republicans can rely on and one that doesn't scare the public.
Bev, Yes! Excellent word for it! That's the perfect word for this. What Rubio has done is something everyone thought was impossible and he's brought together left and right in the process. This is truly impressive. Honestly, I haven't seen statesmanship like this since Reagan or maybe Tony Blair.
By way of an update, they are voting on whether or not to proceed with the bill today. After that, they will talk about amendments. Three things are being considered seriously in terms of Amendment.
1. Rubio will introduce a provision to let Congress certify that the border is secure rather than the Executive.
2. Rubio will introduce a provision to strengthen the language requirement and make English proficiency a requirement for legal status.
3. Orin Hatch will introduce a provision to strengthen the back taxes issue.
Reid has stated they are amenable to some of this so long as it wins more Republicans without losing too many Democrats.
You are clearly a RINO traitor, Andreo, and this website will not get another cent from me. Oh wait ...
Seriously, is it too early to speculate about running mates?
El Gordo, Andreo, LOL! Nice!
Yeah, it's probably way too early to start talking about 2016, but what the heck?!
I think this makes Rubio the frontrunner in a big way. Others that I think are in contention right now are Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie.
Then there's another tier of guys who probably won't get traction: Jindal, Daniels, and Santorum.
Thoughts?
I think we should run Paul Ryan/Rand Paul ticket simple to save on ink and it kinda' has a palendrome-y think going on. Paul/Ryan - Ryan/Paul...cool, huh?
But that being said, I'm with El Gordo. I don't want to think about 2016 until 2014 is out of the way.
Bev, We could always run three guys at once -- Ryan, Rubio and Rand. We can call it the Triple R ticket! :)
That it! Maybe no one would notice if we had Paul Ryan and Rand Paul AND Marco Rubio. They'd just assume Ryan and Paul are the same person!! That's even better - Buy 2 get 1 free!
That's innovative, Bev! Who doesn't want a deal! :)
I just heard a clip of Obama telling senators to support the bill. He sounded kinda pissed.
If you as me, Obama always sounds pissed. And frankly, I don't think anything he says is going to matter. It's interesting how all the normal outreach the White House is supposed to do when they are trying to win a vote hasn't happened. They've left it all up to Rubio.
Andrew.......I think the angst from the Right is due to the fact that this is looking more and more like a repeat of the last "amnesty" law, where the Repubs were rolled by the Dems. Sure, we'll agree to secure the borders, but.....there has to be amnesty first! Well...there was amnesty, but still no secure borders.
I know Rubio's bill doesn't have a blanket amnesty provision in it, yet here we are again as Repubs, agreeing that "legalization" will happen first prior to our borders becoming secured. The Right (and talk radio for that matter) has absolutely zero confidence in most Repubs in Congress to not be bamboozled by Schumer and his goons.
As far as Obama not being involved, all he has done previously is muck up legislation by pissing off the "enemy" Repubs and assuring that there won't be a deal. (Affordable Care Act as the prime example).
From this point forward, I think Obama is irrelevant. Many who were blinded by the light are now seeing the flaws in their messiah's character. That basically he's a bullshitter in love with himself...and really not that terribly bright.
OT....I really doubt anything substantive is going to come out of all these "scandals" that we're seeing. I just don't think any Repub...save Cruz and Paul....have the cojones to take on the vast left-wing machine. So...the WH will stall, obfuscate, lie and generally thumb their noses at the Repubs. I'm reminded again of the movie "A Few Good Men" scene....."Who's going to go after Obama and the Dems? You? You McConnell and Boehner?!"
Maybe Obama has observed Rubio and will take some pointers from how Rubio negotiated this bill. And maybe he might notice that Rubio spends more time actually working rather than talking about working and tends to play less golf...
Patriot, Honestly, "being bamboozled" is just a pretext. If the right was just concerned with being bamboozled, they wouldn't be lying about the bill, they wouldn't be lying about the facts and they wouldn't be spending their time demonizing immigrants.
As for talk radio, they have become blatant opportunists who are whipping their audiences into an apocalyptic frenzy to part them with their money.
On Obama not being involved, it really has been the Gang of 8 who have kept him out. I've read reports of how Obama has tried to send representatives and they were turned away.
On the scandals, we'll see. The Republicans have handled them extremely well so far and there does seem to be a game plan. Ultimately, the real impact of scandals is at the ballot box and we'll see how that works. It has definitely helped the GOP with the upcoming elections.
Leave Obama alone!!
Bev, LOL! I don't think Obama is capable of learning. That's the price of being pushed along and told you're the best without ever actually having to show any skill... it breeds narcissism.
Andrew......(Andreo?!)....I think you've fallen into the groove of identifying "illegal immigrants" as just "immigrants." I think this is how the left has framed the argument, that the frothing Right hates immigrants...not just the "illegal" immigrants. Once we use their terms we've lost. It is the "illegal" immigrants that the Right is focussed on...not ALL immigrants.
And how does "talk radio" (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, et al) "whip their audiences into an apocalyptic frenzy to part them with their money.?" I have NEVER been asked for donations to any of these clowns. They are entertainers with a political bent and I can "join" their clubs or not. The decision to "part with my money" has never been asked of me when I listen to these commentators. Do you listen to them or just dislike them reflexively?
I think you give the dems too much credit for bi-partisanship, and the Repubs too much impact from the socons. The religious right does not want to impose their morality on the rest of the country. They just want the rest of the country to not impose their lack of morality on them or public institutions.
If we can't see how we are descending into an amoral, anything goes society, then we are doomed and will be done as a unique experiment in self-government. Maybe Lenin, Marx, Stalin whomever was right. "We will sell them the rope to hang themselves." Or something along those lines.
As far as these scandals helping the Repubs at the ballot box....I always think back to Stalin's line...."It doesn't matter who votes..it matters who counts the votes." And when anyone can vote...American citizen or not....then we're done.
Patriot, A couple points.
First, I have NOT mentioned the socons at all. This isn't their issue. In fact, a great many of them already support this bill and more are signing up all the time. Also, Sean Hannity supports the bill, as do a great many more conservatives that conservatives love -- see the list in my article.
I also give the Democrats NO credit for bipartisanship. They are not bipartisan. What they are is stuck, which is why they are agreeing to this. They kept daring the Republicans to do something about this issue and they used Republican resistance to win the Hispanic vote. Now the Republicans have called their bluff and the Democrats are stuck -- which is why they are doing anything but selling this bill.
As for the "illegal" distinction, I forgot to use the word... but so do a great many conservatives as they go into their rants. Not to mention, if the issue was only "illegality," why is the real focus of conservative arguments welfare and Spanish?
On talk radio, I used to listen to talk radio all the time. But in the past few years, I've seen the game they are playing and it's despicable. I do still hear it, but I can't take it very long. They have become a caricature of themselves and they are so factually wrong and so rife with conspiracies that it's positively shameful.
In terms of apocalyptic claims, that should be obvious... it's their forte. If you want examples, how about Rush calling the PRISM program a "coup" and telling his audience "we are in the middle of a coup" -- the same program he previously said had to be supported unless you were weak on terror. How about Glenn Beck suggesting that we are in a proxy war with Russia or telling his audience today that the reason the Republicans aren't effective is that they are being blackmailed because PRISM is listening to their phones. How about Savage calling Rubio "an enemy combatant". How about the way every one of them has on multiple occasions declared "this is the greatest threat America has ever faced" if not "the end of America." They still pimp the ammo conspiracy. When the Rubio bill was first submitted and Fox New supported it, Rush told his audience that he was "the only one who would defend our way of life from these people." We have a dictator. Obama is out to destroy the economy. Secret Muslim. Etc. This is what these guys are doing.
My personal favorite was the other day when Levin told his audience that he would bravely tell us the truth about the IRS scandal... even though "the fascist Republicans are trying to shut me down. They are... well, I can't say, but they are trying to take me off the air because I speak the truth to you. Those other radio talkers, they're afraid to tell you, but I'm not. I will tell you the truth."
As for never being asked to donate, that's not what I said. I said they want your money. And right after one of these end of the world pronouncements, what do they often say next? "I talk about this in my book. Buy my book. It will help you survive what is coming." My book... my newsletter... buy from my sponsor and use this code so they know it came from me... They sensationalize everything because angry and crazy sells. And they use that to generate audiences and sell product. They don't give a shit about ideology... they care about money and they've all found a niche in people who are scared and poorly informed.
I agree with Andrew. Talk radio has changed. I still listen, but it's becoming pure crazy. Half the things these guys say today are flat out wrong and it's all phrased in ways to make you think there's some massive conspiracy out there to destroy our country and only your host can save you.
Five years ago, I would have said that Rush was our greatest asset. Today, he's a liability and he's the best of them except for maybe Stein. Most of them are just fruit loops.
Also, I support Rubio's bill. I didn't at first, but the more I listened to the opposition, the more I realized just how hollow that opposition was. If you have to lie to make your position sound better, then there is something wrong with your position. And the fact they don't have an alternative they're willing to say openly tells me they know they're in the wrong.
I, too, agree about talk radio. Like ellenB, I still listen, but with lots of salt. Glenn Beck amazes me: his show has basically degenerated into a daily, three-hour sales-pitch for all his other ventures (books, tv shows, cable networks, websites, rallies, etc.)
Levin lost me during the last primaries b/c of his off-the-wall support of Santorum. He kept calling him the only true conservative, which means Levin defines that as socon. Oh, and buy his book.
Savage only interests me when he talks about something other than politics or current events, which is not a good sign for a person in his position. Oh, and buy his books.
You can just about bet that any time Ingraham takes a position that she will soon be taking the opposite position. BTW, buy her books.
Rush isn't even what he used to be, though he still has moments of clarity. I'd say he's better than the rest, but he's only 50/50 himself. Sign up for Rush 24/7!
Ellen, I feel that same way. A few years ago, I saw Rush as a real asset to conservatism and the others as assets of lessor value. Today, they are a liability. But honestly, the tea leafs tell me that the Republicans have decided to decouple from talk radio and are going in another direction now.
One thing I did find interesting about Rubio was that he kept trying to talk to these people even though it was obvious there was no point because they weren't being rational. I give him a lot of credit for that. And I think that's made it easier for conservatives to support him because he hasn't gotten nasty or slapped down the idiocy... which would have been easy to do. Look at the Heritage report. A child could have taken that report apart. Yet, Rubio remained respectful even as they didn't. I think that moments like that are cementing his image with the public.
tryanmax, Crazy sells.
So the Senate voted 84-15 to move the bill forward today.
And from what I'm seeing 70-73 Senators already support the bill and they are hoping for more.
Andrew.....On the point of "buy my book, sign up for my website, etc." I agree with you that that is asking their audiences to part with their money.
I rarely listen to talk radio anymore.....too much work these days....yet I never have listened to Levin, Savage, or especially Beck. Those 3 appear to be living on the edge of sanity and it just gets my blood pressure up to even mention them.
I guess my main point is, name another conservative voice over the last 25 years or so that was out there railing against libs and the left. There have been very few, and none with the impact and audience that Limbaugh has had. For that I respect him, even as he has become a capitalist tool and personal brand empire builder in more recent years. It also goes to the point that when most people mention "talk radio" the mind usually identifies Limbaugh, and not any of his lesser brethren that have popped up over the years. So, his influence is still strong, yet not as unique anymore. He really is about the only one I listen to if I have the time in my car. Mainly because of his parodies and attacks on leftists.
So, I concede your point with all the other talk show crazies, yet I am not willing to put Limbaugh in their class(less). I see them mainly as courtiers trying to establish themselves as "the next Rush Limbaugh."
ANd no......I am not a "ditto head." I just appreciate the fact that we have someone on our side of the ideological divide that gives it right back and drives Dems crazy. As for the rest of his "crazy" talk, meh....as someone said "crazy sells!"
The opponents of the bill are certainly not making themselves look good, but I will reserve judgement regarding the long term outcome. Unintentional consequences and all that. In the end it is an attempt to deal with a screwed up situation that should never have happened in the first place. I believe it is an honest attempt. In five or ten years, will it have helped the GOP politically? Will it have brought a degree of fairness and control to immigration? As in the past, we will know whether it worked when it is too late to do anything about it.
Patriot,
when most people mention "talk radio" the mind usually identifies Limbaugh,
I'd say "yes and no" to that. There's no denying Limbaugh's influence or that he still stands head and shoulders above the rest of conservative radio in terms of integrity (even as he's lost quite a bit).
He's still the identifiable face of talk radio. But in terms of the message, he's just part of the din. People who either (a) listen to a lot of talk radio, or (b) don't listen to any, make no effort to distinguish Limbaugh's words from anybody else's. Which is probably why Rush is a little more fast-and-loose than he used to be (cip: "Slutgate").
Maybe it would be better to be so indiscriminate, because the discerning viewpoint is extremely depressing. Rush Limbaugh basically made possible the existence of both right-wing talk radio and the pragmatic Congressional conservatism manifest in Marco Rubio. And now that one of his progeny is trying to devour the other, Rush is basically sitting back.
Tryanmax.....I've always wondered why it's called "right-wing radio." We never hear of left-wing radio or tv or movies. It seems like anything to the right of progressive liberal theory and practice is almost always labeled "right-wing." Conservative has the same pejorative slant too it seems.
Is libertarianism the new "middle?"
"Right-wing radio" is my term. The terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" seem to only be used derogatorily, if that tells you anything about my opinion of where conservative talk has gone. I wouldn't expect anyone to call themselves either unless they were a hardcore ideologue.
I still hear most people calling it "conservative radio." I can't think of any conservative hosts calling themselves right-wing. "On the right" is the closest, which has a much more positive ring to it.
If "conservative" has a pejorative slant, it's because guys like Beck, Savage, and Levin have earned that for the term. The left keeps oscillating their terms (progressive, liberal) because they do the same. I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
I don't think libertarian is the new middle, either, though maybe it is in some vein. Unfortunately, it is also associated with types like Alex Jones, who you might say has found a different sort of middle.
I don't know that the middle can ever hold onto a name, because as soon as it finds one, somebody tries to co-opt it and somebody else tries to destroy it.
Patriot, Rush remains in a class by himself. Of all of them, he is the most likely to be well informed and to be rational. He's not generally a bomb thrower. And if he was the only one on the radio I don't think there would be a problem at all. Does he make mistakes? Sure. Has he lost his fastball? Yes. I think that sadly, he is no longer as well prepared or as fair minded or as "educational" as he used to be. BUT he's still in the realm of good.
And I do like him personally and I respect the hell out of him for what he's done up to this point. I do wish he would lead his audience away from the others, but such is life.
My big beef though is with the others who are, as you say, on the edge of sanity. Too many people don't seem to realize that. Everywhere I go, people listen to Levin or Savage, etc. and then tell me, "Did you hear about (insert insane point)?" And when I try to debunk that, they just say, "____ wouldn't say it if it wasn't true!" They are believing things that completely, obviously false and it's making them all paranoid.
On the immigration issue specifically, what is truly troubling is the number of reputable people who are repeating things they know are not true. There are Congressmen who lie about the bill. Heritage knows its analysis was false -- or they're the biggest fools ever, yet they keep doubling down even after people have pointed out all the flaws. Ann Coulter has been vehement about comparing immigrants (she's sloppy about calling them "illegals") to murderers, rapists and abortionists. Places like Brietbart and Daily Caller and HotAir are fountains of insanity, treating obviously false rumors as true and just running with them. Even the normally staid National Review is taunting Rubio with childish taunts that would make William Buckley pull out his hair.
This is what is troubling to me.
El Gordo, Those are all good questions. I do think this is an honest attempt at a fix and I do believe it will work, but there is simply no way to know until we see how it works.
But the thing is this: we need to do something because the present situation is untenable. And the problem with the opponents position (excluding the invective) is that they basically are arguing to do nothing. The end result of that is a permanent, growing underclass who can only take certain jobs meaning they are more likely to end up on welfare or in jails, people who will drive but can't buy insurance, people who can't call the cops to report crimes, people who pay no taxes yet absorb benefits. That's a horrible alternative.
Then you add the invective problem and what you get is situation where Americans are avoiding the party that represents their natural ideology because they don't like how the party behaves. In effect, conservatives are teaching a whole generation of Americans not to be conservatives.
Patriot and tryanmax, I would argue that quasi-libertarianism is the new middle. That seems to be what most people have as a reflex ideology and it's becoming more popular -- though I don't think most people call themselves that. They simply view it as "non-ideological."
I am not against this bill but honestly I don't see it solving anything.
:
We can talk about border security but there are problems with that. If the security revolves around a fence, it is pointless even if they do build it. The only real security is unfortuantely to start rounding up illegals and departing them but I cannot see that happening.
:
So it appears to me that we will do what we did in the 80's give blanket amnesty and then pretend that people won't sneak into the coun try anymore.
:
And by the way we should stop using the term immigrant or illegal immigrant. We are talking about for the most part Mexican Nationals. The Mexican government encourages the poor and illiterate in their country to come here and wither work as migrant farm workers, get odd jobs hanging out at home depot or get onto welfare assistance. The blame for acknowledging this fact should not be on those that see it, it should be placed on the NarcoState to the south that is not educating their people.
:
We have to acknowledge that the problem is the Mexican government. It is the inability of that government to govern its people. We don't have a problem with illeterate poor Canadians ssneking across the border in Michigan. Not becuase Canadians are white but because the government of Canada do a better job at educating its populace whether they are descended from european immigrants or the indigenous population.
:
Any attempt to solve the "immigration" problem will fail if we do not somehow convince Mexico to work with us and to cleean up its act. Twelve million Mexicans cannot cross the border every 20 years and become US citizens because we are too timid to recognize the problem. In the end we must help fix Mexico's economic and political issues or we will be dragged down trying to deal with it.
:
PS I am not anti Rubio I think he is trying to do the right thing. I think their is no one in Washington who seems to have a clue what the paradigm really is.
OMG!
Glenn Beck: "We're not securing the border because of the coming global war."
Another OMG!
Glenn Beck: "Rubio is not your friend. He's letting in the Saudis."
I hope you're right, Andrew.
I do admire Rubio's tenacity and willingness to talk with virtually everyone about this bill.
However, why did it hafta be over 800 pages long? In my experience, monster bills like this tend to not be generally good, in the long run for conservatives.
And I am very troubled that the hearings haven't included Border Patrol, ICE and other law enforcement testimony from real law enforcement officers.
This does not bode well, IMO.
And I second Individualist! We must hold Mexico's feet to the fore if we really want longlasting solutions to illegal immigration.
Why does the Mexican govt. get so much airtime before the Senate and not our own law enforcement?
This bill makes me uneasy, to say the least, but I'll reserve my final opinion until I see the end result of this bill.
I hope the finalized version addresses these concerns (and many more others have mentioned) and we don't end up doing the same thing 20 or 30 years down the road.
I realize we won't get a perfect bill but I also realize it can be worse than it is now.
As for those conservatives who are lying about the bill or Rubio's intentions, shame on them. There's plenty to discuss while still telling the truth.
I think much of what Thomas Sowell has said has been good food for thought, and while I don't always agree with him 100% he does make me think about stuff I wouldn't have considered and I highly recommend his articles.
Again, I hope this isn't just a repeat of the last amnesty bill on steroids but we will see.
Indi, That is a very rational critique. And I agree with you that Mexico presents the biggest problem at the moment -- though demographics mean that problem is ending... and Asia will be the new problem.
In terms of solving things, I think this solves two problems. First, it does solve the problem of having these people living in the shadows, which is all around bad for us.
Secondly, I do think this opens the door to deportation because you can't deport 11 million people, but you can deport 100,000. In other words, I think that in the future, it will be possible to deport people as they arrive illegally... which it isn't now.
tryanmax, In all fairness to Beck, you do see Saudis swimming across the border every day. ;P
Global war huh? Is this the zombie apocalypse?
Ben, Well said. I do think Rubio is trying his honest best to put together a bill that works and for once I don't think the Democrats are trying to roll him. Also, I think what he is doing will work to a large degree. It won't be perfect, but it should make a much better situation than today.
And keep in mind that we need to compare this to the alternatives. Deporting 11 million people is simply impossible. So what do we do? This bill tries to address everything conservatives have wanted on this issue for a long time. And the price is a 13 year path to citizenship. I don't like it, but it is a fair trade to get the border fixed and the other problems of having 11 million shadow-people fixed.
In terms of Mexico, they have been a problem, but keep in mind that the demographics have changed dramatically in Mexico and there is unlikely to be another big wave. The bigger problem in the future will be China, which also bleeds people.
demographics mean that problem is ending... and Asia will be the new problem.
New census data out today shows that the Asian population is growing at a pace faster than the Hispanic population. Asian growth was attributed mainly to immigration while Hispanic growth was primarily attributed to births.
tryanmax, True. But I'm talking about Mexico where the birthrate has crashed. They are running out of people at a record pace and there just aren't the numbers to come north anymore. The bigger problem now is China.
I follow you, I'm just saying the census data supports your claim.
You lie! You're one of them! :P Just kidding. Thought I'd get into the spirit of things. :)
Yes, the census data reflects this too. The whole picture of immigration is about to change, which is another reason I'm not worried about the wall -- not that most of them got here that way anyway. The next big challenge will be Chinese "tourists" who just never leave. They are getting rich enough to the point where they can flee if they wish, and there are a lot of reasons for them to flee.
Andrew
One of the reasons that we have the stereotype of the Indian or Chinese immigrant who comes to this country owning 7/11's is our immigration laws. There is a requirement that you either have a sponsor or you show you have $100K in assets. Evidently this is total assets not net of liability. So if you can get a loan to buy a 7/11 franchise or you can build a minimart at a gas station you can qualify for this requirement even if you are not independently wealthy.
:
Typically the chinese who have come here been hard working for the most part. I tend to think that immigration is not a problem if the people coming in are well educated. It becomes a problem when an influx of the poor and illiterate come in and you end up with a situation where you have increased welfare roles and poverty.
:
Do you see an influx of Chinese coming in this country being the former or the latter?
Indi, "Asians" are outpacing "Hispanics" as illegal immigrants for the past few years. The demographics have shifted and Mexico is running out of people. At the same time, Asia (China in particular) is awash in poor people who want to flee. I suspect that within 5-10 years the stereotype of "illegals" will be Chinese.
Post a Comment