Thread: Marco Rubio’s Big Immigration Mistake

Marco Rubio’s Big Immigration Mistake

June 28, 2013 by Chip Wood

PHOTOS.COM

What a sad transformation it’s been to see Senator Marco Rubio go from being a Tea Party hero to an apologist for the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill.
Back in 2010, Rubio was a handsome and articulate State Senator in Florida when he decided to run for the U.S. Senate. Doing so meant defying the Republican establishment’s hand-picked selection, then-Governor Charlie Crist.
There were two make-or-break issues in the Republican primary that year. The first was Barack Obama’s massively expensive stimulus program. Crist was so enamored of it that he actually agreed to have a photograph taken of him publicly embracing the President. We’ll never know how many votes that hug cost him, but it was a bunch.
Rubio said that counting on Federal handouts to create jobs was a huge mistake. He called instead for letting the free enterprise system work, by lowering taxes and reducing regulation. The voters made it clear which message they preferred.
The other issue that marked a sharp disagreement between the two candidates was immigration reform and, in particular, amnesty for the millions of people who were in this country illegally. Crist endorsed amnesty; Rubio, the son of immigrants from Cuba, said he was unalterably opposed to it. In speech after speech, Rubio repeated this warning in some form: If you grant amnesty in any form, you will destroy any chance we ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.
It was those two stands, more than any others, that made Rubio a Tea Party favorite and led to his victory over his much more liberal opponent. Crist subsequently resigned from the Republican Party and joined the Democrats.
But since then, Rubio agreed to become one of four Republican members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight. Since two of his Republican colleagues were John McCain of Arizona and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and the Democrat members included Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, you won’t be surprised to learn that the final agreement includes amnesty.
It was also apparent that a whole lot of horse-trading was going on behind the scenes to ensure passage of the bill. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of the Tea Party heroes who has not abandoned his opposition to the current immigration bill, castigated the “laundry list of buyoffs” that has been made to insure a favorable vote. These include:

• Diverting a chunk of the money for border security to Maine — a State that, so far as I know, has never had a problem with illegal immigrants hiking in from Canada — to win the support of Susan Collins, that State’s Senator.
• Some special bequests for the seafood industry in Alaska, so that State’s two Senators, Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, will get behind the bill.
• And in one of the smelliest deals of all, a $1.5 billion jobs program, the price demanded by Vermont’s socialist Senator Bernie Sanders for his support.

All of that helps explain why Cruz said, “Rarely do we see so transparently how votes in the Senate are bought and sold.” Oh yes we have, Senator. It’s just that in the past they were called “earmarks.”
After weeks of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing, the current immigration bill was finally made available for Senators to see last Friday afternoon. The Senate was expected to vote on some of its most important provisions just 72 hours later. Does the process remind you of the way Obamacare was rushed through Congress?
No matter. The bill was approved yesterday by a vote of 68-32, followed by a ton of self-congratulation among the victorious Senators. The measure now goes to the House of Representatives, where it will face a much tougher battle.
If there’s any lesson we’ve learned over the recent past, it’s that we can’t trust a politician’s promise. Yet that’s exactly what this current measure does when it comes to protecting our borders. It calls for beginning the legalization process now and says that border protection will follow. “Trust us on this” is the refrain.
Are they crazy?
The proposal says that the border is “secure” when it catches or keeps out 90 percent of those who try to enter the country illegally. That’s far from perfect, but it’s sure a heck of a lot better than we’ve been doing.
The question is: Who decides when that goal is achieved? The current legislation calls for the President and his minions to make that determination. We’re supposed to trust the same folks who have screwed up on so many fronts for so long. That’s ridiculous.
Instead, Congress should be the branch that determines when our border is secure. Members of the House of Representatives are a lot more accountable to the voters than any President — especially a lame duck who won’t run for office again.
What This Bill Doesn’t Do

There’s been a lot of talk about what this bill does, including all of the promises about tightening up our borders. But far more important is something it doesn’t do. In fact, it’s an issue that is almost never even mentioned in the immigration debate.
I’m referring to the absurdity of granting citizenship to each and every child who is born within our borders — no matter if the parents are here legally or not.
That’s right. It is the official policy of the U.S. government that any child, born in this country to illegal immigrants, automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States.
Such infants are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies,” because their immediate and automatic citizenship is the “anchor” on which a host of other claims, from welfare to others’ citizenship, can be made.
On the face of it, this sounds patently absurd. How can a newborn baby be eligible for citizenship when his parents are not? Not merely eligible, mind you, but granted it automatically? The new citizen is immediately entitled to all the benefits that accompany citizenship: schooling, medical care, food stamps and other welfare, and a whole host of “public assistance.”
This is not how it should be. Yes, it’s true we are a Nation of immigrants. But what a difference there is between this process and what our predecessors experienced. Many of us have grandparents or great-grandparents who overcame incredible obstacles to become citizens of this country. Before they were accepted, they had to pass a rigorous and demanding test. The questions they were asked and their answers had to be in English.
As an essential part of the process, every immigrant was required to renounce allegiance to the country he had left and to swear allegiance to his newly adopted home, the United States. And every new citizen was thrilled to do so.
There was a solemn ceremony, often conducted by a judge sitting high on a bench above them, issuing the oath of allegiance. Friends and family welcomed the new citizens with flag waving, hugs and tears, and enthusiastic applause.
That is what citizenship for an immigrant used to mean — and still does, for many adults who follow the rules. But today, we are required to grant the same privileges to anyone whose mother can sneak across our border a few hours before her baby is born. That is insane. And it must be changed, if we ever hope to regain control of our immigration policies.
Rubio recognizes that many of his supporters disagree with him on immigration. A Rasmussen poll says his support among conservatives has dropped 15 percent since February.
Rubio admits it’s been difficult for him to hear “the growing anger in the voices of so many people who helped me get elected to the Senate and who I agree with on virtually every other issue.”
Rubio, there’s an easy solution here: Please come back to your base. Remember why so many of us hailed your triumph three years ago. And return to the principles that lead to your amazing victory.
As the son of (legal) immigrants and a proud Hispanic yourself, you are in a unique position to insist that first we must secure our borders. That’s our right — and our obligation. And that we must end the absurdity of granting instant citizenship to anchor babies.
If you’ll use your eloquence and enthusiasm to make sure we don’t compromise here, you’ll be doing a huge service to the country you love.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
–Chip Wood
http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/2...ation-mistake/

McCain Snookered Marco and took down "Ended" Marco's well paying Senate job. The TEA Party is bailing out on Marco's sinking Boat as fast as they can ..... Uuuuh Hey Marco... PSSSSST... If John McCain is involved / Endorsing a Bill; you don't touch it with a 10 foot stick .... that should have been your first major clue to run away at a high rate of speed

Press Release of Senator Cruz Sen. Ted Cruz: Latest “Deal” from the Senate: Pass Amnesty First, Read the Bill Later

Contact: press@cruz.senate.gov / (202) 228-7561
Monday, June 24, 2013

Latest “Deal” from the Senate: Pass Amnesty First, Read the Bill Later
RedState
By Sen. Ted Cruz
June 24, 2013

On Monday at 5:30pm, the United States Senate will vote on the most sweeping immigration reform proposal it has considered in almost 3 decades – and it will do so having only seen the nearly 1200 pages of text for approximately 72 hours. Americans – including myself, my fellow senators and our staffs – are still trying to figure out exactly what is in the new Schumer-Corker-Hoeven “deal.”

Sound familiar? Pass it to find out what’s in it? Reminiscent of Obamacare, the lengthy amendment to replace the Gang of 8’s original bill was crafted behind closed doors and introduced late on Friday, after many members had left town. In the 2007 immigration debate, close to 50 amendments were considered. But this year, we have only debated 9 – with some of us being completely shut out.

Given only a weekend to review the language, we will now vote on whether to end a debate that never really began. To be clear – this is not a difficult vote. On process alone, we should all vote “no.“ This was by design – the President, Harry Reid and the Gang of 8 preferred all along to ram through a “deal,” and not have a real debate – just like Obamacare. Worse, just like Obamacare, the “deal” involved lots of horse-trading and buying off of votes at the last minute – a display of everything that is wrong with Washington, and one of the things I specifically campaigned against.
But, on substance – the vote is even easier. There are too many troubling provisions of the bill to list, such as de facto affirmative action hiring for current illegal immigrants due to Obamacare and huge amounts of discretion for the DHS Secretary to waive deportation and inadmissibility. And for all the talk, the new Schumer-Corker-Hoeven “deal” is nothing new at all. It’s the same amnesty-before-false-promise-of-security of the Gang of 8 and the bills of debates past.

Here’s what we know that the bill does:

Grants Immediate Amnesty with Empty Promise of Border Security

Although we are told that it fixes border security, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment maintains the Gang of 8’s flawed framework of guaranteed and immediate legalization, followed by an empty promise of eventual border security. This structure repeats the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty, which, as noted by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, is precisely the same as this “deal,” and only encourages more illegal immigration.

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven compromise demonstrates that Congress is not serious about meaningful border security. The first amendment considered by the full Senate in this debate, offered by Senator Grassley, would have required effective control of the border for six months before legalization. Democrats and the Gang of 8 refused to even consider the merits of that proposal, voting to table it without real consideration. The Senate then rejected five additional amendments that would have enhanced border security, including completion of additional border fencing and implementation of the biometric entry/exit US-VISIT system required by current law, both before legalization.

Provides No Real Border Security at All

Now, the same proponents who led the charge against those amendments say, “Trust us.” A closer look at their border security plan, however, reveals gaping holes. Most notably, the amendment’s security enhancements are not contemplated until almost ten years after the bill’s enactment; none would be in place before amnesty. Moreover, the signature “border surge” that would double the Border Patrol does not require that a single new agent be added before amnesty is granted just six months after the bill becomes law.

Weakens Fencing Requirement

Regarding a southern border fence, Schumer-Corker-Hoeven provides for only single-layer fencing, instead of the double-layer fencing that was required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It leaves in place the Department of Homeland Security’s asserted discretion to decide whether and where double-layered fencing is appropriate and leaves open the possibility that no fencing may be built at all. As a result, the United States is simply unprepared to deal with the influx of immigrants who will seek to enter this country illegally in pursuit of a path to U.S. citizenship during the two-and-a-half year amnesty period, when deportations and enforcement are virtually halted.

Weakens Current Law on Entry-Exit System

Schumer-Corker-Hoeven also weakens current law with respect to an entry/exit system, requiring only biographic — rather than biometric — identification.

Current law requires implementation of a biometric entry/exit system (called US-VISIT) – that is, a system that checks individuals’ biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint. But this biometric system has never been setup. Rather than enforce this current law, Schumer-Corker-Hoeven weakens it by requiring ports to use only a biographic entry/exit system – a system that checks only non-biological characteristics, like an individual’s name or date of birth. It is much easier to falsify biographic information, which is precisely why current law requires a biometric system.

Avoids any Metric for Measuring True Border Security

It also drops the current requirement that 100% of the border be under operational control (the ability to detect and respond to all cross-border illegal activity), adopting instead the Gang of 8’s flawed “effectiveness rate” metric to measure success. The “effectiveness rate” metric is based on subjective estimates of the number of illegal border crossing, so it does not provide an accurate measure of whether the border is secure.

Assumes Future Significant Illegal Entry

By its own terms, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment recognizes that illegal immigration will remain a problem in the future. It mandates that as many as 1,000 distress beacons be placed in areas along the border where deaths are known to occur. It also directs the enhancement of “training, resources, and professionalism” for border officials in Mexico and Central American countries, as well as an educational campaign about the perils of the journey to the United States, for nationals of those countries.

Fails to Measure Up to Alternatives

A number of my colleagues have offered, or are ready to offer, far superior approaches. For example, besides the Grassley Amendment I already noted, Senator Thune offered an amendment to require additional border fencing before legalization, and Senator Vitter offered an amendment to require implementation of the US-VISIT biometric entry/exist system before legalization. Both were rejected.

In addition, I offered but have been refused a vote on, a simple, five-page amendment that stands in stark contrast to the mess created by Schumer-Corker-Hoeven and avoids the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty by ensuring a truly secure border before legalization is granted. My amendment would: triple the Border Patrol; quadruple equipment and assets to monitor the border; complete all fencing required by the Secure Fence Act of 2006; fully implement US-VISIT; and establish operational control over 100 percent of the southern border. In addition, it would require that these things be completed or a portion of DHS’s budget would be block-granted to states for border security. Finally, it would pay for border security by offsets against federal spending rather than taxes and deficits. This clear plan leaves Americans no doubt about what to expect and, most importantly, ensures that we put a stop to illegal immigration.

Requires American People to Stand up and say No

Of course, Americans will not get this kind of real security if they do not demand it. Sponsors would have us believe that as many as 70 of my colleagues will support the Gang of 8 bill, as amended by Schumer-Corker-Hoeven. Rarely do we see so transparently how votes in the Senate are bought and sold, but the laundry list of buyoffs in this deal details plainly the path to amnesty. The last-minute introduction and overwhelming page count are by design, and this exercise has become more about politics than principle. This is Washington at its worst, and America deserves better. The proponents of this bill are squandering an opportunity to fix our legal immigration system responsibly and finally secure our borders. Instead, they are jamming through amnesty that undermines the rule of law and harms those who will desperately seek it.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344162

Ok, lets set the record straight because quite frankly i'm sick of hearing this "we are a nation of immigrants" BS. We are a nation of "Legal Immigrants" of whom respected Rule of law and still do. When my parents came from Scotland, they did not come here and demand rights.drop anchor babies to get on welfare, think they were entitiled to everything for free denouce america, force their ethnicity on anybody, demand everything be writin in gaelic or the ancient Pict language, etc. Don't confuse these Illegal aliens with people like my family who came here and did the right thing, including fighting for this country honorably.

Belt-way Virus

Posted by Glen Amos on July 8, 2013 at 11:26pm
View Blog


Marco Rubio has been infected by the Belt-way viral disease. History has shown this insidious monster to have a mortality rate of 90% for those exposed for longer than 6 months. Unlike Ebola, speculation is that Belt-way is an airborne filo-virus rather than being transmitted through body fluids.

We may never know who patient zero was but RINOS such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham are major carriers. They must be extracted from power for the same reason a limb with gangrene must be removed. Such action is difficult and painful but necessary and life saving.

Only those with the strongest constitutions and belief in the Constitution have been successful in fighting off Belt-way. This would include Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert and Trey Gowdy. The virus was rejected by Allen West. His immune system was such a threat to the existence of Belt-way that his own internal defense system (RNC) rejected him.

Like Ebola, Belt-way will eventually kill the host (We the People) from within. To understand the seriousness of this threat, I urge you to read “Breakthrough” by James O’Keefe.


http://patriotaction.net/profiles/bl...msg_share_post