Rubio dodges immigration controversy at CPAC

[gator996]

Rubio called for a new focus on students’ debts, which have grown past $1 trillion as Americans fail to find jobs that match their expensively-earned qualifications. He also called for continued attention to overseas problems, highlighted his pro-life beliefs and celebrated marriage in the face of progressive efforts to reshape it, earning support from groups that he will need if he runs for the the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2016.

However, the speech’s contents “completely conflicts with his [immigration] plans,” said Jenks.

“You can’t grow the middle class when you’re flooding the low-skill labor market and keeping workers impoverished,” she told The Daily Caller. “The only thing that grows is big business profits and the entitlement system.”



Nothing like tiptoeing around the "conservatives"...


Can Rubio discuss immigration with his own party honestly?
Or, does he have to hide at conservative events like these?



http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/15/rubio-dodges-immigration-controversy-at-cpac/


Rubio dodges immigration controversy at CPAC

Those plans include the award of both work permits to at least 11 million low-skill illegal immigrants, and many work visas to high-skilled and low-skilled workers sought by businesses.

Numerous polls show the amnesty and guest-worker measures are unpopular among Americans, and very unpopular among GOP supporters. (RELATED: Immigration group says polls are all wrong)

A February poll by Reuters and Ipsos showed that 53 percent of Americans believe that all or most illegal immigrants should be deported, not given amnesty. Only 5 percent wanted all immigrants to be allowed to stay, while 31 percent said most immigrants should stay.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/15/rubio-dodges-immigration-controversy-at-cpac/#ixzz2NzcHskb9

[HudsonGator]

Rubio called for a new focus on students’ debts, which have grown past $1 trillion as Americans fail to find jobs that match their expensively-earned qualifications. He also called for continued attention to overseas problems, highlighted his pro-life beliefs and celebrated marriage in the face of progressive efforts to reshape it, earning support from groups that he will need if he runs for the the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2016.

However, the speech’s contents “completely conflicts with his [immigration] plans,” said Jenks.

“You can’t grow the middle class when you’re flooding the low-skill labor market and keeping workers impoverished,” she told The Daily Caller. “The only thing that grows is big business profits and the entitlement system.”

Nothing like tiptoeing around the "conservatives"...


Can Rubio discuss immigration with his own party honestly?
Or, does he fave to hide at conservative events like these?



http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/15/rubio-dodges-immigration-controversy-at-cpac/


Rubio dodges immigration controversy at CPAC

Those plans include the award of both work permits to at least 11 million low-skill illegal immigrants, and many work visas to high-skilled and low-skilled workers sought by businesses.

Numerous polls show the amnesty and guest-worker measures are unpopular among Americans, and very unpopular among GOP supporters. (RELATED: Immigration group says polls are all wrong)

A February poll by Reuters and Ipsos showed that 53 percent of Americans believe that all or most illegal immigrants should be deported, not given amnesty. Only 5 percent wanted all immigrants to be allowed to stay, while 31 percent said most immigrants should stay.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/15/rubio-dodges-immigration-controversy-at-cpac/#ixzz2NzcHskb9


It is the Republican Catch 22, to win a Presidential election from this point forward, they are going to have to attract vast numbers of Hispanic voters, but to win the Republican nomination, they are going to have to win a majority of Republicans, most of whom do not favor any meaningful immigration reform other than more fences at the borders.

[MichiGator2002]

I would prefer that politicians operate from the presumption that nobody of an ethical bent should support violating a sovereign nation's just immigration laws. They shouldn't approach Hispanic voters as though they are predisposed to lawlessness.

[wgbgator]

Why, its almost as if he has ambitions for higher office.

[MastaG8r]

It is the Republican Catch 22, to win a Presidential election from this point forward, they are going to have to attract vast numbers of Hispanic voters, but to win the Republican nomination, they are going to have to win a majority of Republicans, most of whom do not favor any meaningful immigration reform other than more fences at the borders.Republicans don't need "vast numbers" of Hispanics. Some yes, but not too many more than Bush needed to beat Kerry in '04.

There are many, many Hispanics who share more in common ideals-and-values-wise with Republicans than Democrats, but they are spooked by the caricatures painted by the Left and perpetuated by the Liberal news and entertainment media. It's just a matter of receiving better communication about what the GOP really stands for from people with whom they can identify. It'll happen.

[HudsonGator]

Republicans don't need "vast numbers" of Hispanics. Some yes, but not too many more than Bush needed to beat Kerry in '04.

There are many, many Hispanics who share more in common ideals-and-values-wise with Republicans than Democrats, but they are spooked by the caricatures painted by the Left and perpetuated by the Liberal news and entertainment media. It's just a matter of receiving better communication about what the GOP really stands for from people with whom they can identify. It'll happen.


I guess they just need to start watching Fox News then...

[MastaG8r]

I guess they just need to start watching Fox News then...Correction...Fox News Latino! (http://latino.foxnews.com/index.html) Coming soon to a cable system near you. ¡Que interesante!

[gator996]

Republicans don't need "vast numbers" of Hispanics. Some yes, but not too many more than Bush needed to beat Kerry in '04.

There are many, many Hispanics who share more in common ideals-and-values-wise with Republicans than Democrats, but they are spooked by the caricatures painted by the Left and perpetuated by the Liberal news and entertainment media. It's just a matter of receiving better communication about what the GOP really stands for from people with whom they can identify. It'll happen.


You mean like not giving them a path to citizenship but making it OK to collect their taxes and give them no voting rights?

By starting with an immigration policy that only appeals to "enough" hispanics to get Bush numbers is already quite telling about conservatives objectives here...

Its not about governing policy...to them its strictly about votes.

"Receiving better communication" relies on sending a better message than the one the conservatives sent in 2012.


Dressing up the same ol message from "people with whom they can identitfy" is nothing more than "...putting lipstick on a pig..."

[HudsonGator]

You mean like not giving them a path to citizenship but making it OK to collect their taxes and give them no voting rights?

By starting with an immigration policy that only appeals to "enough" hispanics to get Bush numbers is already quite telling about conservatives objectives here...

Its not about governing policy...to them its strictly about votes.

"Receiving better communication" relies on sending a better message than the one the conservatives sent in 2012.


Dressing up the same ol message from "people with whom they can identitfy" is nothing more than "...putting lipstick on a pig..."


If those voter suppression strategies weren't illegal, they'd win a whole bunch of elections. Damn laws!

[gator996]

They're working on that problem Hudson...


They're pretty sure they only have to follow the laws they agree with... :grin:

[MastaG8r]

You mean like not giving them a path to citizenship but making it OK to collect their taxes and give them no voting rights?

By starting with an immigration policy that only appeals to "enough" hispanics to get Bush numbers is already quite telling about conservatives objectives here...
What "them" are you referring to? In the context of the conversation I think it's pretty clear that when I said Hispanics I meant Hispanic voters. You're talking about "giving them a path to citizenship." Are you under the impression that the typical Hispanic is an illegal immigrant, or that those are the people upon which the GOP needs to focus its outreach efforts?

[mdgator05]

I would prefer that politicians operate from the presumption that nobody of an ethical bent should support violating a sovereign nation's just immigration laws. They shouldn't approach Hispanic voters as though they are predisposed to lawlessness.

In the end, immigration cuts across the Republican Party because you end up with supposedly "free market" conservatives advocating for "just," massive government interventions in the labor market while wanting no such intervention in the capital market. Then they get mad when that system has major issues where low skilled labor gets trapped in a high cost area, calling them lazy or moochers when the low-skill jobs go to places with lower cost labor.

[MichiGator2002]

Actually enforcing our country's immigration law isn't a massive government intrusion in the labor market, that is asinine. And baldly offensive, if you have any understanding of just how many people that come here illegally to work as domestics or even more, uh, personal servants are victims of human trafficking.

Our southern border is servicing a more robust slave trade, really, than tall ships crossing the Atlantic ever managed.

Want a GOP rebranding? Stop apologizing for this being a sovereign nation on immigration and point out that amnesty first, amnesty last, amnesty only without closing the border as a "solution" is at best willful blindness and at worst genuinely pro-slavery. Maybe Hispanics might respond to the idea that those whom would get this amnesty aren't the whole picture, that the Democrats would gain some votes, some people whose path into this country was manageable would get citizenship, but the door of compassion would be slammed shut on those who, but for the grace of God, their own nieces or nephews might have been -- people marched in at gunpoint through the desert or in box trailers with no climate control to be thrown into a field, or into a life of captive domesticity, rape, and abuse. That the only truly humane thing you can do for those people is to slam the door shut and try to improve the legal immigration process for the good and hardworking family man that just wants to make money to send home, and that it would be then that it is time to take about amnesty for prior illegal entry.

[gator996]

What "them" are you referring to? In the context of the conversation I think it's pretty clear that when I said Hispanics I meant Hispanic voters. You're talking about "giving them a path to citizenship." Are you under the impression that the typical Hispanic is an illegal immigrant, or that those are the people upon which the GOP needs to focus its outreach efforts?


You don't have to ask me...


Coulter & Trump both have said if you're for Immigration reform and giving these immigrants a pathway to citizenship then you're committing suicide.

They both came out and said you're talking the end of the GOP party.
Period.



The party's policy is going to be the fundamental issue for all latinos...

It ain't the only issue they care about...but they do care....

[MastaG8r]

You don't have to ask me...


Coulter & Trump both have said if you're for Immigration reform and giving these immigrants a pathway to citizenship then you're committing suicide.

They both came out and said you're talking the end of the GOP party.
Period.



The party's policy is going to be the fundamental issue for all latinos...

It ain't the only issue they care about...but they do care....You are making the mistake of treating Hispanics like a monolithic voting block when that is far from the truth. Like I said earlier, the GOP doesn't need to win all of them over. Just some. And some Hispanics who have been here for generations or followed the proper procedures for coming here legally are not necessarily of the opinion that all the illegals should get a free ticket to citizenship.

[DaveFla]

I'm missing the story here. Obama has managed to dodge the immigration issue for 4+ years now. I don't see 996 posting several repetitive threads about him.

[mdgator05]

Actually enforcing our country's immigration law isn't a massive government intrusion in the labor market, that is asinine. And baldly offensive, if you have any understanding of just how many people that come here illegally to work as domestics or even more, uh, personal servants are victims of human trafficking.

Our southern border is servicing a more robust slave trade, really, than tall ships crossing the Atlantic ever managed.

Want a GOP rebranding? Stop apologizing for this being a sovereign nation on immigration and point out that amnesty first, amnesty last, amnesty only without closing the border as a "solution" is at best willful blindness and at worst genuinely pro-slavery. Maybe Hispanics might respond to the idea that those whom would get this amnesty aren't the whole picture, that the Democrats would gain some votes, some people whose path into this country was manageable would get citizenship, but the door of compassion would be slammed shut on those who, but for the grace of God, their own nieces or nephews might have been -- people marched in at gunpoint through the desert or in box trailers with no climate control to be thrown into a field, or into a life of captive domesticity, rape, and abuse. That the only truly humane thing you can do for those people is to slam the door shut and try to improve the legal immigration process for the good and hardworking family man that just wants to make money to send home, and that it would be then that it is time to take about amnesty for prior illegal entry.

People are trafficked here because of the difficulty in getting into the country. That argument is no different than the people that argue we have to keep drugs illegal because drug dealers kill people. It is taking a negative symptom of the treatment and justifying the treatment due to it. In other words, completely illogical.

Please explain to me how telling somebody they are only allowed to live and work in a country based upon whatever country they happened to be born in is not a massive intervention in the labor market. A comparable law on the capital side, such as a law that you have to make your products in the US or go through hundreds of pages of documents and wait in line for years for it to be processed in order to import your product, would certainly be met with talk of how much of an intervention that would be in the capital market. And yet the exact same law is not a massive intervention in the labor market. Again, completely illogical.

[AzCatFan]

Actually enforcing our country's immigration law isn't a massive government intrusion in the labor market, that is asinine. And baldly offensive, if you have any understanding of just how many people that come here illegally to work as domestics or even more, uh, personal servants are victims of human trafficking.

Our southern border is servicing a more robust slave trade, really, than tall ships crossing the Atlantic ever managed.

Want a GOP rebranding? Stop apologizing for this being a sovereign nation on immigration and point out that amnesty first, amnesty last, amnesty only without closing the border as a "solution" is at best willful blindness and at worst genuinely pro-slavery. Maybe Hispanics might respond to the idea that those whom would get this amnesty aren't the whole picture, that the Democrats would gain some votes, some people whose path into this country was manageable would get citizenship, but the door of compassion would be slammed shut on those who, but for the grace of God, their own nieces or nephews might have been -- people marched in at gunpoint through the desert or in box trailers with no climate control to be thrown into a field, or into a life of captive domesticity, rape, and abuse. That the only truly humane thing you can do for those people is to slam the door shut and try to improve the legal immigration process for the good and hardworking family man that just wants to make money to send home, and that it would be then that it is time to take about amnesty for prior illegal entry.

Nice imagery. Unfortunately, it's wrong. Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, have been coming across the border to do our menial tasks such as pick our crops for generations. You might remember the Bracero Program (http://www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html) that ran from 1942 through 1966 which brought in millions of Mexicans; many of which stayed and became citizens. Post Bracero, through about 1980, the border policy was let the migrant workers pass. It really wasn't until the 80's, with the rise in drug trafficking, that the border became a major issue.

And it's the drug running, which comes with a lot of violence, that is still a major issue today. But our own policies the last 30 years have only added to much of the issues. In the 80's and 90's, our policy was to secure the city centers where the majority of migrants passed into the US. Given the choice between passing through a town like Nogales or El Paso, or attempting to cross the open desert, it's a no brainer. I guess our politicians believed that if the urban areas were guarded, the immigrants wouldn't attempt to cross the open desert. Talk about epic fail.

Now we have a situation where we are not only attempting to patrol our border cities/towns, but the rest of the 2,000 mile border with Mexico. And I don't know who here has ever spent much time in the borderlands, but much of it is harsh desert, much of it is elevated mountains, and much of it isn't accessible by motorized vehicle. Basically, we already spend billions on border patrol, and catch maybe 33% of all crossers. Simple math is, we'd have to spend 3X our current spending, and add several hundred thousand to Fed payrolls if we want a truly secure border.

But it doesn't have to be that way. The majority of crossers still come here for one reason, and one reason only. They cannot find any work in their home areas, and are desperate to find a job. Any job. And in the US, there are still low wage jobs to be had that our own citizenry simply does not do.

Now, imagine that instead of immigrants wanting to work going through the open desert, we set up another Bracero type program that funneled these migrants back to the border city/towns where they could, for a fee, come to the US to work. And those already here? Pay the same fee plus a fine for initially breaking the law for the privilege to stay. Can't afford the Visa, even on some sort of payment plan? Sorry, we don't need you in the US, and you get deported.

I would also say the Visa should be a 3-year Visa, with an option to extend another 3 years. After 6 years, either get on a citizenship track, or go back home.

For some reason(s), the GOP doesn't want to get behind any plan that allows for the free movement of labor from a high supply area (Mexico), to a high demand area (USA). No, they want to throw good money after bad with enforcement, and spend even more money deporting those already here, despite the fact that states that enacted immigration laws have lost millions (http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/how_much_would_an_arizona-style_immigration_law_cost_your_state/), if not billions already as a result! To me, more immigration enforcement makes no sense, and no cents either.

In the end, it shouldn't be about votes. It should be about doing what is best for the country. And that's making the best of a situation that's been happening for years--immigrants doing our low wage jobs. We can fight like we are, which will end up with nothing changing, because business interests will prefer the status quo over further enforcement. Or do a best-case scenario, and collect guest visa monies while allowing the immigrants to stay and/or come with ease, and continue to work.

[gator996]

You are making the mistake of treating Hispanics like a monolithic voting block when that is far from the truth. Like I said earlier, the GOP doesn't need to win all of them over. Just some. And some Hispanics who have been here for generations or followed the proper procedures for coming here legally are not necessarily of the opinion that all the illegals should get a free ticket to citizenship.


I am ????

Those comments are from CPAC speakers (Trump, Coulter)...those are conservative thinkers talking.... not me.


To me, the issue trancends all latinos....voting & non-voting because things like wet foot/dry foot policy matters to people in the carribean/latin american world across family lines, nationality, country of origin

So thinking you can shrink that demographic down to just "voting" latinos in this country somehow defies reality...

GOP policy.... specifically on Immigration ....will matter.

[oaklandroadie]

I'm missing the story here. Obama has managed to dodge the immigration issue for 4+ years now. I don't see 996 posting several repetitive threads about him.

That's because 996 is a shill, paid to link and post pro-dem articles and topics on his assigned message board. Surf any other political message boards today, and you will be amused at the similarity in topics.

[MastaG8r]

Regarding arguments made in this thread and others about the importance of the Hispanic vote and the supposed difficulty the GOP is having in getting it...

Not so fast. It had slipped my attention until I came across the number while reading this article today (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rick-perry-the-presidential-candidate-ahead-of-his-time-20130320), but Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) pulled a very respectable 38% of the Hispanic vote in his most recent gubernatorial election. A Republican who could do that on a national scale would be extremely formidable.

[The_Graygator]

Kind of like Obama dodged explainging why he lied about Benghazi?

Immigration is an issue to be addressed no doubt, but our economy, jobs, and defense of our Constitutional rights are the #1 issues right now.

[DeanMeadGator]

People are trafficked here because of the difficulty in getting into the country. That argument is no different than the people that argue we have to keep drugs illegal because drug dealers kill people. It is taking a negative symptom of the treatment and justifying the treatment due to it. In other words, completely illogical.

Please explain to me how telling somebody they are only allowed to live and work in a country based upon whatever country they happened to be born in is not a massive intervention in the labor market. A comparable law on the capital side, such as a law that you have to make your products in the US or go through hundreds of pages of documents and wait in line for years for it to be processed in order to import your product, would certainly be met with talk of how much of an intervention that would be in the capital market. And yet the exact same law is not a massive intervention in the labor market. Again, completely illogical.

Will someone please explain to me why anyone would go through the legal immigration process and abide by the immigration laws?

[mdgator05]

Will someone please explain to me why anyone would go through the legal immigration process and abide by the immigration laws?

The question is why should the government intervene in the labor market at all if you truly believe in free markets. So why have laws that tell people that they have to go through a long intensive process to gain the right to do something based upon being born in a politically classified section of land. A true free market theorist would say to let people move to the jobs and the market will handle things more efficiently. That is the argument for why we should have free trade in capital markets, so why wouldn't the same argument work for labor?

[sappanama]

People are trafficked here because of the difficulty in getting into the country. That argument is no different than the people that argue we have to keep drugs illegal because drug dealers kill people. It is taking a negative symptom of the treatment and justifying the treatment due to it. In other words, completely illogical.

Please explain to me how telling somebody they are only allowed to live and work in a country based upon whatever country they happened to be born in is not a massive intervention in the labor market. A comparable law on the capital side, such as a law that you have to make your products in the US or go through hundreds of pages of documents and wait in line for years for it to be processed in order to import your product, would certainly be met with talk of how much of an intervention that would be in the capital market. And yet the exact same law is not a massive intervention in the labor market. Again, completely illogical.

Yeah I agree that immigrants are"products", nothing more. Thanks for at least admitting that you don't see them as people but as things for sale, and that only laws you deem worthy should be enforced.we have legal immigration now, see my wife as an example, Hispanic , or her best friend from Romania, as doing it the legal way. They are definitely not in favor of bypassing the laws, in fact it pisses them off