Why Marco Rubio and his gang are correct — and it has nothing to do with amnesty.
(Page 2 of 2)
While the devil will be in the details of drafted legislation, for the principles as they are written I suggest the answer is a resounding “no.” Anyone who would step foot on a “path to citizenship” would do so behind those who had applied through the usual legal process, after paying taxes and fines, and, critically, after enforcement of the border and of rules governing the hiring of illegal aliens have reached a degree of robustness, of “operational control,” well beyond anything this nation has seen before.
As former Colorado Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry (a conservative Republican) put it, “If Rubio’s plan is ‘amnesty’ or a violation of the ‘rule of law,’ then so is plea bargaining a speeding ticket.”
The Obama administration has gutted internal enforcement of immigration laws and moved to enact DREAM Act-like non-enforcement of potential deportation of 1.7 million illegal aliens through executive order. In 2010, representatives of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers union cast a unanimous Vote of No Confidence against ICE Director John Morton due to his “campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large scale amnesty” and misrepresenting ICE data to make enforcement look stronger than it is. Mr. Morton remains in his job today, with Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions saying that comprehensive immigration reform is impossible unless Morton resigns.
But none of this reduces what should be Republican incentive to pass something along the lines of the Gang’s stated principles. Rather, it should increase GOP motivation: should the gate blocking the path to citizenship never be lifted due to lax border and employer-law enforcement, there will be only Barack Obama and Democrats to blame.
Furthermore, the details of immigration reform (as long as the major precepts of enforcement first are maintained) are irrelevant in comparison to the message that Republican-led reform would send. (It is politically critical that if there is a bill that Republicans can support and that will pass, Republicans rather than Barack Obama are perceived as its champions.)
Republican electoral woes cannot be understood through a narrow lens of any one issue. Rather it is a combination of a few key issues, primarily immigration and gay rights, which create a mental image in the minds of non-whites of all ages and young voters of all backgrounds of a political party rooted in bigotry, in fear of the other, which is to say a political party about which no other information is necessary to make a decision.
It is a sad reversal for the party that ended slavery and forced the civil rights movement down the throats of unwilling Democrats and their KKK henchmen.
Rather than lambast Marco Rubio — a likely serious contender for the 2016 Republican nomination for president along with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who conspicuously and quickly offered public support for Rubio’s effort — the Gang of Eight’s framework should be applauded and supported by Republicans who realize that the GOP doesn’t have an immigration problem, it has a perception-of-intolerance problem.
The former would be bad enough, but manageable. The latter, unless soon changed, will catalyze the long-term irrelevance of the Grand Old Party.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?