Rubio Rubs Republicans Raw: Chaffing Facts About Gang of 8 Reform – ACORN No Longer Needed

The following are selected details and commentary about the immigration bill Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has written in tandem with the Gang of Eight headed by Senate Scoundrel, Chuck Schumer (D-NY). As Rich Lowery says in an article in Politico today, Rubio was a huge “get.” He was a Republican darling, thought to be conservative. He is of Cuban ancestory with an interesting backstory, handsome, with a pretty family and can out-orate Obama without a teleprompter. Does it get any better than that for a Merry Band of Senate Progressives? Who needs ACORN to organize Democrat voters when you have Senators Marco Rubio, John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ)? If you merged the photos of the Gang of Eight, you’d get this:


No border security before legal status (completely contrary to what Rubio promised – because, he says, we need “to freeze in place” the 11 million already here – no time to wait for border security – call this ‘had’ by Chuck Schumer):

Under the bill, no additional enforcement has to take place before undocumented immigrants get legalized. The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security merely has to come up with a strategy for enforcement and notify Congress that it has commenced. It doesn’t matter if it is a good, bad or indifferent plan, so long as it is a plan. Then, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants get legal status…

Schumer’s genius is to have placated Rubio not just with promises, but with new versions of old promises. Rubio touts the bill’s mandate for the creation of an exit-entry tracking system, a key piece of the puzzle of controlling who comes here. Congress first mandated the creation of such a system in 1996. Rich Lowry writing for Politico

Five years, only, until the bill passes and “legal status,” not citizenship, allows a pathway to the voter booth for an  estimated 2 million to 3 million of the 11 million illegals, so considering history, those numbers will be much larger.

The Schumer-Rubio bill, however, creates an expedited citizenship process for millions of illegal immigrants. These immigrants are eligible for citizenship in just 5 years…

The Schumer-Rubio bill incorporates provisions of the proposed DREAM Act. The provisions apply to individuals who, as children, were brought into the country illegally by their parents. An individual brought into the US when they were 16 or younger and has completed high school and two years towards a bachelor degree or served 4 years in the military can change their status and apply for permanent legal residency (green card) after just 5 years. Other illegal immigrants have to wait 10 years.

Under the legislation, however, DREAM immigrants can immediately apply for citizenship once the have permanent legal status. Currently, immigrants with green cards have to wait 5 years to apply for citizenship. The Schumer-Rubio legislation, however, counts the time the immigrant held an RPI visa and allows an immediate petition for citizenship. Other immigrants, once they have their green card, would have to wait three years before they could apply to become citizens.

According to a Senate office involved in the deliberations, 2-3 million immigrants would be eligible for the expedited citizenship path. In addition, these immigrants could also immediately apply for their spouses or children to be put on a path to citizenship, adding hundreds of thousands more citizens.

Of course, as citizens, these millions of new citizens are eligible to vote. Republicans may ease their minds thinking they have 13 years to broaden their outreach to Hispanics. The political implications, however, begin in just 5 years. Source: Mike Flynn for Breitbart

The following are snippets of a conversation between Rush Limbaugh and Rubio yesterday (thanks to David Lemon, Master of Bronze).

RUSH: …I have some questions for you…but the politics of this still fascinate me.  If you look at the 2010 election or 2012 election results. The percentage of the electorate that was Hispanic was 7%, and we got 27 or 28% of that vote.  The evangelical vote was about 28% of the electorate, and we got 78% of that.

Rubio said his motivations are not political, he wants to “solve the problem for the country.”

RUSH: …Senator, I know you say that the political aspects of this are not yours, but so many people are scared to death, Senator, that the Republican Party is committing suicide, that we’re going to end up legalizing nine million automatic Democrat voters, and that’s why the Democrats are so adamant. We don’t understand why the Republicans are so eager to make that happen.  We seem to be wanting to reach out to Hispanics.  Once we do everything we do to reach out to Hispanics, how can we ever reform welfare?  How can we reform anything that we might want to change if it’s the product of reaching out to Hispanics, giving them what we think they want in order to get their votes, when they’re already gonna vote Democrat?

RUBIO: (a portion of his answer): I imagine in places like California and New York, where there’s a large segment of Hispanics that also happen to live in very liberal communities, it will probably be a heavier lift.  But in places like Florida, Texas, Virginia, and other places throughout the country, where there’s a growing Hispanic population not tied to these traditional centers of liberalism, I think we have a very compelling story to tell.  The evidence shows that Hispanics are heavily entrepreneurial.  And I know this.  The more taxes people pay, the more that they own, the more they have at stake in the economy, the more conservative and more limited government they become, and I’ve seen that with my own eyes.

RUSH:  Well, I have, too, within certain years, certain eras of this country’s history.  We’re not in the era like that now.  We’re in an era where seemingly more people are low-information than ever before and are more susceptible — Senator, look at the number of people not working. I mean, 90 million people are not working. But they’re all eating, they’ve all got phones, they’ve all got TV sets and so forth.  They are being supported.  They are able to live sufficiently well enough that getting a job is not that important, not nearly as important.  It’s a cultural thing that’s happening here. 

And we’re going to throw immigration reform in this mix right now.  I understand your objectives, and they’re really admirable, and I totally wish you all the luck and all the best with it.  We need people like you fighting for these kind of things.  There’s no question.  But you said something earlier at the top of the interview that the immigration system is broken, there are 11 million people, whatever, we don’t know who they are, and we’ve gotta fix it.  Why?  What is it about right now that says, forget everything else fails I’ve asked you, forget the political ramifications I’ve asked you about. Why does it need to be fixed right now?

RUBIO:  First of all, a couple things. If it was up to me, if I controlled the flow of business in the Senate we would be focused on tax reform and how to get our economy growing again and how to get the debt under control. But the reality is the Democrats are gonna raise the issue of immigration. So, if they’re going to raise this issue and force us to address it, then we have to have an alternative —

RUSH:  Why, why can’t we just defeat it? Why do we have to address it because they raise it?

RUBIO:  If they raise the issue of immigration we can’t just vote against it.  I think one of the things unfortunately that’s happened in the past is, for example, Obamacare was raised…

RUSH:  So, what about enforcing current law as an alternative? 

RUBIO: (I’m skipping his answer – just more of the same, he doesn’t answer the question – just gives the “there’s 11 million people here” excuse)

The following is why Rush Limbaugh is a giant:

RUSH:  — want to explore it.  You said that as the Democrats propose it, we can’t just ignore it, we have to offer alternatives.  Now, you’re a freshman in the Senate so this is not a comment directed at you, but I have been, just as a commentator and an observer, I’ve been amazed. The Democrats propose anything, and we have to accept it, that becomes the news of the day, the item of the day. We somehow have to be in favor of it, but we’re gonna make alternatives.  Why can’t we just oppose something that they propose, such as Obamacare.  Why did we have to offer alternatives? I know you weren’t there then, but why do we have to offer alternatives?  They are proposing things that we intrinsically disagree with, why can’t we just say no?

More confirmation of 5 years to the voting booth from Power Line quoting a report from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL):

* Those who qualify for the broad DREAM Act fast-track amnesty under S. 744 estimated by Steve Camarota to be between 2 to 3 million people are able to become citizens after being in registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status (the general amnesty) for 5 years. Those 5 years are deemed as having been spent in legal permanent resident status (under current law LPRs must wait 5 years before becoming citizens).

o There is NO AGE CAP on eligibility

o The Secretary can allow a deported DREAMer who is outside the U.S. or who has re-entered the U.S. illegally after the December 31, 2011 cut-off date to apply for this status.

* Illegal agriculture workers will also be placed on an expedited path: green cards in five years and citizenship in ten. This could apply to close to a million people or more.

* So-called DREAMers will also be able to get green cards for their parents, spouses and children five years from enactment. They will then be eligible for citizenship five years after that. Therefore the DREAM provision of the bill alone would be responsible for potentially 10 million new citizens in five-ten years [rough estimation].

* S. 744 would allow unlimited visas for the spouses and children of all green card holders both those currently illegal and new legal immigrants, leading to exponential chain migration.

* In addition, under S. 744, any LPR can petition for visas for adult unmarried sons and daughters (but they must wait for a visa to become available). A citizen also will be able to petition for their married sons and daughters under the age of 31 if visas are available under the family-based visa cap.

* S. 744 appears to allow those who have been granted status under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA) to immediately adjust to LPR status under a streamlined procedure determined by the Secretary and consistent with the DACA requirements. These individuals may petition for visas for family members in the same manner as the LPRs described above. According to USCIS statistics, 472,004 DACA applications were accepted for review between August 2012 and March 2013; 268,361 were approved; only 16,778 were deemed incomplete and required resubmission; and only 1,377 were denied.

* Taking into account the expedited legalization of illegal immigrants, the expansion of low-skill legal immigration, and the new avenues for chain migration, the bill would exponentially increase the number of people granted legal status.

Earlier this week I post some additional details that no one seems to be willing to ask Rubio about, such as:

1) giving legal status to previously deported illegals, including some of those with criminal backgrounds, and accepts a far-reach of relatives, and

2) Border security does not come first as promised “and has specious provisions for eventually concluding the border is safe leaving that conclusion to Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton. After 5 years, if Congress believes the border is not safe, a new “commission” will be formed to monitor and report to We the People. Note, we can’t even track VISAs and cannot or do not bother to remove those overstaying their VISAs, we can’t track permanent legal “Green Card” residents leaving or entering the U.S., and existing federal laws are the books are not followed and states wanting to follow federal laws are not allowed to do so, and should they try, the administration hauls that state into court, costing residents millions.

Wouldn’t you think Rubio’s press secretary might reflect the view of his boss? Here’s a twitter exchange from said press secretary this past week comparing illegals to 19th Century slavery:

Despite his plea for cooler heads to prevail in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing last, Alex Conant, press secretary for Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, likened the current plight of illegal immigrants to that of slaves in 19th century America.

Conant made his remarks in a Twitter argument with the Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll, who accused the Florida Republican of selling lies. Conant replied by asking Carroll for suggestions.

After Carroll suggested scrapping a proposed assimilation bureau, cutting grants to leftist groups and other changes, Conant rebutted those suggestions by saying Americans have not had a cohort of people living permanently in US without full rights of citizenship since slavery. Read the Twitter exchange here  Carroll begins with Rubio had tons of good will built up with conservatives. Enough to sell an honesty amnesty. But now all he is selling is lies.

Now Rubio’s camp is comparing “the plight” of illegals to slavery. Don’t forget it.