Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Immigration Is Not a Deal Breaker for Rubio
Sen. Marco Rubio’s involvement in the Gang of Eight attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform has been one of his campaign’s biggest stumbling blocks. This, and and his refusal to disavow some form of “amnesty,” has left him vulnerable and at odds with the base. The only way for Rubio to win the nomination — so the theory goes — is to take a hardline on immigration.
This conventional wisdom sounds very logical and compelling. There’s only one problem with it: It’s completely wrong.
Exit polls from the first three nomination contests have revealed two interesting facts: Immigration is a top priority for only a small percentage of voters, and that 2) A majority of GOP voters so far actually support legal status for illegals working in the United States. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are all very different states in very different parts of the country, but immigration has consistently been the top priority of between only 13-15% of Republicans there in election night entrance/exit polls. What’s more, in New Hampshire, 56% of GOP voters said they support legal status for current illegals (go to the second page of results). And while one might chalk that up to the squishy nature of the average Granite State primary voter, the same question yielded almost the same result (53% favoring legal status) among staunchly-conservative South Carolinian GOP primary voters. CNN didn’t ask the same question to Iowa caucusers, but I doubt those voters are any more hawkish on “amnesty” than voters in the other two states.
Moreover, the same exit polls show that about a quarter of those who support “amnesty” for current illegals (22% in South Carolina; 24% in New Hampshire) actually support Trump. This indicates that immigration can’t account for Trump’s dominance in the race so far. His appeal is based on much more than the issue of immigration and, in fact, he is getting many votes despite his stance on immigration.
I’m going to submit that people shouting “Rubio supports amnesty!” and braying about the Gang of Eight are going to be sorely disappointed at their effectiveness in derailing a Rubio candidacy. They are probably also going to have to rethink what sort of compromise they are going to have to accept on immigration reform and legal status for immigrants. They are in a minority in their own party and are most certainly an even smaller minority among the general voting public.
Our immigration system needs a reformation and it needs to start with controlling our borders, tracking visas, and requiring verified legal status for employment. But anyone who thinks there is a silent majority looking to deport over ten million people is living in a bubble.
Published in Immigration, Politics
Listened briefly to Hannity tonight where he was trying to convince Steven Hayward that all of Trump’s new found positions are now sincerely and permanently held.
If the one reason you are not supporting Rubio is because Trump has a stronger position on immigration, then please post your email addresses here so I can send you a prospectus for a turning the Brooklyn bridge into a condominium.
If you support Cruz because he is better than Rubio on immigration I won’t argue with you, I would just hope that something could be worked out between them so that they would stop splitting the “non-Trump” vote. I think all of Rubio’s support is of the non-Trump variety, but I am not sure that all of Cruz’s supporters would line up behind Rubio. For the reasons stated in the OP, they should…but I am not optimistic.
Legal status and citizenship are two different things and is why Rubio has been yelling liar instead of himself admitting he supports amnesty. Cruz has supported legal status, but not amnesty. But I agree that the polls have shown it is a low concern. I imagine it is larger in states that have more illegals.
BT, I agree that it’s weird that a hard core conservative from a crucial state with a working class background that, uh, trumps that of any Democrat is being judged here on this one issue, as if he invented it, considering that half the party was looking for compromises in 2009 after the shellacking of 2006 and 2008. He made a mistake, he knows it, but for some reason he’s been transformed from “the guy who disappointed us over some aspects of immigration policy” to “the duplictous traitor, weasel, and liar who works tirelessly to sell America out”. This is true even of old Democrat pals like Mickey Kaus.
But I don’t see that resentment and dissatisfaction over federal inertia is the same thing as believing 10 million people need to be deported. They don’t. I don’t see even Mark Krikorian saying that.
Voters are sympathetic and humane, but they are not into the WSJ concepts of America as essentially a hotel that needs to fill its rooms in a competitive high end market, or America as a fancy garden party that can easily absorb another ten or twenty happy partygoers every hour. If we had that confidence about our elites, we’d trust them to make tradeoffs. We don’t have it and don’t trust them.
Once illegal immigrants have “legal” status, it’s only a heartbeat until they’re citizens. No one will be able to stand against the argument that we have two classes of residents, and that it’s unfair not to allow formerly illegal immigrants to vote.
I’ll note in passing that the people holding the sign seem to be illiterate.
Randy the only way we can slow down the push from legal residence to citizenship/voting is to require a real fine, not a slap on the wrist, to upgrade your status in the next legalization bill. Require a $5,000 fine to pay your costs and with a portion [say a $1,000] to be shared with those on the waiting list that you have jumped the queue on in order to vote. Over 95% will be satisfied with legal status in that situation.
It’s not just the fact that Rube co-sponsored the Gang of Eight bill. It’s the way he dealt with its pathetic sham security provisions. Either he:
I consider any of the three explanations evidence of conduct unbecoming a candidate for the Presidency; evidence that Rube simply isn’t qualified to be President (or any other public office, for that matter).
You don’t have to care about immigration, per se, to look at Rube and see a guy who’s not ready for the Majors. Christie’s hit on him in New Hampshire is further evidence that Rubot isn’t ready, yet.
And finally, the GOP needs a candidate who is not a creature of the donors. With ¡Jeb!’s exit from the campaign, most of his backers will probably settle on Rube. After Romney, you’d think we’d know better than to pick someone from the Kountry Klub Klan.
[Editors’ Note: Though we welcome the substantive part of this comment, the repeated use of epithets such as “Rube” and “Kountry Klub Klan” cheapen the argument and make Ricochet more like the rest of the internet. Kindly desist.]
It’s not the only reason I prefer Trump. Rube’s performance in the Gang of Eight fiasco demonstrated that he was too lazy to find out what was in the bill, too dumb to understand it, or knew the “border security” provisions were nothing a sham intended to hoax the yokels. None of those explanations for his shameful performance is acceptable in a Presidential candidate. Throw in the way he flubbed Christie’s attack in New Hampshire, and he’s just not ready for the Majors.
[Editors’ Note: Again, enough with the “Rube” and “¡Jeb!” stuff.]
I’m more troubled by the way Rubio misrepresented himself in his Senate run than by his desire to grant “amnesty” to those who are here illegally. He ran on a promise that he apparently had no intention of keeping. That’s traditionally been a deal breaker for those on our side (“Read my lips…”). I believe he’s still misrepresenting his intentions in saying he wants to secure the border before taking up amnesty again. My guess is that he’d grant amnesty tomorrow if he could get away with it.
As far as I can tell, none of the candidates is pure on this issue, and while some talk tougher than others, I remain unconvinced that things will look much different no matter who wins. But Rubio’s betrayal was pretty blatant, and so I am a bit more wary of him than I am Cruz (whom I also have issues with; Trump I do not trust at all).
I agree BUT…
My fear is that Rubio doesn’t. My fear is that Rubio does NOT fear ‘WSJ concepts’and does NOT fear ‘our elites.’ PLEASE: somebody at least try to show me this fear is baseless.
One of my concerns with Rubio is that he’ll get rolled on other issues as well. There will be many opportunities to serve the maverick impulse.
I did respect what I thought was his forthrightness on the issue however, until Cruz pointed out some bilingual duplicity.
Rubio’s interaction with Chris Crane, ICE officer and union official over the “Gang of Eight” bill doesn’t sound so much like a naif getting rolled, but someone who might have said after the encounter, “You better put some ice on it”.
From the interview with the Chris Crane:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/19/eve-south-carolina-vote-nations-ice-officers-detail-marco-rubio-betrayed/
CRANE: To start, even though I had requested to bring someone with me, Sen. Rubio denied the request and demanded that I come alone, which I still believe was highly peculiar and inappropriate.
He, of course, had what appeared to be his entire staff in his office with me. Most of his staff stood behind me as there was no place for them to sit. I raised a series of strong concerns with the bill, and as I raised each issue, Sen. Rubio would look to his staff and ask if that was what the bill said. Each time his staff agreed with my interpretation, and Sen. Rubio would shake his head in disbelief and indicate the bill had to be changed.
Sen. Rubio talked very specifically and very directly to me and his staff saying that the changes I suggested had to be made and specifically said that other Gang of Eight members wouldn’t be happy, but “Oh well.” Obviously the changes I suggested were all serious enforcement related issues, such as establishing a biometric entry-exit system, and cracking down on sex offenders, gang members, violent criminals and other criminal aliens.
When I walked out of his office that night I definitely thought the bill would undergo significant changes, but of course absolutely no changes were made.
BNN: Almost immediately after you met with Sen. Rubio, he introduced bill. Did it include any of the changes you asked for?
CRANE: Not one of the changes we suggested was made to the bill before Sen. Rubio introduced it.
When Rubio attacked Crane for this interview, here was the response by Sen. Sessions:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/20/jeff-sessions-weighs-ice-vs-rubio-chris-crane-american-hero/
When the Gang of 8 and President Obama were drafting their immigration bill, he asked to be allowed to participate and provide input. In fact, House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte and I personally requested that President Obama meet with the ICE union, but he never did. The White House and the Gang of Eight refused to listen to Chris and his officers because the truth is they never wanted their professional advice. The bill was designed to benefit the powerful special interests who guided its creation from the beginning — it was not designed to benefit the national interest, nor the interests of our nation’s law enforcement officers. Chris Crane exposed the fatal weaknesses of that bill and played a major role in stopping what would have been a disaster for the country.
I think “getting rolled” is the best case interpretation of Rubio’s participation in the Gof8. It paints him as inexperienced and naive — perhaps forgivable, but not qualities I seek in a president. The more serious case, and the one I think more likely, is that he was simply knowingly pursuing precisely the immigration policies he wishes to enact. Those who oppose amnesty obviously have concerns about that. But everyone should have concerns about the way he misrepresented himself, both in his Senate campaign and since.
I don’t worry that he’ll get “rolled” again as much as I worry what other issues he may be misrepresenting himself on. It’s always something of a crap shoot with inexperienced candidates.
Rube could have been too lazy to read the bill. Not that that makes him look any better.
He knew what was in the bill- see my previous comment. Go and read the interchange between him and Crane in the Breitbart article. He was warned. Yet in spite of this, for reasons unknown, moved forward with the Gang of Eight.
Fining illegals seems petty and vindictive. On the other hand, denying illegals welfare benefits and citizenship seems reasonable. Most Republicans would agree that illegals who have committed additional crimes and those on welfare should be deported. They would also agree that both border security and internal security must be done first but how do you solve this problem without sorting through the illegals?
It doesn’t seem that any “amnesty” demagogues want to address the unpopularity of their position.
It would seem that Rubio is the only one who has a chance to beat Trump. Will a mea culpa work for Rubio? Something like he thought the Gang of Eight solution would have gained him the Hispanic vote and the Presidency. Then, as President, he would be able to enforce the law and secure the borders. A Republican Congress should be able to pass an enforcement-first immigration law. Republicans must win the Presidency to have any chance of controlling immigration. Can a Republican win without a larger share of the Hispanic vote?
In view of Trump’s numbers, it’s hardly a lunatic fringe position.
But the key is that it’s not negotiable for us. We will not support a border weenie like Rube. Not gonna happen. Not in the primaries. Not in the general. Not ever.
If you want to beat Trump, there’s one candidate left who can do it – Ted Cruz. Get Rube to throw his support to Cruz, and Trump is toast. Otherwise, Trump will be the nominee. Even if Rube manages to unite the also-rans and get into a solid second place, or even take the lead, Trump could still make a deal with Cruz. VP would look a lot better, especially in the long term, than finishing third.
Well, you’d have to find an amnesty demagogue on Ricochet to join the thread. There aren’t any.
Only Cruz can beat Trump without rupturing the GOP. Trump’s supporters will not go for a border weenie like Rube. Does anyone think Rube can write off 30% of the GOP and still win? And no, we won’t hold our noses and vote for your Certified Pre-Owned Border Weenie™ this time.
Depend on what you mean by “amnesty.” Do you think it’s possible to deport all illegals? Do you think a majority of voters would vote for mass deportation? If not, they how do you sort through the illegals? See my previous post on the alternative to a $5000 fine. It seems to me that a majority of citizens believe that illegals who are otherwise law-abiding and productive should be allowed to stay. Would you consider issuing green cards that did not allow eventual citizenship or welfare benefits to be a form of “amnesty?”
There are lots of amnesty demagogues here. Just using the term “amnesty” to describe the various proposals that have been put forward to deal with illegals in this country is demagoguery. Beyond that, many, if not most, on this site who oppose legalization often simply write “no amnesty!” as the entirety of their argument without ever delving into the complications and dicey political dynamics of the issue.
I personally would support permanent green card status but I don’t think it would be a tenable policy in the long run. After a couple of presintial terms the pressure would mount to grant these “second class citizens” full citizenship, so I don’t know that such an approach will really solve the problem. I would support a significant fine, requiring people to wait 5-10 years before applying for citizenship, and then putting people at the end of the line when they do apply for citizenship.
I don’t consider the latter proposal anything like a true amnesty.
Okay, BT, I completely misread your earlier comment on “amnesty demagogues”. I meant there are no (discernable) pro-“amnesty” demagogues here; there are people here who call every immigration proposal amnesty because they dislike ’em all, sure. But they’ve got a couple of good points.
Over the long run, it’s impossible to maintain a stance of “you can work but you can’t vote”. That’s so obviously a serf/slave perpetuation system that it can’t and won’t be defended.
Second, voting and citizenship isn’t the be-all and end-all of immigration skeptics. They don’t want illegal workers depressing wages whether they vote or not. “They’re here to work” doesn’t cut any sympathetic ice if it’s your job they’re doing.
Third, let’s not go straw man. There are plenty of viable restrictions that don’t start with deporting 11 million people.
Having said that, yeah, it’s annoying when Rubio’s critics keep it at the level of Marquitoamnestylovingopenbordersselloutcuckservativetraitor.
But maybe that’s just a style thing. I also get annoyed when criticism of Bloomberg sounds like
nursenannyBigGulp64ozbloomyinnocentsugareddrinksUS constitutionalrighttoalardbutt
The “they have to go to the end of the line” argument is hollow. If they’re here, they’ve already cut to the front of the line.
Which is why we don’t like any form of legalization until the border is genuinely secure. We could live with the current crop of illegals (minus the criminals) if we could be sure that 10 years from now there wouldn’t be another batch of illegals. But the GOP donors gotta have their never-ending supply of cheap labor, so we get border weenies like ¡Jeb! and Rube shoved down our throats.
But we’re not having it, this time. If Rube gets the nomination, we’re staying home. Maybe there aren’t enough of us to make a difference. But do you really want to risk losing 30% of the GOP when losing means we get Hillary?
If you see my second post on this page, you can see I mostly agree with you Gary. On the issue of people’s jobs being stolen and wages being depressed, I don’t really buy those arguments. First, bringing people out of hiding, along with effective e-verify will level the playing field in terms of wages. Employers won’t be able to pay under the table in the same way, once solid documentation is established. Second, the status quo only ensures that jobs get given to illegals and wages continue to be depressed. There is no political will for the type of crackdown the “no amnesty!” crowd would like, so digging in their heels and blocking a sensible compromise only perpetuates the problems they claim to care about.
“The “they have to go to the end of the line” argument is hollow. If they’re here, they’ve already cut to the front of the line.”
I don’t agree. Not being able to vote is a meaningful distinction. Plus, if other reform policies like guest worker programs, and skills based immigration vs. family based policies were enacted, the thought of waiting 10-20 years for citizenship becomes a serious issue.
Only Cruz can beat Trump?
I would prefer Cruz to Rubio although I think some of Cruz’s campaign tactics are despicable and unacceptable. But Cruz did not even come close to Trump in South Carolina. It seems unlikely he can do better in any other state but Texas. If the righteous don’t support the “Border Weenie,” you will have to hold your nose for at least four years of Hillary.
But the donors don’t want effective e-verify. They’ll see to it that it gets killed, especially if we have an immigration weenie like Rube to kill it.