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.
What Did Rubio Learn And When Did He Learn It?
Marco Rubio by Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Let me start out with some due praise in defense of the embattled senator’s honor. It’s not that Marco Rubio’s a liberal. He was elected on the Tea Party wave and — before that — he was a leading light in Florida politics. He received numerous endorsements from the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, and Mark Levin. And he is rightly commended as a credit to the Senate, the Republican party, and the conservative movement.
And, for you establishment/base paradigm holders, he’s had all the right enemies, too. Let’s recall that the NRSC, and Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and the Florida state Republican Party all endorsed Crist, at least initially. Rubio was not only the darling of the Tea Party, he was running as the conservative candidate in spite of the Republican party.
The Fly In The Ointment
As others have noted, Rubio’s record in the US Senate is generally strong and isn’t that different from Senator Ted Cruz’s. He’s been a reliable conservative and is hardly the defector he’s sometimes portrayed as. But … there was that one time. We call it “The Gang Of Eight.”
The bill (S.744) wasn’t warmly received by on the Right. National Review’s Rich Lowry and The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol penned a rare, joint piece on the matter that declared “any version of the Gang of Eight’s bill would be worse than passing nothing.” Kristol and Lowry then took issue with one of Rubio’s central representations about the bill:
The fact that the legalization of illegal immigrants comes first makes it all the more likely that enforcement provisions will be ignored the same way they were after passage of the 1986 amnesty.
They continued:
Marco Rubio says he doesn’t want to have to come back ten years from now and deal with the same illegal-immigration problem. But that’s exactly what the CBO says will happen under his own bill. According to the CBO analysis of the bill, it will reduce illegal immigration by as little as a third or by half at most. By one estimate, this means there will be about 7.5 million illegal immigrants here in ten years. And this is under the implausible assumption that the Obama administration would administer the law as written.
Likewise, the Heritage Foundation closed their analysis with this zinger:
The Senate’s misnamed Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act tramples on the principles that made the U.S. the country it is today by disregarding the rule of law, increasing the size of government yet more, and allowing unlawful immigrants to fall into government dependence.
In case you couldn’t tell, they weren’t fans. They didn’t just find the bill to be less than satisfactory; they flatly opposed to it.
I’ll admit that it’s a little more complicated than that. The critics say the bill provides for amnesty first. Rubio responded that provisional status wouldn’t be granted until enforcement goals were met. I can see where both sides are coming from. Rubio is right that there are several enforcement provisions and metrics in the bill. Heritage Foundation cites them, but also explains that amnesty before enforcement is the net effect of the bill.
Also, as Heritage goes on to complain, the bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security so much leeway and discretion that it’s hard to say whether anything is truly required by the legislation. The myriad references to what “the Secretary may” do as “provided in” various subparagraphs, makes it difficult to tell who’s really right on this one (see Concern #6 in the Heritage piece for details).
Heritage further points out that it gets even harder to believe in the enforcement measures and goals when you realize that the bill limits enforcement manpower. Specifically, it says that fewer than 6,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, would not, as a matter of course, use the million state and local law enforcement personnel to supplement their efforts. How are 6,000 agents going to enforce the law with tens of millions of legal immigrants?
So, what’s going on here? Rubio’s election to the Senate was supposed to be a conservative victory. Just two years later, however, he was the co-author of a monstrous bill that Kristol and Lowry — who admitted in the piece that they generally don’t see eye to eye on this issue — thought so bad that they needed to come together in opposition this legislative version of Frankenstein’s latest creation. And now, just two years later, it’s not unreasonable to have a certain amount of skepticism about Rubio.
After all, it’s really the persistence of Rubio’s representations (especially if you don’t believe them) that’s at the core of this Eagle Forum post. Aren’t these criticisms from dyed-in-the-wool conservatives worth attention and response? At the very least, isn’t there is room for healthy skepticism about some of Rubio’s claims?
Care to Explain Yourself, Young Man?
When a parent asks this question they’re searching for evidence that a mistake has been learned from. I feel like the Gang Of Eight bill was a mistake. So, I’m asking about it. At least, in spirit.
The way I try to come up with satisfactory explanations is to fantasize that the political statute of limitations is passed, and Rubio and I are sitting in a bar with a bottle of bourbon between us. And — now there’s no need for secrecy or evasion — he just tells me what happened. I would love that. I would love for him to just level with me.
But now Marco Rubio wants to be president, my chances of getting that candid drink with him are getting slimmer by the day, and it seems that what proxy conversations he’s engaged in about the Gang of Eight bill aren’t really designed to elicit a candid response.
So the question on the table is: What has Marco said, or done, that shows you that he has learned his lesson from the Gang of Eight fiasco? Moreover, what do you think that he has learned, that adds to your trust in him, as president ?
Post Script: I Want To Believe
There is one notable response that Rubio has given to this question on Hannity. When asked about whether the Gang Of Eight was a mistake, he responded:
You have 10 or 12 million people in this country, many of whom have lived here for longer than a decade [and] have not otherwise violated our law other than immigration laws. I get all that. But, what I’ve learned is you can’t even have a conversation about that until people believe and know—not just believe, but it’s proven to them—that future illegal immigration will be controlled. That is the single biggest lesson of the last two years.
Is that enough?
Published in Domestic Policy, Immigration
Great questions and great post.
He “learned” how much opposition there was. He still wants it, only now he will try another method. His backers want it. Together they will craft another approach to get their wish. I do not trust them for a nanosecond.
BTW Levin was a strong supporter but no more. He’s slamming Rubio in almost every segment recently.
I also don’t see Rubio beating Hillary.
The other questions I want answered, what did McCain et al offer to get Rubio to commit suicide and why didn’t he know it was suicide?
No kidding. What is going on in those back rooms?
Rubio ain’t Reagan, that’s for sure.
Is he just weak? Or does he have a somewhat hidden agenda?
Great post, Luke. Thanks for the point by point layout of this thing that, if Rubio had refused it, would sweep him into a strong 2nd place easily and then he could build from there. Instead, we have this ridiculous 3-way race.
Rubio needs to drop out and support Cruz — that’s the only way out of this for the country.
So, that is what Rubio has learned, isn’t it? To answer your post’s question.
He has the message down perfectly. This is exactly how I feel about this issue. But, the Democrats will simply not let this thing go forward if we give them anything like amnesty — why doesn’t Rubio understand this simple obvious fact. All else will be forgotten and they will use every lawyer trick to do the amnesty (or equivalent) and NOT do the border. They need more voters and this is existential for the Dems as they turn more and more against the country in their Long March.
Who can say for sure, save of course the man himself?
Cruz is not being straightforward on immigration. I am sure of that, though I have no idea what to expect. Trump’s policy is nonsense several times over.
Here is my best judgment from reading and looking at this all:
Rubio’s sponsorship of the Gang of Eight Bill says one of three things about him:
Any one of the three explanations above are sufficient to disqualify Rubio for President.
What do you do when all the leading candidates have disqualified themselves one way or the other? Lazy, too dumb to understand things, treats people like yokels – that describes Trump on every issue, not just immigration. I’m nervous about Rubio on immigration, but I’m nervous about everyone else in many more ways. And if anyone thinks he knows what Trump would actually do about immigration once in office, he’s kidding himself.
Wow, thank goodness we have ANOTHER post about the Gang of Eight! I just can’t get enough. And it’s wayyy more important than Ted Cruz’s disgusting and underhanded tactics, not to mention who he surrounds himself with. It’s also sooooo much more important than Donald Trump’s, well, pick one.
So, let’s just move forward with Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz and lose the big enchilada? Down with the ship? Is that the message?
Fact, GOP voters (event the primary and caucus states) rate immigration a distant fourth – around 15% say it is most important. GOP primary/caucus voters are most charged up. They represent less than half of GOP voters, so around 17% give or take. See where this is going (15% of 17%). We are litigating and relitigating the Gang of 8 bill to make sure we are not even in the same hemisphere as GOP voters, Independents and the General Electorate.
The General Electorate who think immigration is the most important issue is around 4-7%. It ranks way back there behind security, deficits, government regulation, Kim Kardashian’s baby names, etc.
Now Donald Trump might be able to take on Secretary Hillary Clinton. But that is where it ends. The media will turn on him faster than a snake and all this media access in return for saying nice things about Donald Trump won’t work. They will build a wall of disapproval 24/7. Trump will end up talking to Rush, Michael Levine, and Fox and Friends. The rest will just chew him alive. Did I hear Tax Returns? And Trump’s base is low education, low income, and nationalist. That segment runs into the Democratic Party and with Independents, but by the time the media is done nailing him to real positions, he will look like Hillary’s ghost and for big government, legalized status (deport, reimport), gun control, emminent domain, ….
The media is giving him a pass for now. If you own a TV station, website, or a radio network, you want Trump to monetize your asset. He will create endless commentary and compelling news. Rush will sell lots of gold bullion for his advertisers! But the shallowness and childish impetuousness of Trump will undue him.
Ted is hobbled by his strategy – trying to get 4-5 million more GOP voters to actually vote in 2016 using sophisticated software to identify key voters is a theory. If that strategy could work, Ted might win. Unfortunately, many in the GOP are reluctant to vote for Ted, Trump or no Trump. Independents recoil from his history. GOP voters too. He might just win a million or two more and lose a million or two more than Romney.
And, he is another Senator with less than 4 years experience (a la President Obama), with absolutely nothing accomplished, and a wake of enemies. So, he has less experience than Rubio, is not that informed on foreign policy, a record that is the same as Rubio (even for a while on immigration until Cruz switched), and is not that endearing in the public eye. Wish it “won’t” so, but it is.
As a conservative, one wonders how anyone could be stupid enough to believe the Maverick from Arizona? Whatever McCain is, and he is a hero, he is only conservative when it fits his personal narrative. Any other time, he is quite liberal, as with McCain-Feingold which replaced freedom of speech with guidelines about dealing with successful politicians. Rubio should have recognized that fact and acted accordingly.
If Rubio is the Republican nominee I will vote for him. But he did display a real lack of good judgment in this Senate episode and one wonders if he has learned anything.
If he hasn’t, then watching Trump draw a line at the border won’t benefit him; and neither will coming in second or third regularly.
The Gang of Eight bill was consistent with where Rubio has always been on the immigration issue, save for when he was running for the Senate. His support for it was no aberration.
Well, who would you like? Walker? Perry? Jindal? Carly? Huckabee? Kasich? Carson? That former governor of New York? Help us out here. Pick one please.
I have to pick one for the primaries here, and haven’t yet done so. It may happen as I enter the booth, I don’t know. I do know that we got who we got because my own favorites did not do sufficiently well to continue running. So, Cruz? Rubio? Trump? It will be one of these.
Reagan is not running for a third term. If he were, … but then he cannot by either law or being alive, so it doesn’t make any difference.
Most of my votes are against something rather than for something. Cruz, Rubio and Trump will be votes against something, something much worse than whoever is the worst of these three. I am a born citizen of this country, I served in the military in battle, and I have the right and the obligation of voting and will do so barring some unexpected difficulty.
We all get to carp, as it is one of the pleasures of being alive. But carping should end.
He didn’t learn a damn thing and is still obfuscating on the subject. Surprised this didn’t make it through the Marco media filter here yesterday
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431799/marco-rubio-immigration
Yeah, he’s “This Millennium’s Conservative Voice! – so optimistic!’ more so in Spanish. The fanboy/Tiger Beat crushes are embarrassing.
‘Stand Fast Cruzers’ We don’t have to accept/be force-fed this.
Rubio hasn’t made the sell.
Jeff Sessions on Levin’s was especially strong on what happened with the Gang of 8, and it wasn’t in Rubio’s favor.
The Supreme Court win in Heller is something in Cruz’s favor as a national issue. As a 30 year old he was a member of the FTC and testified before Congress on e-commerce. He has national experience as much as Rubio, and what he has done has been fairly successful. One thing they both realize (as Obama did) is that the Senate is a poor place for an ambitious politician to have much effect. The power difference is exponential.
Libya is another issue for Rubio to address. He is closer to Hillary on this than anyone running right now.
Rubio and Cruz are close in age, different in background. We have been repeatedly told that Rubio is much more electable based on the merits of his record, and I think that is debatable.
I honestly believe that Trump(lunatic Arsehat) and Cruz(too easily caricatured as a evangelical school marm by both November opponents the Dems and the Popular Culture/MSM…but would make a fine President) are shoo-ins for a November general election second place.
“Principled Conservatives” all want to win the argument that Rubio is bad because of the Gang of Eight fiasco, but what good is winning the “Gang of Eight very bad thing argument” and tearing down Marco Rubio when in the end you all but guarantee yourself a very principled second place in November?
Rubio is a solid Conservative, but more importantly, like him or not Marco Rubio is our best chance for a win in November.
While this is a fact it is kind of a meaningless fact. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I am prolife. By your logic here, if I said the economy was my top concern that de facto means that I would vote for a pro-choice candidate if I liked his economic plan. Are you suggesting that all Republican voters are single issue voters?
Gallup tracks the “most important problem” . “Immigration and Illegal Aliens” is currently tied for third with “Jobs”. Only the “Economy in General” and “Dissatisfaction with Government” poll higher as the top concern. More Americans in this poll list Immigration as their top problem than things like the debt, taxes, Healthcare, terrorism.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
I am not a single issue voter. So an immigration issue can give me significant pause even if it is not my top concern.
I will tell you what has changed. ISIS and the Syrian Refugee crisis happened. Rubio now understands that not all illegal immigrants are here because they love America and just want a better life (via work or Government benefits). Some of them are here to do us harm. He now realizes that any desire to be sympathetic to illegal immigrants is outweighed by the need for National Security to be our number one priority. He now understands more deeply the connection between Foreign Policy, National Security and Immigration Policy. In other words, he is older and wiser.
To be honest, I am sick and tired of the Gang of Eight Bill being hung around Rubio’s neck. Is it fair to say that none of us have learned anything new in the past 7 years? Why should we refuse to believe Rubio has not gained any wisdom in that span of time?
Trump supporters are willing to overlook many of his past positions and statements and believe he is now a champion of conservatism. Rubio makes one mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, and that disqualifies him? Not in my book.
The Gang of 8 is now the ultimate bloody shirt. I think the entire Republican party, particularly Rubio, knows you cannot go “there” on immigration. If we as a party keep on perseverating on this, we will have a President Hillary with a Democratic congress. The three numbers that keep me up at night are
Jager,
They are hanging on to that thin reed like a child hangs on to his blanket. There is a full court, DC based, press to force Cruz out. These same polls show that Marco! (kind of like jeb! in that ‘you have to lose the primary to win the general’ – same strategy, same donors, same tactics) the most electable, most endorsed GOP candidate ever! ‘beats’ the hated, creepy, no friends in DC/America Cruz – by 3 points over Hillary, yet still beats her.
I’ll take that gamble. Reject the jamb-down.
He learned it’s better to lie about his position and bear false witness against Cruz.
He learned that he didn’t want to be Senator anymore because people are meanie-heads.
He learned to cry to Rush Limbaugh in private phone calls about how mean we all are.
Hopefully, he learned that he will never become President.
The problem is it has not ended with the Gang of 8 – he’s still at it! I’d ask that you read that linked NR article (see above) from yesterday as well as the one from Stanley Kurtz. He’s simply changed tactics and it’s named something different.
His stated policy while running for President has been all about enforcement taking it as a separate issue from what to do with the people here. He has committed himself to reversing all of President Obama’s immigration executive orders (including ones in line with his previous support of his bill). His focus on e-verify and work-site enforcement would increase the likelihood of self-deportation. I take that as evidence that he has learned his lesson.
Lots of luck getting the “entire Republican party” to “know you cannot go there” on immigration. They give lip service only on this issue. It’s a pocket book issue that doesn’t affect them and they don’t seem to care that the Dems benefit from its continuation, too. They just don’t like this issue and wish it would go away — why? because they can be called bigoted or racist.
The Republican Party is nothing so much as like a battered wife, traumatized by the bullies in the media and the Democratic Party. So, a Stockholm Syndrome develops in these people. Eventually, they all come to accept abortions as good things and the migration of swarms of illegals in our south-western states as things they can handle — I mean, it’s just not worth fighting and having any unpleasantness. Did you hear about their stand on redefining marriage? They pretend to care — but they don’t really.
Jamie, I take that as evidence that he SAYS that he has learned his lesson. Hard evidence.
Because I am on a crusade here, this is yet one more bid to get Leigh’s excellent piece on the Eagle Forum memo onto the Main Feed, so we can link to it.
I get that not everything we like can make it to the Main Feed. But there is information in that piece that is not available anywhere else that I know of, and it is infuriating that one can’t post a link to it on Facebook or elsewhere.
Larry all we have to go on for any candidate is what they say. That includes Cruz and Trump. Unless Trump has use his yuuuuuuge resources to build a wall that he just hasn’t revealed to us.
Whatever the truth, the man has seriously damaged his brand. I’m sure McCain told him he’d survive it – after all MCain did.
And we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that Cruz is either lying on immigration now or lied on immigration in the past. Cruz in 2013:
Cruz in 2016: “never supported legalization.”
So we know for a fact that Cruz lies about immigration.
Rubio doesn’t have to have a hidden agenda. Anyone with a sense of importance of the rule of law realizes that a chronic status of residents as illegal is not helpful to civic comity and viability of the Republic. It is a travesty. That both the Democratic Party and Republican Party acquiesce to this state of affairs is a sad commentary on our Republic and our commitment to the rule of law. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats are attempting to undermine rule of law on this issue, for different reasons. No one is considering the issue reasonably. And the level of trust between the parties is nonexistent. An approach broached by no one but me would be to pass an addendum to NAFTA and CAFTA allowing free movement of labor in the free trade zones, without modifying requirements for citizenship. This would allow Mexicans and other Central Americans (and Canadians) to come to the US to work, go back and forth freely, but not vote in elections (of course Democrats will try to undermine this and encourage fraudulent voting of non-citizens, which should be sanctioned severely in any legislation as immediate grounds for deportation and no re-entry). Someone from Mexico who has spent years here under trade agreements and assimilated could apply for citizenship, and obtain dual citizenship. This would obviate most of the problem. The US could then concentrate on drug interdiction, human trafficking, and terrorist infiltration, more easily
This is the most articulate, well reasoned thread I’ve ever seen on Ricochet. Most of the arguments I’d like to add have been stated more succinctly than I could, but I do want to contribute two more things: