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
I have never figured out the politician’s penchant for not refusing to admit mistakes. It is infuriating. People (including politicians) make mistakes and intelligent voters know that…Oh wait. Now I hear it.*
* Apologies to Fred for stealing his joke
Here’s one point on immigration I’ve been wrestling a little with lately.
Let me state upfront — because I know what will be thrown at me — that I know that misplaced compassion in the justice system does real harm to real people.
But I also know what other evils we’re dealing with in this race. I won’t even get into Clinton… on the Republican side we have a candidate willing to use eminent domain to literally take someone’s personal property to enrich himself. We think we want to give him the power Obama wields? Remember the IRS?
If we must choose between lesser evils — and we always must — I will absolutely take the candidate who may be a little too compassionate over the one openly signalling utter lack of principle and a history of abusing power for personal enrichment. One thing is less dangerous than the other.
I believe in a God in heaven, and though I believe America is on very shaky ground these days, I do not believe we will ultimately fall because we were too generous to people who entered illegally.
Obviously this is a case for Rubio over Trump, not Cruz. But I’d urge Cruz’s supporters to consider that perspective as the race changes.
Is it fair to say that none of the front-runners are fully trustworthy on immigration? The problem is that most all of the accusations of duplicity about immigration against Rubio, Cruz, (and Trump) are all true. Just because Marco lied doesn’t mean Cruz told the truth. And if you believe Trump will hold to any position, I have a casino in Altantic City I’d like to offer you.
Unless Carson has a mysterious 33 point surge on Tuesday, we are electing someone with the minimum moral ambiguity required to be a politician or NY real estate mogul.
Is it bankrupt?
Here we go again, another “only Rubio can save us from Hillary” comment. How is Rubio supposed to beat Hillary when 3/4 of the GOP wants someone else? I suppose he could win the nomination if the other candidates would be considerate enough to die “for the good of the party”.
Are you making the argument that Rubio has more support among Democrats than Republicans? Because it’s been argued on this site that one of the problems with Donald Trump is that he polls well with “Reagan Democrats”.
or even a not-quite-solid Conservative. As for our best chance, well that remains to be seen. He looks pretty young against Granny, or she looks pretty old against him. If they make the same stage and she grabs him and burps him, its all over.
Here’s an idea. There are currently three people with a chance to win the Republican nomination. Why not just let them run and see who wins?
If the Presidency ages you, as they claim, then by the time Rubio finishes his second term maybe at 53 he can pass as a 40 year old…isn’t that what we all strive for?
When did looking younger than your actual age in your mid forties become a bad thing?
RETICULATOR
Concept!
Looks pretty likely after last night doesn’t it?
That is as close to admitting a mistake as any politician has made in a long time. I’m pretty sure we can’t get perfection – I think that is pretty much unachievable for a mortal human. One positive way to look at this is that he has at least admitted that he made a mistake, and understands that he has to listen to the people. Given the current President who lectures us incessantly, it is very refreshing to hear a politician say – I am listening to you because you matter.
That said, I’d like to see a little more strength in Mr. Rubio. He does have to overcome his youthful looks and convince me at least, that I’m going to be well represented against Hillary Clinton – and eventually against Russian, Iranian, Chinese and North Korean tyrants. He seems to be working his way there – but I’d like to see him fully ensconced there before we decide to send him up against the Hillary campaign.
I have to say, that , so far, I’m still not totally satisfied.
Rubio hasn’t leaned that he shouldn’t want this for our nation.
His enforcement stance still isn’t quite in line with the law. They have to go. Not only do they have to go , but they (the illegal immigrants, and visa overstays) are further barred from reentry for various periods of time. So, when he says we can’t round them up, but, also, that he’ll enforce the law, I get confused.
That’s what current immigration law says: Deport all violators. Not just the mean and the ugly violators. You know, if you feel like it.
As has been so noted, the idea that we form a line and sweep the country side for families that we can rip in half is nonsense. No law is enforced in this manner. And, to treat this as an all or nothing proposition is misleading at best.
These immigration laws deserve a fair shake. Just like tax laws don’t call for a door to door man hunt, so, too should immigration laws be given what enforcement measures are considered lawful and proper by legislators and law enforcement. This calculus is conducted for all sorts of laws in all sorts of jurisdictions. And, on the flip side, to exercise such discretion as to effectively not have to law is just as ludicrous.
No other sections of US code receive this ill treatment, and disregard. Tax cheats who haven’t violated other laws receive no pass. Fugitives who have been able to lie low long enough aren’t granted their exit by the prisons systems. Counterfeiters who use the money only for legal purposes aren’t given a warning, and a wag of a finger.
Rubio vastly improved his footing on the issue, but one thing remains clear to me. In the end, he thinks we should bring them into the fold. Like prodigal children of our nation. They are no such thing.
I think Rubio’s great, all in all. But, for lack of better wording: this sticks in my craw. I don’t put on a uniform so that these nonviolent invaders can impinge upon your state’s, and your nation’s sovereignty with impunity. I do it for you, your family, and your freedom.