Patterico's Pontifications

6/13/2013

Rubio: I Should Have Been More “Artful” About Explaining How Legalization Comes before Border Security

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:48 am

In other words, more deceitful. Byron York:

Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican behind the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill, says he “probably should have been more artful in the use of terms” when he said in a Spanish-language interview last weekend that the bill first provides for legalization of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and then, after that, for increased border security.

Rubio made the comments in an interview Wednesday afternoon with radio host Sean Hannity. In the conversation, Hannity referred to earlier Rubio appearances in which the two discussed the role of border security in the Gang of Eight bill. “I remember when I first interviewed you about this,” Hannity said to Rubio, “and I asked you very specifically, do you support border security first, and your answer was yes.”

“Right, but it is border security before the green card,” Rubio responded. “The problem is in the interim you have to do something with the people who are here illegally so we know who they are.”

The exchange highlighted the confusion that exists about the Gang of Eight bill even among well-informed followers of the issue. From the very beginning, the Gang of Eight bill has provided for the near-immediate legalization of the 11 million, once they have undergone a background check, paid a fine, and the Department of Homeland Security comes up with, but does not actually implement, a plan for enhanced border security. In broad terms, the sequence of events laid out in the bill is legalization first, then new border security measures, and then green cards and a path to citizenship.

At times conservatives have interpreted Rubio’s remarks to mean that he supports putting new border security measures in place before the initial legalization. He doesn’t, and he emphasized that in the weekend Spanish-language interview with Univision. “Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

. . . .

Toward the end of the interview, Hannity returned to Rubio’s statement on Univision. “You understand that people read the interview, those of us that didn’t speak Spanish, and it was interpreted as first comes legalization, then comes secure the border, that legalization is not conditional. I think you would then understand why people thought this.”

“Right,” Rubio said. “So maybe, I probably should have been more artful in the use of terms.”

Yeah, because now people understand exactly what is going on.

Rubio, by the way, says he wants to get people legalized in part because they need to pay the fines that are going to fund border security. Bull, says me. Illegals will have to pay about $17 per month over ten years in “fines” — and guess what? They’ll be able to get welfare once they are immediately legalized before the border is secured:

The immigration bill introduced to the Senate a week and a half ago would, if passed, allow illegal immigrants to access state and local welfare benefits immediately, Breitbart News has learned. The financial impact of allowing potentially millions of immigrants onto state and local public assistance could overwhelm these programs’ budgets.

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) uncovered this loophole in the bill and many others, and he will circulate a memo detailing the gaps in the bill on Tuesday. Breitbart News exclusively obtained a copy of the memo before its public release.

“The Gang of Eight made a promise that illegal immigrants will not be able to access public benefits,” Sessions said in a statement to Breitbart News. “We already know that, once granted green cards and ultimately citizenship, illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to taxpayers. We have, however, identified a number of loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to draw public benefits even sooner than advertised.”

That $17 per month is going to come out of our pockets, ultimately — not the illegals’ pockets.

This thing is junk. Kill it.

UPDATE:

UPDATE x2: Deport Legalize the Criminals First.

127 Responses to “Rubio: I Should Have Been More “Artful” About Explaining How Legalization Comes before Border Security”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Rubio joins Christie in the “done” category.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  3. roobs is smarmy

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  4. #3 Rumor has it his success in the FL Senate can be traced to unsavory elements and behavior linking him to Ambulance Chaser Mel Martinez.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  5. Quick, get him some water — he’s choking!

    Icy (a7f398)

  6. #3 Or to put it more bluntly, what Chicago means to Democratic Politicians, Miami is to Republicans.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  7. Rubio is a big fat faker. Bring in the seltzer clown and get this guy off stage.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  8. That was a most inartful vote, Senator Rubio.

    Icy (a7f398)

  9. It’s just way too early to say definitively what mischief Obama and his minions have done with NSA data. They are keeping it all secret, after all. The investigation continues. Be patient.

    G Joubert (9e1ad2)

  10. I really did think (and wanted to believe) that Marco Rubio was smarter, more politically savvy, and more genuine than this. I’m afraid this may just be one more example of “power corrupts”. And it appears it does not take very long for power to corrupt in this day and age for some in the Washington political environment. Sad.

    elissa (cbe588)

  11. Well they listen to their staff, and Conda has been for Amnesty since 2004.

    narciso (3fec35)

  12. When you see posts such as this one it really hits home that the ’15-’16 GOP presidential primary cycle is shaping up to be the most colossal political train wreck in history. The demographics, predilections and pet peeves of the erstwhile “base” are so horrific they boggle the mind. John Birch Society, Part II. Hell, some of them are the same people, just a lot older and now literally senile. Country club malcontents. Inherited wealth malcontents. Thumpers. Truthers. Paulbots. The list goes on and on. By the time the “base” is through projecting its issues about immigration and immigrants the chances of the GOP nominee winning Florida, Nevada and Colorado will fall somewhere between zero and nada.

    Honestly, Clinton might not only win the ’16 general election, in essence by default, we might be looking at another Goldwater-style fiasco. The prospects are less than bleak.

    William Scalia (89a442)

  13. jindal still has credibility by virtue of governance

    he needs to lay off the thumpy thumpy though cause it freaks people out when exorcists get thumpy thumpy

    people just don’t relate

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  14. If I were one of the folks who followed the rules and applied for legal residency, I’d be seriously pissed off right about now.

    mojo (8096f2)

  15. As opposed to McCain and Romney, those were good choices right, and frankly looking back, how far off were the Birchers,

    narciso (3fec35)

  16. As a Florida resident I can state that I will not vote for rubio for president or re-election to the senate. Not even dog catcher.

    Put a fork in him.

    Jim (823b10)

  17. “I really did think (and wanted to believe) that Marco Rubio was smarter, more politically savvy, and more genuine than this. I’m afraid this may just be one more example of “power corrupts”. And it appears it does not take very long for power to corrupt in this day and age for some in the Washington political environment. Sad.”

    – elissa

    Which is why I’m so skeptical about Ted Cruz, to the chagrin of many of my friends on this blog. It was not long ago, not long ago, that we were speaking of Marco Rubio in the same way that we are speaking of Ted Cruz now.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  18. Tis not love that varies when it variation finds.
    Why don’t we all have a cup of Tea with Rubio and talk this out? It would be sad to end our love this way, and we could regret it to end of our days.

    (Snickers)

    nk (875f57)

  19. I never spoke of Rubio like that. I always knew this was his soft spot, there were lots of tells. And I never liked him either though you can’t like every Republican and I was sure I’d seen worse.

    That last bit was too optimistic. Always go with the gut, if you’re a gut person who hears a “clang” that foretells something isn’t what it ought to be.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  20. I think some of the people on the left who hate Cruz actually hate him because they recognize he is less likely to succumb to establishment arm-twisting.
    After all, lefties actually want conservatives to pull a Rubio by becoming less conservative once they become entrenched in the DC Industrial Complex.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  21. Which is why I’m so skeptical about Ted Cruz

    There’s nothing wrong with holding our politicians’ feet to the fire and being wary of their wonderfulness, but so far Cruz has been excellent in his short time in the Senate. Betting on politicians to let us down is playing the odds, of course.

    Sarahw, it’s one thing to realize that immigration will be the weak spot of Rubio. Like Rubio, I am the child of an immigrant who worked incredibly hard to build something good for his family. I’m very proud of that and sympathetic to Mexican immigrants who want that too.

    I think the perception out there is that Rubio has not been straightforward in what he is trying to do. It’s less annoying to me when a politician does something I disagree with if they are honest about it.

    Dustin (303dca)

  22. Any bill over about 10 pages is just a mish-mash of future corruption and present lies.

    Does anyone really believe an alien would be deported for not paying the fine? If so, I have a bridge…

    Patricia (be0117)

  23. OK. Leviticus. you’re a natural cynic. I generally respect that in a person. But geez, can we be allowed to at least give Cruz a few months’ chance to either impress or to eff up before we write him off? Or should we just automatically assume he’ll be a bust because somebody else seems to have been a disappointment?

    elissa (cbe588)

  24. He’s a hypocrite like all the rest–he just told everyone what they wanted to hear–that there would be enforcement before amnesty, and now that everyone has been quiet, he brings out his real bill–amnesty, and probably no enforcement.

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  25. Any bill over about 10 pages is just a mish-mash of future corruption and present lies.

    Patricia, what I’d love to see is a maximum length for any legislation, combined with a maximum length for administrative law solutions (regulations and the like).

    Things with more detail should be left to the states. Our federal law is insanely complicated and I think that does benefit the corrupt.

    Even if Rubio and pals had produced an enforcement first bill that also legalizes those who immigrated criminally, do any of us really think the enforcement aspect would have been enforced? No one could possibly enforce all of the federal code against all violators, or even one percent! The door is wide open to the bureaucracy breaking whatever compromises are made.

    I’d like to see a bill that does nothing but build a fence. Let those who vote against it explain themselves.

    Dustin (303dca)

  26. Our rallying cry should be, Build the Fence.

    Or, with apologies to Field of Dreams,
    If we Build the Fence, they won’t come.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  27. Rubio: Dead to me.

    luagha (1e41b8)

  28. Dustin, I think my overall impression was that Rubio would NOT be straightforward and now there is confirmation of that impression.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  29. Well, Sarah, you always tend to be on the ball about that sort of thing.

    It all comes down to the same issue for me. This country is in deep trouble financially, and so many of the initiatives on the hill create more dependency on government spending. They ignore the real problem and even make it worse.

    There are ways to change our immigration system that would help our nation’s fiscal health, but it’s unusual to hear that discussed.

    Dustin (303dca)

  30. Rubes sold out quicker than I expected, his lack of will to buck the establishment washingtonians on such an important issue is sickening.

    mg (31009b)

  31. I think we have a real problem with people who are conservative politicians because that is the label that will gain election rather than what they believe about the role of government.

    Coupled to a welfare state which is what we have become this is just a prescription for the majority looting at will.

    Robin (801f44)

  32. There are ways to change our immigration system that would help our nation’s fiscal health, but it’s unusual to hear that discussed.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:16 am

    Agreed.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  33. Sadly almost all current politicians are more concerned with elections and not what is best for our country. Used to be about keeping America free, now it seems to be about lining their pockets. I for one wish for an honest representative, regardless of their beliefs, at least then you would know what we are in for. So tired of being lied to while being told what they believe I want to hear. I want to hear the truth!

    Freedom oats (219bf6)

  34. Then I put my name in wrong…. Oops not intentional

    Freedomcosts (219bf6)

  35. The House may cave. If so, welcome to the Romney-McCain Party. (I think I’ll pass.)

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  36. Rubio and Flake have become McCain and Gramenesty. They should just announce that they are Democrats. They can take Paul Ryan with them.

    Aside: how do the Greens and Unions justify their support for open borders?

    jason (427828)

  37. If I were one of the folks who followed the rules and applied for legal residency, I’d be seriously pissed off right about now.

    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:27 am

    As someone that works for a company with a lot of H1-B people, I can tell you they are very pissed. They have to follow every rule to the letter but the illegals get a pass all the time. You don’t want to get one of these guys started in on the immigration issue unless you have a lot of time to spare.

    Miguelito (24dd1a)

  38. OT: I just got an email offering me 12 weeks of NY Times Digital for 99 cents. I’d rather have my 99 cents, I think.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  39. Thatta boy, Kevin. Don’t do anything to encourage the poor sick old grey lady. We need to gently help her on her final journey over to the other side.

    elissa (d6d80a)

  40. 37. Sounds like a dog in the manger attitude.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  41. Yeah, Dustin, I read once the length of all the major bills of the 20th century, and none was over 10 pages.

    I think Marco is looking ahead to turning Democrat like Crist once he Hispanicizes Florida.

    Patricia (be0117)

  42. You ascribe bad motives to everyone but yourself, Sammy Finkelman. Perhaps we should assume the worst of you from now on.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  43. Rubio thinks he hasn’t lied artfully enough. Good luck getting elected anything after this. And good luck for any Republican getting elected to anything.

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  44. 42.Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:31 am

    You ascribe bad motives to everyone but yourself, Sammy Finkelman. Perhaps we should assume the worst of you from now on.

    Where did I ascribe bad motives to anyone?

    There are some people I do ascribe bad motives to, like Eric Holder, when he does certain things. He’s got to know exactly what he’s doing, although it might be he only sees the political advantages and just doesn’t care. But he was avoiding even hearing from Mayor Bloomberg.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  45. 24. Comment by rochf (f3fbb0) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:45 am

    He’s a hypocrite like all the rest–he just told everyone what they wanted to hear–that there would be enforcement before amnesty, and now that everyone has been quiet, he brings out his real bill–amnesty, and probably no enforcement.

    No, Lindsey Graham has just convinced them that “amnesty” means a green card, and a new form of permanent residence would not be “amnesty”

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  46. Of course it’s playing games with words, but if they intend to waffle, what choice do they have?

    The alternative to playing games with words, is either:

    1) No bill, and a continuation of the status quo, with possibly some changes for the worse.

    or

    2) Openly reversing their position.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  47. Sammy:

    Where did I ascribe bad motives to anyone?

    You called immigrants who oppose amnesty “dogs in the manger.” That’s a term that assumes people are acting for spiteful reasons instead of legitimate reasons.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  48. 45. And technically, it’s not permanent residency, since, like Social Security, it could be abolished or not extended by a future Congress.

    That would be along shot posisbility, but that long shot possibility, of course, would make sure Hispanics, and people friendly to them, or needing them, keep voting for Democrats.

    The Republican Party has got to get out of this logic trap.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  49. Specifically, I don’t think it’s spiteful for immigrants who have followed the rules to expect others to do so, too. But you seem to think it’s sour grapes.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  50. Oh, good grief, Marco Rubio is not going to turn Democrat.

    He may be misguided on this particular bill, but he is not a Democrat, and this is not about to turn into a scene from the 1956 anti-Communist film, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” where the pod takes over his body and mind and he starts babbling about how we shouldn’t be afraid of the forthcoming aliens Democrats. Or whatever.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  51. “Where did I ascribe bad motives to anyone?”

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:03 pm

    You called immigrants who oppose amnesty “dogs in the manger.” That’s a term that assumes people are acting for spiteful reasons instead of legitimate reasons.

    Actually it was mojo and Miguelito who did that. And what else would what they describe be?

    But actually I think Miguelito is probably misrepresenting waht these people on H1-B visas are saying.

    They are not asking for rules to be enforced against illegal aliens.

    No doubt, they are asking that the same liberalizations given toi illegal immigrants be applied to them.

    You see the problem here is that someone who never was illegally present in the United States, and never let a visa lapse and never overstayed, but always was present legally, doesn’t benefit from this bill, and could be forced to leave the United States.

    But if they had let their visa lapse before December 31, 2011, they could be OK.

    They are screaming about the illogicality of the law, but hardly asking that the status quo be maintained, I don’t think.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  52. Sammy Finkelman,

    Please see comment 40. Is someone commenting in your name?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  53. And from your IP?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  54. 49. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:05 pm

    Specifically, I don’t think it’s spiteful for immigrants who have followed the rules to expect others to do so, too. But you seem to think it’s sour grapes.

    It would be sour grapes if that was really what they wanted.

    But I don’t think that’s what they want. I think they are like children whoi complain some other child was able to do something or get away with something that they couldn’t. The natural pupose of such a complaint is not that the otehr child be limited to, but that they get the same prvileges.

    So what they want is for the amnesty to be extended to them. It shouldn’t be necessary that any part of their presence in the United States was illegal.

    That’s probably not what the people citing them in debate want.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  55. * The natural pupose of such a complaint is not that the otehr child be limited too….

    THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR ENFORCEMENT

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  56. Sammy,

    It’s also possible that immigrants who choose to follow the rules and come here legally want to live with others who follow the laws, and they don’t approve of immigrants who expect favoritism and handouts. But you don’t seem to have considered that possibility.

    Thus, as I said, you ascribe spiteful motives to others instead of ascribing something more admirable.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  57. Enjoy your day, Sammy, and your ability to comment here so freely. It is a gift from Patterico.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  58. I said dog in the manger, but what I really meant was that the attitude ascribed to H1-B people by Miguelito (24dd1a) in comment number 37 at 6/13/2013 @ 11:07 am was a dog in the manger attitude.

    That’s what it would be, but I don’t think it exists.

    Of course the true purpose of any complaining would be to ask the question of was why was not permanent residence extended to them too?

    Probably not what mojo and Miguelito meant to imply.

    My mistake was really just typing too few words.

    I don’t actually believe that many, if any at all, of these H1-B people actually have this dog in the manger attitude. It would be a dog oin the manger attituide, especially if anybody was vocal about it and meant to say why aren’t the people here illegally being excluded too. The intent of course would have to be the opposite – why don’t they get the same privileges.

    Why should have to have violated the law to get amnesty?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  59. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:18 pm

    It’s also possible that immigrants who choose to follow the rules and come here legally want to live with others who follow the laws

    I doubt that what’s at issue here. Even though there is some cross-over illegality.

    and they don’t approve of immigrants who expect favoritism and handouts.

    This could even be true, but this is not the core issue of amnesty.

    But you don’t seem to have considered that possibility.

    I don’t think any such thing is real.

    , as I said, you ascribe spiteful motives to others instead of ascribing something more admirable.

    No, don’t ascribe spiteful motives to others. I think the idea that legal immigrants complaining about inequalities in the law is because they wanmt the law to stay the same and be enforced is a fantasy. And I don’t think the highly philosophical point that may be being ascribed to them is real – if anyone had such an attitude it would dog in the manger.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  60. Sammy, in other words, when you ascribe spite to legal immigrants pertaining to how they view illegal immigrants you’re saying it is not an example of characterizing their motives negatively ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  61. Hay-Zeus Kryst, Sammy.

    JD (b63a52)

  62. Sammy does the circle dance while displaying psychic powers.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. Sammy,

    You have an opinion regarding what legal immigrants think, but that isn’t the same as knowing it for a fact. When you state an opinion as if it were a fact, it can alienate other commenters and undermine your argument.

    I encourage you to focus on separating fact from opinions when you comment. I think it will help you better identify the issues and make your points here in a more convincing way.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  64. Because right now, Sammy, you aren’t convincing at all.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  65. I work with legal residents all the time. These non-citizens are asking for more enforcement against illegal aliens, not less enforcement against them.

    Which makes perfect sense, and why it is a mistake to conclude the GOP can’t win the Hispanic vote unless it hispanders to them and gives them amnesty.

    Most of the people I know aren’t here on a non-immigrant H1-B visa but some other status that allows them to work. Most aren’t highly skilled. Primarily they’re married to Americans and have green cards. And they need jobs. The last thing they need is for the US to legalize a bunch of other people who will compete with them for jobs and most likely drive their earnings down.

    Even the hispanics I know are not overwhelmingly in favor of amnesty, and those who do favor it don’t feel that strongly about it. But they do care strongly about their financial situation. They don’t millions more competitors in the job market.

    From a political standpoint it would be idiotic for the GOP to go this route (which is why I suspect it will). They’re not going to make inroads into the Hispanic vote and they’ll just alienate those people who already vote for them. As numerous commentators have pointed out, if Romney had gotten the same white voters who turned out for McCain in 2008 to turn out for him in 2012 he would have won. They stayed home; alienating more of them with this amnesty bill is going to be the real killer of the GOP.

    This also could be a chance for the GOP to make inroads into the black vote. Unemployment among blacks is still through the roof. Many of them also know as a practical matter amnesty would be a disaster for them. Actually as a practical matter amnesty would just be a disaster any way you look at it.

    But the John McCains and John Boehners of the GOP never miss many opportunities to be on the wrong side of an issue, so I think they’ll go for amnesty.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  66. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:37 pm

    Sammy, in other words, when you ascribe spite to legal immigrants pertaining to how they view illegal immigrants you’re saying it is not an example of characterizing their motives negatively ?

    Actually what I was saying was that what Miguelito was ascribing to them was spite (if people really held the attitude implied)

    Remember Miguelito also quoted mojo

    If I were one of the folks who followed the rules and applied for legal residency, I’d be seriously pissed off right about now.

    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:27 am

    Now what else would that be but that would be spite? The point here obviously is not even that they think people who don’t follow the rules are bad people, but they are disturbed that other people are getting away with breaking the rules. The focus is on the rules.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  67. And one more thing, that people seem to be overlooking:

    H1-B visa holders are NOT immigrants, although many would want to be, and that probably was the whole point of what I
    Miguelito was hearing.

    I suppose now people are consulting lawyers to see if there is a way they can play it both ways – claim to be legally is that helps them and claim to be here illegally if that helps them.

    ESPECIALLY IF THE BILL FAILS.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  68. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:05 pm

    You have an opinion regarding what legal immigrants think, but that isn’t the same as knowing it for a fact.

    I didn’t hear what they said, but I do have an opinion as to what actually is going on there.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:58 pm

    Sammy does the circle dance while displaying psychic powers.

    No, it’s Finkelman’s Razor. I am going by what is logical.

    I have heard this before, about legal immigrants wanting the law enforced, and I seriously, seriously, doubt that.

    And if it were true, of course it would not be costing Republicans votes and indeed people who say so say it is not costing Republicans votes, and they argue that Republicans are losing Hispanic votes for other reasons.

    Why the percentage of Hispanics voting for Republicans in California dropped after Proposition 187 passed in California, and why the percentage of Republicans voting for a Republican for president has dropped since 2004, is, I guess a question that can be overlooked.

    It’s not only Hispanics whose Republican percentage vote has dropped since 20904, but also Asians.

    And young people in general, because they go to school with and make friends with illegal immigrants.

    I don’t think legal immigrants, by and large, support enforcement.

    And if they did, it would all the morality of supporting hazing.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  69. You could say a cancer is eating away at the heart of the Republican party.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  70. “No, it’s Finkelman’s Razor. I am going by what is logical.”

    Sammy – No, your are reimagining the meaning of a conversation in which you did not participate, which is an exercise is pure projection and fantasy on your part.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  71. Sammylanche!

    JD (b63a52)

  72. I have heard this before, about legal immigrants wanting the law enforced, and I seriously, seriously, doubt that.

    I live with one. She thinks you should keep your baseless speculation to yourself.

    JD (b63a52)

  73. “You could say a cancer is eating away at the heart of the Republican party.”

    Sammy – You mean like a flesh eating terminal STD is consuming the Democrat party?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  74. I don’t think legal immigrants, by and large, support enforcement.

    And if they did, it would all the morality of supporting hazing.

    Nonsense. And this is exactly what DRJ was talking about. You tried to blame it on others, but this is your noxious view.

    JD (b63a52)

  75. Two discussion questions. Is there a limit–any limit at all to how many new incoming immigrants our country can absorb and sustain within its borders in any given decade? Is assimilation into the full responsibilities and activities of citizenship still broadly a goal for new immigrants?

    elissa (d6d80a)

  76. Gawrsh, I didn’t realize I was a closet racist. All I meant was that the LEGAL immigrants are getting screwed, royally.

    mojo (8096f2)

  77. “And if they did, it would all the morality of supporting hazing.”

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 6/13/2013 @ 2:32 pm

    Nonsense.

    If the focus is on rules, qua rules, because they are rules, and not because any of the rules are needed or useful, it is like hazing.

    And this is exactly what DRJ was talking about. You tried to blame it on others, but this is your noxious view.

    No my view is if they thought so, that’s what it would be,m but it isn’t.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  78. Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 6/13/2013 @ 2:36 pm

    All I meant was that the LEGAL immigrants are getting screwed, royally.

    Legally, H1-B visa holders are not immigrants.

    They are not being screwed, or any more screwed than they were before, in fact the bill would improve the situation for them, but not enough to create a practical situation.

    What’s odd is that ONLY people who have violated the law get the right to stay, but not people even if they have been here for 10 years or longer, if they are here legally, but on temporary visas. To benefit from the amnesty, a person must have fallen out of complainace with the law before December 31, 2011.

    But I mean, how much sense can you expect of Congress when it writes a law?

    If the bill fails, some people will opt for the legal strategy of letting their visa expire, hoping the amnesty, when it finally passes, will include people who were illegal before the date they become illegal. I am sure they are getting legal advise like that, or reading it. Naturally no one likes to be forced to take such a gamble – it’s like people who have to default on their mortgages before getting refinancing. They could really lose out.

    By the way, who said anything about racism?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  79. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 2:31 pm

    Sammy – You mean like a flesh eating terminal STD is consuming the Democrat party?

    The Democratic Party has a problem with Obamacare, but nobody will really notice till 2015 or later.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  80. When I click the link in “William Scalia’s” name, ESET antivirus blocks the page and gives me the following warning:

    “http://www . nowebsite . com JS/Agent.NJW trojan connection terminated”

    [spaces added to protect the incautious]

    Scrutineer (0b6bc0)

  81. * I suppose now people are consulting lawyers to see if there is a way they can play it both ways – claim to be here legally is that helps them and claim to be here illegally if that helps them.

    That’s what H1-B visa holders will be looking to do.

    This is not without precedent.

    There were people in the past – I think in the 1940s and 1950s – who played that game with marriages – like getting married in Mexico or on a ship. They might argue it both ways.

    They were married if it suited them and not married (and did not need a divorce) if that suited them.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  82. Of course there were some people who just totally ignored the bigamy and divorce laws and everything, like Barack Obama Sr.

    He was already married in Kenya (and had a child or two) when he married Barack Obama’s mother. But who knew that in the United States?

    And he was still was married to Barack Obama’s mother when he married another white woman in Massachusetts and went back with her to Kenya where he had two sons with her.

    I think Stanley Ann Dunham did disentangle herself from Barack Obama Sr. at some point in the 1960s but not until after he’d married the other woman in Massachusetts.

    I don’t know if there’s any book that goes into all these legal complications. I think there is a biography of Obama’s mother and also one of his father but I haven’t read them.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  83. “My mistake was really just typing too few words.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:24 pm”

    kaf (81bcc7)

  84. 77. “And if they did, it would all the morality of supporting hazing.”

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 6/13/2013 @ 2:32 pm

    Nonsense.

    If the focus is on rules, qua rules, because they are rules, and not because any of the rules are needed or useful, it is like hazing.

    And this is exactly what DRJ was talking about. You tried to blame it on others, but this is your noxious view.

    No my view is if they thought so, that’s what it would be,m but it isn’t.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 2:40 pm

    Sammy, you are being noxious. Legal immigrants do resent the hell out of illegal immigrants getting a pass on their lawbreaking. And legal immigrants do recognize that immigration laws are useful and necessary. That’s precisely the feature that distinguishes them from illegal immigrants.

    Most people come here from countries that enforce their own immigration laws and control their borders. Legal immigrants think such rules are necessary and useful and have no problem with the US doing the same.

    Really, where do you get off assuming they are only interested in “hazing” illegals?

    Again, as others have pointed out that’s your own odious conclusion, no one ele’s.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  85. Sammy, are you a fan of Almond Joy candy bars?

    Dustin (303dca)

  86. #76 There is no Equal Protection clause for Legal Immigrants?

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  87. Will this come down to Boehner ignoring 70 republicans of the house?

    mg (31009b)

  88. Yeah, I can just see all the H1-Bs drawing six figures plus benefits at Abbott Labs, drive their company-leased BMW to their company-furnished suburban house, see the guys mowing their lawns and say, “I can’t believe Rubio’s gonna put those guys on the path to citizenship. Lucky bastards, I wish I could trade places with them.”

    Ascribing resentment of the amnesty to strawmen legals was not started by Sammy, nor was it expanded upon by him, nor was it continued by him.

    nk (875f57)

  89. 85. Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:25 pm

    Sammy, are you a fan of Almond Joy candy bars?

    You mean this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TA3c1YqCiI

    No actually, I am not. I don’t think I like them at all.

    Somehow I know that song, even though I don’t watch too much television.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  90. Comment by Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:22 pm

    Legal immigrants think such rules are necessary and useful and have no problem with the US doing the same.

    I don’t think so. Not even Germans.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  91. Gang of One Weekly Standard Jun 17, 2013, by Fred Barnes

    On immigration reform, Senator Marco Rubio is the indispensable man. If he bails, it fails.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  92. The whole idea of controlling the border is a poison pill.

    Nobody will be able to make an argument that at some point “the border” will be under control (North Korean style control anyway)

    Unless the idea that there will never be another amnesty is abandoned, the bill will fail.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  93. “Legally, H1-B visa holders are not immigrants.

    They are not being screwed, or any more screwed than they were before, in fact the bill would improve the situation for them, but not enough to create a practical situation.”

    Sammy – They sure are getting screwed. All they have to do is look at those getting provisional legal residency status under the amnesty bill, smack themselves in the head and say why did we bother going through all that H1-b paperwork and process when we just could have gone to the U.S. illegally and wound up in the same place?

    Amnesty punishes the people who follows the rules. It rewards employers, not employees. You’re just too blinded by ideology to think clearly.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  94. “Ascribing resentment of the amnesty to strawmen legals was not started by Sammy, nor was it expanded upon by him, nor was it continued by him.”

    nk – You are correct. Sammy created the strawman of H1b visa holders not actually meaning what they said about resenting amnesty out of thin air.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  95. Coulter says Rubio is the Kevorkian of the Republican Party.

    Not a big fan but I’d say she just demonstrated more redeeming merit than Republican ‘leadership’.

    Wondering what they intend to use instead of votes to retain the House in ’14.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  96. I heard a blurb by Rubio today, I think on Medved.
    What I heard him say was that he wanted legalization (but not path to citizenship) started right away so we could begin finding out who was here now, but that progress to benefits, etc. would not take place until the security was in place,
    and that was not the case with the Grassley amendment and why he opposed it.

    I only know that I hear what I hear and that I don’t know what to believe.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  97. Rubio, by the way, says he wants to get people legalized in part because they need to pay the fines that are going to fund border security. Bull, says me.

    I wonder how much, if any, of his reaction is due to good old-fashioned group solidarity, a variation of a “friend of my friend is my friend.” But the word “friend” instead substituted with the name of a racial or ethnic group. I’ve seen that form of groupthink — which can easily wobble into outright racism or bigotry — in people from all ideological backgrounds. IOW, even if a person is socio-economically disreputable, just as long as he or she is of the correct racial or ethnic group, he or she gets a few free passes from those who buy into a “friend of my friend is my friend” (or a “person of my race is my friend”).

    I wholeheartedly admit that I wouldn’t be so concerned about illegal immigration (and keep in mind we’re NOT dealing with *legal* immigration, which already comes with quite generous quotas), if most of the “undocumented” weren’t displaying traits like the following:

    manhattan-institute.org, Heather Mac Donald, June 2007:

    One of the “Hispanic family values” that is thriving is the importance of having children early and often. “It’s considered almost a badge of honor for a young girl to have a baby,” says Peggy Schulze of Chrysalis House, an adoption agency in Fresno. (Fresno has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in California, typical of the state’s heavily Hispanic farm districts.) This preference for early child-bearing is not ideal in a modern economy.

    Statistics bear these personal observations out. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country — over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women.

    Forty-eight percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent of white births and 15 percent of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births — 68% — exceeds the Hispanic rate. But the black population is not going to triple over the next few decades.

    Hispanics have the highest school drop-out rate in the country — a recipe for economic decline. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, which is 73% Hispanic, just 40% of Hispanic students graduate. Immigrant advocates have fiercely opposed in court a long-deferred California high school exit exam, which would require students to answer just over 50% of questions testing eighth-grade-level math and ninth-grade-level English. The California Research Bureau predicts that if the exam becomes a reality, Hispanic graduation rates would drop well below 30%.

    The incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans is 3.45 times higher than that of whites. Sociologists Alejandro Portes of Princeton and Ruben G. Rumbaut of the University of California, Irvine, followed the children of immigrants in San Diego and Miami from 1992 to 2003. A whopping 28% of Mexican-American males between the ages of 18 and 24 reported having been arrested since 1995, and 20% reported having been incarcerated — a rate twice that of other immigrant groups.

    Mark (cd1aee)

  98. mojo wrote:
    If I were one of the folks who followed the rules and applied for legal residency, I’d be seriously pissed off right about now.
    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:27 am

    Miguelito then wrote:
    As someone that works for a company with a lot of H1-B people, I can tell you they are very pissed. They have to follow every rule to the letter but the illegals get a pass all the time. You don’t want to get one of these guys started in on the immigration issue unless you have a lot of time to spare.
    Comment by Miguelito (24dd1a) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:07 am

    Then Sammy wrote:
    37. Sounds like a dog in the manger attitude Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:29 am

    Then everybody was like “How dare you, Sammy?”

    Now nk writes, if those H1-Bs don’t like their visa, which BTW is a dual intent and leads to a green card eventually, they can just break their contract with their employer and join the other day laborers saying “Trabajo?” at the Home Depot parking lot (but they have to be there before 7:00 because they have to be on those ladders hauling those bundles of roof tiles at 7:00).

    Bully me. Unlike Sammy I am not invariably polite and I do insult and attack back.

    nk (875f57)

  99. 96. I’ve taken, for me, pains to curb my negativity of late, in contrast to my natural ally, sicko.

    But seriously, any, even half-hearted, attempt to proceed to do business with this Executive, to pass legislation seeking his signature, is freaking death-wish daft, Russian roulette with one in the chamber.

    Why Ryan would utter words to the effect “I will debate anyone who asserts the Senate Immigration bill is amnesty”, pass his lips is beyond me.

    He just blew the remainder of the Leadership’s credibility.

    The should be putting everything they have into shutting the Politburo down. Unless, of course, they’re the Potemkin opposition.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  100. William Scalia,

    Do not use that Web address for your comments any more, please.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  101. No, it’s Finkelman’s Razor. I am going by what is logical.

    teeheehehehehehehehehe, hehehehehehehehehe, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    AHAHAHAHAH, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    AHAHAHA
    HAHAHA,

    YOU? LOGICAL? SAMMY THE COMEDIAN!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  102. You don’t have to read Sammy’s comments.

    nk (875f57)

  103. Sammy, are you a fan of Almond Joy candy bars?

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:25 pm

    Dustin, in Sammy’s case, I think he is always an Almond Joy. Stay out of parks, Sammy, the squirrels will get you!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  104. 98. H1-B, along with personality defects you may have divined, ended my career.

    Oh, I suppose the economy had something to do with it.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  105. I don’t read them anymore nk, the first line or two always tips me off.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  106. I don’t get the hostility toward Sammy either. He’s different, but he’s genuine. That’s to be encouraged, right?

    But the Wall O’ Text, Sammmy… the Wall O’ Text.

    But I don’t see anyone objecting when Mark does it, for instance.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  107. Rubio is a slick little hustler. Cruz ’16.

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  108. “Then everybody was like “How dare you, Sammy?””

    nk – You missed a few things in the middle there nk, like Sammy claiming the people Miguelito was referencing could not possibly have had those thoughts even though Sammy was not part of any of the conversations.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  109. I feel no animosity towards Sammy, but I do get frustrated trying to follow his arguments. And occasionally when I’ve attempted to interact with him I have felt he was restating my claims in ways that are totally wrong. In fact, when I pointed this out, Sammy insisted his summary of my views was correct even after I said it was wrong (and it was also ridiculous).

    So I try not to bother myself. I have heated arguments with others, such as Daleyrocks, but at least I understand what he’s saying and feel like there’s some kind of communication occurring.

    I have no hostility towards Mark either. There are days when my inner monologue is exactly one of those Mark comments that appears in so many threads to say the exact same thing yet again. I can’t bash either of them for their bloviating because I do it too. Hell, I’m doing it now! Bloviators of the world, unite!

    Dustin (303dca)

  110. Leviticus – people’s problems with him seem to start with, as DRJ noted, he attributes nefarious motives to people, ignores reality, and spends an inordinate amount of time rambling on about tangents to tangents of tangents, while ignoring simple and basic facts. Like SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE. Or knowing what people who immigrated here legally think of illegal immigrants, and their view of immigration law.

    JD (b63a52)

  111. “I don’t get the hostility toward Sammy either.”

    Leviticus – If you like inventing “facts” out of evidence which is not present, which is a progressive trait, he’s fantastic!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  112. Dustin is awesome.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  113. I like him. If I had doubts about it before, the way he handled the Almond Joy crack clinched it. I could use a little improvement in that direction myself.

    (And most of the time, I’m too smart, knowledgable, and erudite for you guys also, and it frustrates me that my brilliance gets so little recognition from you, so there’s that too. 😉 )

    nk (875f57)

  114. I meant Sammy in #113, but I like Dustin too.

    nk (875f57)

  115. f I had doubts about it before, the way he handled the Almond Joy crack clinched it.

    Yeah, I have a soft spot for people who can take a joke. His link was hilarious.

    Thanks, Leviticus. Overpraise for sure.

    Dustin (303dca)

  116. If, by “genuine” you mean never ever believing that the surface details tell the real story.

    Icy (a7f398)

  117. “(And most of the time, I’m too smart, knowledgable, and erudite for you guys also, and it frustrates me that my brilliance gets so little recognition from you, so there’s that too. 😉 )”

    nk – Don’t forget that you’re also too handsome for Saudi Arabia.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  118. “invariably polite”

    Given the degree to which he disagrees with his adversary du jour, and conceding possible incapacities, certainly so.

    Those who are invariably impolite salute you, then again you don’t know the missus.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  119. Few other blogs on the internet print or seem to accept commenters’ individual posts that so regularly measure multiple inches if not half a page or more like this one does. Does anybody know why? Do some of the comment boxes of other blogs automatically restrict the number of bytes that will be accepted, thereby forcing people to consciously self-edit themselves to post? Or is there a unique established culture on this blog that is a magnet for a hopelessly verbose, repetitive, long winded bunch? (Obviously I am not excusing myself here, btw.) But I agree that a wall o’ words style, no matter who the author is, does become tedious to readers. And I know that quite often people just simply pass over those posts because even though well intentioned, the posts seem to show a lack of focus and lack of consideration for other busy people’s time and eyeballs.

    elissa (d6d80a)

  120. This is a unique blog in many respects. The overall format is exceptional and the comment form even more so.

    nk (875f57)

  121. Wow, apparently ol’ Sammy thinks he can read my mind and knows how my conversations with others have gone.

    To clarify, I’ve talked to quite a few over the last years at work, and while a scant few would love to just get a pass, the vast majority feel illegals should have to follow the rules too. In fact, most of them don’t want it to be too much easier. I’ve had more then 1 tell me that, essentially, the “good ones” make it here, those that don’t are the ones still at home. We have offices in multiple countries where we bring H1-Bs over from and some still end up working in the offices there vs coming here.

    Miguelito (13e5f8)

  122. I find Sammy interesting because he often struggles with his inner liberalism, trying to prevent it from totally spilling out — like a case of severe diarrhea — which is quite difficult since he resides in ultra-blue New York City and is a member of a very leftwing community (ie, Jewish America). Trying to maintain one’s sanity and common sense in that 0-and-2 setting is quite a feat. So give Sammy credit for struggling to not be a flat-out nonsensical liberal, who are a dime a dozen in Michael-Bloomberg-ville. Even more so if Sammy is considerably younger than, say, 51-year-old Barry Obama.

    There are days when my inner monologue is exactly one of those Mark comments that appears in so many threads to say the exact same thing yet again

    I think I’m merely saying two-plus-two-equals-four, but it’s uncommon for such basic observations to be expressed in public. So much so, that if I said in mixed company what I write here — such as “the leftism of Latino America is similar to the leftism throughout Mexico, so it’s naive and dumb to attribute one and the other to the trigger of resentment caused by cracking down on illegal immigration” — and someone was familiar with this website, and we were in a crowd of thousands, that person likely would immediately muse, “a-ha, that must be that character who posts at Patterico.com.

    Mark (cd1aee)

  123. Oh Rube, don’t take your love to town.
    Oh Rube, for god’s sake turn around.

    mg (31009b)

  124. The damage done to the polity when a pol avows one philosophy and then acts the opposite is profound and immense. Votes lose all meaning when this occurs.

    We are going down. It’s a matter of when, not if.

    Ed from SFV (6382f3)

  125. 75. Comment by elissa (d6d80a) — 6/13/2013 @ 2:35 pm

    Two discussion questions. Is there a limit–any limit at all to how many new incoming immigrants our country can absorb

    If there is, it’s never been reached, not by this country or any other country. And there’s no bad policy that hasn’t been tried somewhere. So the number we have now is low. It’s low in almost all countries since World War I.

    If it was thought necessary to keep immigration lower it is far better to do this with conditions and not by saying to individualks you can’t come.

    Is assimilation into the full responsibilities and activities of citizenship still broadly a goal for new immigrants?

    The only thing needed is basic respect for huiman rights and civilization.

    Now there are non-economic arguments for lower rimmigration not economic ones.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  126. Seems pretty obvious to me. Rubio is telling any would be illegal aliens amnesty is on the table and the door is wide open, come on in!

    Kinda like when Macy’s makes a commercial; Only 15 day’s til Christmas the holiday’s!

    LBascom (399c43)

  127. Rubio is telling any would be illegal aliens amnesty is on the table and the door is wide open, come on in!

    He’s not. He’s kind of proud he got a cutoff date of December 31, 2011.

    Of couyrse, that’s the problem because in no way will that be or could that be a forever cutoff.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1444 secs.