Gee. I wonder who might have done that!
I think J.D. will appreciate this.
In paid ads, and in just about every TV or radio interview, Rubio can be heard to utter the words, “Our current immigration system is a disaster. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” In other words, by not granting amnesty to illegal aliens, we are granting them amnesty, according to the convoluted logic of Florida’s Republican senator.
But Rubio is not the only practitioner of Orwellian amnesty doublespeak in the Republican ranks. A small sampling of what some other prominent Republicans have had to say on the topic recently bears that out:
“[T]he status quo isn’t working — it’s de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
“Millions here illegally have de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
“I’ve got a news flash for those who want to call people names on amnesty. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
“What we have right now is de facto amnesty — meaning there are currently 11 million immigrants living undocumented and without legal status in the United States.” ~ Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
A cynic might even get the idea that somewhere on Capitol Hill there is a Republican talking points memo on amnesty floating around — or at least a de facto memo.
And what a talking point it is! There is this horrible situation where all these people who came here illegally are being treated as if they were legal. So . . . let’s make them legal. That way, at least we can
collect a tiny fine from them give them welfare, deincentivize them to work, and let them start voting for Democrats!
I find myself increasingly convinced by this compelling talking point! How about you?
Politico, quoted by Meredith Jessup at the Blaze (to avoid giving a link to Politico):
The Obama administration’s decision Thursday to provide military and political aid to anti-Assad fighters wasn’t merely a result of confirmation the Syrian regime used sarin gas on rebels — but a decision prompted by the realization that Syrian President Bashar Assad was on the cusp of gaining a permanent advantage over rebel groups and the fear of imminent sectarian bloodshed further spilling into neighboring Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.
“The decision was ultimately driven by the discovery Assad used [chemical weapons] but there were a number of other factors in place that were also important,” conceded an administration official with direct knowledge of the deliberations.
“Would we have made [the determination Assad had breached the red line] even if we didn’t have the evidence? Probably.”