Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

13 June 2013

Make Marco Rubio Eat His Own Words

"'Earned path to citizenship' is basically code for amnesty.'"

- Marco Rubio, 24 October 2010

The word 'amnesty' can spark a lot of debates, even amongst those on the same side of the immigration debate.  Many claim that the 'Gang of Ocho's' proposal is not amnesty nor is it anything like the 1986 immigration law.  Sorry, but the former is not debatable.    Per Merriam-Webster's dictionary, amnesty is defined as:

'the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals'

Examples of the word in usage: 

  • The government gave amnesty to all political prisoners.
  • Illegal immigrants who came into the country before 1982 were granted amnesty.

If the Federal government is not going to prosecute those that have broken immigration - and other laws, such as those involving identity fraud - and, instead, rewards the lawbreakers with workers' visas and then permanent residency, how is such NOT amnesty?

For those that still don't believe a 'pathway to citizenship' is amnesty, I'd like to call one Senator Marco Rubio, as my first and last witness.

In a 28 March 2010 Fox News Republican primary debate for the US Senate seat in Florida with then-Governor Charlie Crist, Mr Rubio said of Crist:

“He would have voted for the McCain plan. I think that plan is wrong, and the reason I think it’s wrong is that if you grant amnesty, as the governor proposes that we do, in any form, whether it's back of the line or so forth, you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.”

In a general election debate for the same seat hosted by CNN on 24 October 2010, moderator Candy Crowley asked Mr Rubio the following question:

'So your plan is that you're going to close the borders, get the electronic system, fix the legal system, and then do what?'

To which, Mr Rubio replied:

'And then you'll have a legal immigration system that works. And you'll have people in this country that are without documents that will be able to return to the -- will be able to leave this country, return to their homeland, and try to re-enter through our system that now functions, a system that makes sense…Earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.'

So, when Senator Marco Rubio, who has either 'evolved' as a result of hanging out with people who have the Republican Party foremost in mind like Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Robert Menendez, been shown to be a naive, gullible featherweight who has no business in office, or is just your typical lying hack, you need to demand why he has changed his position...and, 'well, we'll never win another national election if we don't Hispander,' is a wrong and inaccurate answer (The Real Problem With Those 'Worst Of My Career' Votes).

Rubio ran on one thing.  He should not be rewarded from doing something diametrically opposite, especially when the public is against 'amnesty'/'pathway to citizenship' first by 4-1.  They want border security first.  What is even worse is that:

  • Only 30% of voters nationwide have that much trust in government officials when it comes to these surveillance efforts. 
  • Only 24% now are confident that the federal government does the right thing most of the time.

There is already a crisis of confidence and trust in the United States with the public's faith in government at all-time lows.  What we need is for our leaders to tell us the truth and those that refuse to do should be held accountable.  We can start by making Senator Marco Rubio eat his words.

UPDATE:  I forgot to add...

What they aren’t telling you is that it is already Federal law that immigrants must be proficient in English and pass a civics test.

Like defending the borders and building the fence, the ‘benefits’ that Rubio, Ryan, etc, are throwing out, the English proficiency and civics test passage ARE ALREADY THE LAW.

They are promising stuff that is already law and acting like their new requirements make this immigration reform package a bill ‘with teeth’ that is totally different from the 1986 law and the failed 2007 bill.  It's not.

It’s like an admirer deflowering your entire garden unbeknownst to you and then showing up at your front door with a bouquet.

No comments: