As everybody in Washington is watching the fall-out and drama from the marathon, and is hopefully paying attention to the latest amazing series leaks from the FBI, DHS and the White House about their involvement,2016 Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio appeared on a series of TV gigs promoting the gang of eight’s immigration bills, which is slowly being dubbed “Amnesty Rubio-style”. Did he convince the American people that he did not break his Senate campaign promise in 2010 that he would oppose amnesties for illegal aliens? It is not appearing so.
The front page of the Washington Post trumpeted:
Rubio takes big risk on immigrant legislation
Senator’s endorsement of bipartisan plan could prove costly in 2016
On the cusp of introducing a new immigration bill, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appeared on five Sunday morning news shows and strongly denied that the proposal will offer amnesty for illegal immigrants.
“Amnesty is the forgiveness of something. There will be consequences for having violated the law,” Rubio said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “No one who has done it the wrong way will get in before [legal immigrants]…in no way will having done this the wrong way be a reward.
Instead, Rubio said the bipartisan deal being proposed by the so-called Gang of Eight “gives people access to the legal immigration system.” Under the process, those in the country illegally would need to come forward and pass a “rigorous background check.” If they pass, they would pay fines and application fees to receive a guest worker permit allowing them to stay and “work, travel and pay taxes.” After 10 years, they would qualify to go through the existing legalization system.
He said the agreement modernizes the legal immigration system to make it more merit-based and jobs-based, rather than dependent on whether you know someone already living in the U.S. It will also put in place more effective enforcement mechanisms, Rubio said.
He said that while “obviously there’s political ramifications to everything in Washington, that certainly isn’t the reason I’m involved in doing this.”
RUSH LIMBAUGH: The captured illegal said to the Border Patrol agent, "I don’t care, go ahead and capture me. Obama is gonna let me go." It’s reminiscent of 2009 after Obama was inaugurated and they had all those town hall meetings. "Don’t worry, Obama is gonna fix my kitchen." Well, the illegal arrivals crossing the border in Texas are not sweating it because Obama is gonna let them go.
RUSH: It was our radio affiliate down there, WOAI radio in San Antonio. Here’s the audio sound bite. This is during the correspondent Jim Forsyth’s report, Brooks County Rancher Linda Vickers said this about what a border patrol agent had recently told her while detaining an illegal immigrant.
LINDA VICKERS: He was (the Border Patrol agent) loading one up, and he said the illegal in Spanish told him, "Obama’s gonna let me go."
RUSH: Well, that shouldn’t surprise anybody. I mean, all we’re talking about here is amnesty and so-called border security. By the way, the border security push, there’s a little confusion about this. Folks, I have to tell you, I’m being inundated with details from the offices of various members of the Gang of Eight. And then I have a New York Times story here which says that Chuck-U Schumer is all on board for border security, but get this. This is right from the New York Times.
"The bill allows a period of 10 years for the Department of Homeland Security to make plans and use resources to fortify enforcement at the borders and elsewhere within the country before it sets several broader hurdles that could derail the immigrants’ progress toward citizenship if they are not achieved."
Now, everybody thinks that border security — well, we’re being told border security is gonna happen first and if it doesn’t happen the rest of the bill doesn’t happen. But apparently some factions here are pushing for 10 years to secure the border after everything else in the bill being agreed to. Now, this is all still up for grabs, I think. I don’t think any of it’s etched in stone. There will be some hearings on this. I don’t know how many. We’ll just have to wait and see. "The bill allows for a period of 10 years." All this talk of amnesty, for one thing, you know darn well it’s gonna increase the influx of people trying to cross the border. And then all this talk of border security, that’s gonna increase the influx. There’s gonna be people trying to get in and beat that, which is what’s happening.
And these guys are being caught, this is what the rancher down in San Antonio told our affiliate down there, WOAI, "Obama’s gonna let me go." Not worried about it. Just one. But how commonplace must it be?
And will it change or stop after the Gang or Eight’s plan goes into effect?? Most think not…
When Republicans start lying like Democrats, you can guess they are pushing an idea that’s bad for America. During his William Ginsburg-like tour of the Sunday talk shows last weekend, Sen. Marco Rubio was the Mount Vesuvius of lies about his immigration bill.
Here is how Rubio explained the powerful border-enforcing mechanism in his bill on "Fox News Sunday," which he denied was merely a meaningless goal:
"Basically, Homeland Security will have five years to meet that goal. If after five years, Homeland Security has not met that number, it will trigger the Border Commission, who will then take over this issue for them."
So the water torture awaiting the Department of Homeland Security if it fails to secure the border is … ANOTHER GOVERNMENT COMMISSION WILL BE CREATED! Take that, Homeland Security! Ha — we have you now!
The only thing more frightening than "another government commission" is a "strongly worded letter."
Rubio said his comprehensive immigration plan isn’t amnesty because "amnesty is anything that says ‘do it illegally, it will be cheaper and easier.’" But, he assures us, it’s "cheaper, faster and easier for people to go back home and wait 10 years" — as the law currently requires — "than it will be to go through this process that I’ve outlined."
Then why is he doing it? If it’s "cheaper, faster and easier" for illegals to apply for citizenship under current law, what exactly does Rubio’s plan accomplish?
Is it to encourage illegals to go home and apply through normal channels? You know, since that’s so much easier. Then why does he oppose enforcing the law on the books now? He dismisses enforcement of current law as trying to make "life miserable to them so that they’ll self-deport," which he claims won’t work.
Does his plan make them just a little bit miserable so maybe some of them will "self-deport"? (Which doesn’t work, according to him.) Or is he lying about it being "cheaper, faster and easier for people to go back home"?
Rubio keeps trotting out the canard about the bounty of taxes we’re going to collect from millions more minimum-wage workers when illegals are legalized, stoutly asserting: "In order to keep this legal status, you must be gainfully employed and you must be paying taxes."
It’s as if he’s talking to someone who has never been to America and is unfamiliar with its tax system.
By "paying taxes," Rubio means "filing a tax return and getting a payment back from the government in the form of the earned income tax credit." Another term for what Rubio calls "paying taxes" is "receiving welfare" — which newly legalized illegals will start receiving right away under Rubio’s plan. The only tax they’ll pay is the same tax they pay now: sales tax.
But, incomprehensibly, Rubio swore up and down that the newly legalized illegal immigrants won’t get government benefits: "And then they don’t qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare."
How on Earth does Rubio plan to enforce this "important point"?
Just three weeks ago, the U.S. Senate voted down a proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under Obamacare. At the time, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez sneered at Republicans opposing Obamacare for illegals, saying, "This is not a great way to try to do your outreach to the Hispanic and immigrant community."
Forcing Republicans to spend the next two decades arguing that poor Hispanic children shouldn’t have access to government benefits like health care and food programs sounds like a terrific way to win over the Hispanic vote!
Is it going to be easier or harder for Republicans to deny welfare to 20 million newly legalized illegal aliens than it is for them to simply say that people who have broken our laws should not be on a fast-track to citizenship?
Also, is Rubio planning to stop his newly legalized illegal aliens from having children? The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
(It seems that, after the Civil War, what the framers of the 14th Amendment had at the top of their agenda was not invalidating the Dred Scott decision and confirming the citizenship of former slaves, but ensuring that, a century hence, the children of any foreigners who manage to sneak into the country illegally and give birth would become full-fledged U.S. citizens.)
As I’ve noted before, Hispanic women have a higher illegitimate birthrate than any other ethnic group in the country, including blacks. Currently, 71 percent of illegal immigrant households with children collect federal benefits.
In California — which will be America if Rubio’s plan goes through — 82 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant are on welfare, as are 61 percent of households headed by legal immigrants, according to the March 2011 Current Population Survey by the Center for Immigration Studies.
If you think Republicans are Hispandering now, wait until the children of 20 million illegal aliens start to vote. Rubio’s amnesty isn’t just bad for America, it’s the end of America.
COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER - TRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK