Rubio has already caved:
If you want to write a bill that won’t result in a fence being built, you will give discretion to the DHS as to “where” it should be built, in what form–and, implicitly, where it shouldn’t be built. You will require only a ”plan.”
If you want to write a bill that won’t result in a fence being built but that might con conservatives into thinking it will be, you will throw in lots of meaningless references to possible ”double layer fencing” even though DHS might not decide to build even a foot of that kind of fencing (and none is mandated).
That’s what Rubio and his gang have written. Does Krauthammer–who despairs of getting any actual “enforcement first” bill through Congress, given Dem opposition–think Rubio is now going to pull a 180 and decide to really mandate an actual fence, and that Schumer and the Democrats will go along?
This won’t help Rubio get the nomination in 2016, if he decides to run.
For the last three years there has been a net outflow of immigrants from Mexico and Central America. The only immigrant groups with net increases are Asians and Europeans. Why do we need a fence?
In case we ever get someone in the White House who wants to see economic growth.
If they are leaving, why do we need to give them a path to citizenship?
As for “why the fence”, why the segregated immigration check at airports?
Building walls on borders is something one expects from the Soviet Union, not the United States.
So you oppose all immigration checks at airports because that’s communism?
Every country has the right to maintain the integrity of its borders and to choose who can legally live there. What would be wrong if the US enacted the same kinds of laws on illegal immigration that are in place in Mexico?
Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.
The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.
That’s a stupid analogy, Trent. I’ll do you the courtesy of trying to figure out why yourself. Hint: it has to do with the reason for the wall.
Sure, Mr. Waddington. There is, however, a small but rather crucial difference. The border fences in the USA would be built to keep people out; the ones around the USSR (and through the middle of Germany) were built to keep people in.
If living under Communism was so marvellous – why the minefields, barbed wire, watchtowers and machine guns pointing inwards?
Right now, Rubio has to keep going forward: he’s betrayed his activist base so thoroughly that his only hope of retaining his seat is to shepherd amnesty through and hope his district’s newly-minted ex-illegal voters feel grateful.
I’m curious: is there a reason (other than the Hive’s need to increase the number of its shock-troops and/or the Dems need to increase its base*) for immigration reform? What I mean is, for decades people have been coming to the US, following the rules set down for visitors (getting a Green Card, etc.), and many of these arrivals have gone through the normal channels to become naturalized citizens. Why are those rules and channels supposed to now be so oppressive and unworkable? Why are they so onerous to people from Mexico and other Latin American countries (who seem to be the ones most agitated over them)? Just asking.
*Pretty much the same thing, from what I can see.