By The Right Scoop


Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told Mark Levin tonight that the problem with Rubio’s immigration plan is that everyone gets a legal status, which is a level of amnesty, on day one before anything is done to the border. And for most illegals that’s fine. They don’t necessarily need to go further up the chain toward citizenship. And no one is going to take away that legal status once it’s given to them.

Listen:

I’ve said before that I really don’t believe that Rubio ever intended to make a deal with the Democrats or Obama on immigration, because neither can be trusted and Rubio knows that. But by at least working with Democrats on an immigration plan, especially in the limelight, there’s no way that they can really beat him over the head with it when he runs in 2016.

I really just think he’s trying to be smart and take issues away from the Democrats to help protect him in 2016 from their attacks.

But hey, I could be wrong. The moment Rubio actually says ‘aye’ to a bill with the Democrats and Obama on immigration is the moment when he loses my support. But I really don’t think that’s going to happen. In fact I’m almost sure this is immunization for 2016, especially given he is from Cuba.

Also, remember Rand Paul also wants an ‘eventual path to citizenship‘ for illegals.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alexander.illig.1 Alexander Illig

    Any man with a lion heart can be turned by greed and lies to a vulture’s.

    • lanahi

      Not any man’s heart. There either is or is not a strong sense of right and wrong, and that can’t be turned. Unfortunately, most politicians do not go into politics to right the wrongs, and their egos are open to nearly anything that aids them in their own agendas.

  • Wigglesworth

    Giving 11 million only legal status with no path to citizenship is worse than giving them legal status with a path to citizenship. The dems will demagogue their status as 2nd class citizens that have lived in the US legally for many years yet will never be able to vote because those racist Republicans won’t allow them to become citizens. Eventually Republicans will cave and give them a path to citizenship after taking a beating for years.

    The House should just pass E-verify, more border fencing, personal liability provisions for government department heads that don’t enforce the law, and a modest guest worker program with company sponsorship.

    • OneThinDime

      E-Verify should also be fixed so it provides employers with information they need to raise concerns about fictitious or stolen documents.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    I like what Michelle Malkin has to say from 2007 (Gee it’s interesting that we’re still having the same conversation 6 years later while God knows how many people, terrorists among them have drifted through the wide open border in that time). http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/19/what-did-the-founding-fathers-say-about-immigration/

  • http://www.solitudebooks.com/ Dan C

    Amnesty = millions more democrat voters = more democrat presidents/senators = more left wing statists on the Supreme Court = goodbye Bill Of Rights including second amendment

    That is our future, unless it is stopped. Apparently Rubio and many Republicans either don’t understand, or don’t care.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mistyhar Misty Harris

      They don’t care.

      • KittyAmerica

        I think Rubio cares, but not about us. He cares about erasing our borders, legalizing third world immigrants, and importing even more third world immigrants until we are like Brazil or some other dark hole of Calcutta.

      • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

        Hey why the 2 accounts? Not a big deal, just curious.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/KYTC7EGQASGOTQYPY2KPC4XCZY Don

      RINOs refuse to believe that without conservatives they are the third party. Conservatives are tired of holding their noses and voting for a RINO. If Romney didn’t make that abundantly clear, they will never win a national election again.

    • OneThinDime

      Look at Rubio’s own history. He cares, but he cares about the illegal aliens, not our Constitution and Rule of Law.

      • KittyAmerica

        Mark Levin can’t stand it that his beloved Ruby-Con isn’t looking out for the interests of the descendents of the men who built this country.

        • OneThinDime

          Exactly! And I LOVE your “Ruby-Con” sums him up perfectly.

          • KittyAmerica

            Credit goes to Micky Kaus at Daily Caller. He has excellent essays on this whole calamity, but you probably know about him. One of his articles was titled The Rubio Con and I just played with it a little because Rubio kind of looks like a ruby.
            ( I should have given credit to Kaus in my first comment.)

            • OneThinDime

              I have been following DC on this, just haven’t noticed the article authors. I frequently post the con job article, says it all.

  • notsofastthere

    No matter what is done, we’re going to have some serious complaints. I did hear that Rubio said Obama’s bill is DOA.
    I don’t trust any of the politicians – we’ve been screwed for decades. The flood gates have been opened

  • white531

    Rubio has his eye on the Presidency in 2016, and the Establishment looks at the millions of illegals in the country, and they think he may be their only chance. The whole thing is just so transparent, as to be ridiculous. They could have embraced the Tea Party, and been on top by now. Makes you wonder.

    • cabensg

      Yep! It’s a real lovefest isn’t it. So now we get a Latino Romney but with less experience governing. Actually it will probably be a Bush/Rubio ticket. It makes me sick just typing it.

      • ApplePie101

        The question is, will you vote for it?

        • white531

          Plenty of the Republicans will. That’s why they’re floating the idea now, so when the time comes, everyone will be used to it.

          • OneThinDime

            Not this one, I’ll be sitting that one out.

        • lanahi

          The lesser of two evils again? When do we have a chance to vote the good in instead of another evil?

          Politics as usual isn’t going to cut it, but the “as usual” is comfortable for those in power.

    • Amjean

      I think it is about control. The rinos control the repub party.
      They are big government politicians because it gives them more power
      and money. The Tea Party backs a different idea altogether; small
      government and adherence to the constitution.

      Why anyone thinks these two factions would blend well is crazy. It is
      like mixing oil and water.

      • OneThinDime

        But Rubio ran as Tea Party for Senate. I understand better than Crist who turned Dem, just waiting for Rubio to do the same since that’s where the $$$ is

      • white531

        Sorry to respond so late, but you get an, “A.”

    • OneThinDime

      And all it is doing is splintering what is left of the conservative party. Millions stayed home rather than voting for Romney, that will be small considering what will happen in 2016.

      • white531

        We just don’t know.

    • lanahi

      And all those illegals given amnesty will vote Democrat. This is strange that the GOPe is supporting it.

      • white531

        I wish I could agree, lanahi, but I still think Rubio will draw votes away from the Democrats. Time will tell. I respect your position, though.

  • Guest1776rcp

    Isn’t Rubio selling his home too? I could be wrong but I can swear I heard that somewhere. Rubio picked by GOPe for state of the union, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    If I had to choose between Rubio and Paul this very minute then I like Paul just for the fact he’s a little more distrustful of the establishment whereas Rubio comes from the Bushie establishment in Florida.

    • white531
      • sDee

        $675,000

        “Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare

        Sen. Marco Rubio in his GOP response to President Barack Obama‘s State of the Union Address on Monday nigh

        • lanahi

          That’s helpful that he grew up in a middle class or poor neighborhood and isn’t the elite. But I also grew up in the same kind of neighborhood, but that doesn’t make me presidential material.

  • sDee

    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure the borders,
    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure the economy,
    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure our children from massive and crushing debt
    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure our commitment to our troops.
    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure our institutions from islamist infiltration.
    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure our health and lives from socialistic government healthcare.
    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure our right to bear arms from tyrants and totalitarians.
    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before we secure jobs for Americans.

    Rubio is proposing Amnesty before any and every damn thing that is crucial to the safety, security and future of our Nation.

    Amnesty for All and Jobs for None
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53191

    • white531

      You left one thing out.

      Rubio is a Cuban.

      • Amjean

        From what I have read, Rubio was born in the US, however, his parents
        were not citizens when he was born. Which makes him NOT a natural born
        citizen, and, therefore, ineligible to be president. A natural born citizen
        needs to have parents who are US citizens.

        This was brought up when McCain ran for president because altho his
        parents were US citizens, he was born outside the country; which still makes him a
        natural born citizen. The founders didn’t want a “royal” from Great Britain
        or elsewhere, to come to this country, father a child, then have the child
        run for president. They thought it would lead to that person having split loyalty to both the crown (one parent) and the US (the other parent).

        This makes perfect sense to me, however, others probably have a different take.

        • OneThinDime

          You are correct. And there are “rumors” going around that Rubio’s parents were part of the 1986 amnesty.

        • sDee

          Correct, except on McCain. His parents were citizens but he was born on foreign soil (Panama) which disqualified him under NBC clause.. In 2008, the media and his campaign tried floating a lie that he was born on a US military base – but that was quickly dis-proven.

          What happen next was VERY interesting. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi pushed through a House Resolution to declare him eligible. We all know now, why she was so happy to do so, even though a House resolution cannot trump Article 2 Section 1.

          All of this with McCain, Obama and now Rubio points to a very disturbing coordinated subversion to set precedent for foreign and/or global control of the Executive branch.

          • Amjean

            This is the info I found online regarding this topic which only goes to
            show us that there are many different interpretations:

            “A natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.”

            • smrstrauss

              Sure, birthers do have their own interpretation. But it is not the law. That is why they have lost every single case. That is why Senators Hatch and Graham and former Senator Fred Thompson and the Wall Street Journal and the Economist and nine state and one federal court all say that they are wrong. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

              http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

              http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

              • OneThinDime

                Amjean is not a birther. Where is your case law on your position?

                • smrstrauss

                  The key case is the Wong Kim Ark decision of the US Supreme Court, which ruled six to two (one justice not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US born citizen. And it ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen, except for the children of foreign diplomats.

                  The actual words of that ruling were:

                  “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

                  III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

                  And by the way, the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER Minor v. Happersett. As you can see, it clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not from Vattel), and it says that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats. And it says that the same rule was used in England, and in the 13 colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

                  And so far there have been nine state court and one federal court rulings that have pointed at the Wong Kim Ark decision as the key decision on the matter (and not one that pointed to Minor v. Happersett), and they ALL said that the US Supreme Court ruled that the meaning refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen. Here are some of the rulings:

                  Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “ Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

                  Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

                  Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

                  Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

                  Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

                  Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

                  Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

                  Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

                • OneThinDime

                  The Constitutional lawyers disagree with that analogy and without pulling all of these cases I’ll go with Ted Cruz in a heartbeat. They have been clear that the 14th Amendment does not apply to anchor babies of illegal aliens.

                • smrstrauss

                  YOU say that it is clear that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the anchor babies of illegal aliens. But obviously it does apply, that is what makes them anchor babies, the fact that they were born in the USA and that the courts recognize that the 14th Amendment applies to EVERY child born in the USA. In fact, here is a ruling that says that a child of an illegal immigrant is a Natural Born US citizen:

                  Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

                  “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

                  In addition to the ten cases cited above, there have been numerous other cases that state that the US-born children of foreign citizens are Natural Born US citizens. For example:

                  Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

                  “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

                  What makes the third child different from her siblings? Only that she was born in the USA.

                  Moreover, it is not the 14th amendment that makes someone a Natural Born citizen. It only makes them citizens. What makes someone Natural Born is the original definition of the term Natural Born used at the time that the Constitution was written, and that meaning did indeed come from the common law (not from Vattel) and did indeed refer to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents. Here is an example of how it was used at about the time that the Constitution was written:

                  “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

                  As you can see, that refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within the state.” And a search of the writings of Alexander Hamilton, James Madision, Ben Franklin and other American leaders who were prominent at the time, such as John Adams and John Jay, shows that they used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law, and never used it to refer to the citizenship of parents.

                • OneThinDime

                  You cannot benefit from the fruits of an illegal act. That is the foundation of our law. I believe Ted Cruz. Even Eric Cantor has stated they are not citizens. Bye-bye illegals taking their welfare babies along with them.

                • smrstrauss

                  Who in your statement is “you?” The parents were illegal immigrants and cannot profit from it. But the child was born in the USA and is not an illegal immigrant and hence cannot be penalized for doing something wrong because she or he did not do something wrong. It is possible to pass legislation that bars the parents of a US-born child from becoming citizens if they were illegal immigrants despite that fact that they have a US citizen child. But it is not possible to make the US-born child not a US citizen without changing the 14th Amendment.

          • lanahi

            Ironically, Obama was one who voted that McCain was eligible.

            The Supreme Court had ample opportunity to decide this issue of eligibility over Obama’s candidacy but chose not to address it because of lack of guts. Sooner or later, they will have to address it, because of Rubio, Jindal, Cruz, etc., but it is too late to keep Obama out.

            • smrstrauss

              When the US Supreme Court turns down an appeal of a ruling that says that every child in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen, as the US Supreme Court did on October 1 2012, the usual reason is that the US Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen was defined in the Wong Kim Ark case which said that the term comes comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. That is what the Farrar case in George ruled, and the US Supreme Court turned down an attempted appeal of that ruling. And the Farrar case was just one of nine state and one federal court ruling, all of which held that the US Supreme Court defined the term in the Wong Kim Ark case, and not one of which ruled that it was defined in Minor v. Happersett or that the term refers to parents.

              Here are a couple of the ten rulings:

              Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

              Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

          • smrstrauss

            McCain was born on a US military base, a US Naval Base, which is US soil. No, he was not born in Panama. He was born at the family hospital on the US Naval Base in the Canal Zone.

        • smrstrauss

          The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.

          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          Here are just a few of the recent rulings on this subject:

          Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

          Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

          Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

          Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

          Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

          Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

          The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

          “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

          • Amjean

            I prefer to go with the intention of our forefathers.

            • smrstrauss

              The intention of our forefathers was to use the meaning in the common law. Remember that they were mainly lawyers and justices who were familiar with the term Natural Born from the common law. If they had intended to use any other meaning from the one that was commonly used, the common law meaning, they would have told us. They would certainly have told us if they intended to change the common use of the term, which referred to the place of birth, to one that referred to parents.

              Instead, they used the term just the way that it was used in the common law. A search of the writings of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Ben Franklin, etc—shows that they always used the term Natural Born just the way that it was used in the common law, and never once used it to refer to parents. Their intent was quite clear.

              And, as mentioned, the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case recognized the historical fact discussed above, that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (not from Vattel), and that it referred to the place of birth.

              • OneThinDime

                If the intention of our forefathers was to use the meaning of common law, the Constitution would never have been formed.

                • smrstrauss

                  That is a stupid statement. We use the common law in some things and we use our own law, based on the Constitution, for other things. The Constitution uses such common law terms as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of those terms comes from the common law and means what the common law said. So, the issue is whether Natural Born comes from the common law or from some other source.

                  Well, if it came from some other sources, don’t you think that they would have TOLD US?

                  I mean that they used the term Natural Born in all their writings just the way that it was used in the common law, to refer to PLACE of birth and not to the citizenship of parents, and other American writers at the time were convinced that the term came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. (such as the Tucker quotation above). And they referred to the common law about twenty times in the Federalist Papers (and not to Vattel at all), and John Jay actually wrote the common law into the first constitution of the state of New York, in which the common law applies until replaced by a New York law.

                  So what gives you the idea that they DIDN’T used the common law, and switched suddenly to some other meaning of Natural Born—-without telling anyone.

        • white531

          I don’t have a different take, Amjean. I think you pretty much nailed it.

      • sDee
    • OneThinDime

      Great post. I have one below with numerous facts and links too.

      And let’s remember this, Mexico wants the US to create a gun registry and they want it. Conspiracy theory or not, but 11-20 million illegally in our country knowing who does and does not own a gun and it’s type makes me wonder if Mexico is going to try and take over the US from the inside.

  • white531

    Talk, talk, and more talk. That’s all we’ve had, since we first discovered that Mexicans were sneaking across our Southern Border, forty years ago.

    You really want to stop this madness? Put the National Guard on the Border. Isn’t that what they are for? National Guard. Read the words. National Guard. Doesn’t that mean,
    “Guard our Nation?” Isn’t that what they are for?

    • OneThinDime

      National Guard with the drones. We can easily round up the illegals and return them to sender. Many Sheriffs have said they will not permit the federal gun bans, deputize the CCW citizens, have them assist law enforcement and military to round them up. Invest in a good wage for them which will stimulate the economy, will increase tax revenues, decrease public assistance and ongoing costs of illegals. Now that’s what I call a stimulus project.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AQL44D6ZYDWZFFEUHUB6OSAJ2Q Brian

    How is ticking off the Base going to help him in 2016? It did not work so well for Mitt.

    • PhillyCon

      The problem is, the GOP “leadership” does not view it as a problem with the base. Instead, they see a lack of women, minorities, and Hispanics. So, in essence, they are more interested in “attracting” Democrat voters or those that lean Democrat.

      They will never see it the way you described.

      • white531

        I agree.

      • Amjean

        To put it simply, the “base” as we call it (constitutional conservatives for smaller, smarter government) has a platform that is foreign to the rino led republic party. The rino repubs do not want “women, minorities and
        hispanics” who are conservative; they only want leftie leaning voters for
        them. It is like the lefties have two parties; we conservatives have none.

      • lanahi

        And they STILL won’t attract Democrat voters.

  • http://twitter.com/DanaZZGarcia Dana Garcia

    My sense of Rubio is that he will cave to anything to get amnesty for his people the hispanics. Border and workplace security will be forgotten, and 1986 will be replayed, only 10 times worse.

    • white531

      He will do what his Masters tell him to do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mistyhar Misty Harris

    I’m sorry, scoop. But, I don’t agree with you. Rubio is perfectly fine with the Gang of 8 plan and isn’t that the thinking Mitt Romney had with Romneycare?

  • http://twitter.com/nestroyat64 Johann Streit

    Rubio is nothing but a Trojan Horse.

  • aPLWBinAK

    I agree with your guesstimation Scoop, but would add that in HIS rebuttal to the STOU, Rand, when he mentioned immigration, said nothing about securing the border(s), and did not even mention “illegal” immigration….he just said immigration has been good for the melting pot that is America (I paraphrased the last line)

  • waytngtym

    Rubio seems to have allowed himself to be groomed, told what to say and do, for 2016. He is not his own man at the moment. He is only a brand new Senator and should be left alone, be given time to become his own man. It should be required of him.

    As said in the “Reagan” discussion of the Tea Party Town Hall Mr. Levin hosted two Sundays ago (you can listen to the broadcast still), principles clearly spoken by a charismatic leader are what won the electorate for the Reagan revolution, as well as wise but never-backing-down leadership in office.

    Romney’s plan included photo ID for legal work visas which employers have to check. That with all verify, ICS enforcement, secure the border, and penalties for employers who hire illegals would surely create cost effective self-deport. Maybe, given the times, add “amnesty” to these employers who in turn hire, train and give a one-year contract to a long-term unemployed person, thus saving the government and the economy (and that employer) on the other end. What is legal has been redefined with Obama giving protected status to a specific group already. Stop it there and issue the picture ID’s immediately. I would wish for Rand or someone in Congress to put this forth immediately, making good ideas and all good input already effective immediately. I am going to write to Rand immediately.

    This is something that can’t wait until 2016. We have to separate efforts we put forth now for now, and 2016 will take care of itself. Flexibility when it is necessary is also an excellent trait in a president. Rand may well have that independence of mind to give thoughtful consideration and apply himself to effective changes right now if we put forth a massive appeal. We also need to support in a massive way Rand’s current “Life Begins at Conception Act” in which he uses existing law to overturn Roe vs Wade and his S. 201 bill that proposes legislation to stop the F-16’s, both currently before the Legislature.

    We need to focus on maybe two or three issues at a time and organize more ways to influence and gain support. Instead of personal time off this year, I hope to get off and out of the house to pass out flyers, give out bumper stickers, stuff envelopes, make phone calls for issues, now and not wait unitl 2015 for 2016. The problem has been trying to put it all on one candidate, when in reality, given the times and the issues we face, no candidate could perform that task alone, not even Reagan. We have to be effective one issue at a time, and that will pave way for the next candidate.

    Last but not least. The times are such that no candidate can proceed without declaring the Lord fully and boldly as his ultimate guide. We have to rely on Him so fully and openly now because this is the true battle. And we all know the battle belongs to Him, and we are not going to win it without Him. That is the only way to counter the left now. In my mind, that is the real lesson of the 2012 election. We all have to do this together now as well. The local Tea Party chapters seem to have temporarily disbanded–
    (see http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
    Looking up the local chapters by state there often shows dates of “last activity 361 days ago”, and so on!!).

    NO need to wait for the candidate, that person will emerge. Tea Party chapters need to reconvene immediately and begin unrelenting effort, with great labors and pains, to attack issues, methodically, get great legislation passed and enforced.

    I believe it is only on the local, as small as in someone’s living room, and prayerful level under the organized umbrella of the young and very much still alive Tea Party, which has a great beginning foundation, will we see success in any efforts towards accomplishing these ends.

    We need a positive message, like Reagan had. That is what won the day then, and still can now.

    PS. I have this funny little folder going with “New bumper sticker ideas” –keeps me focused on doing something now. They’re cheap, too.

    • white531

      Well said.

      • waytngtym

        Stay strong there!

    • OneThinDime

      The I-9 form with legal ID has been required for quite some time. Any time the Rule of Law is ignored and people are rewarded for the commission of an illegal act means others will do the same. It’s 1986 all over again.

      • waytngtym

        That’s like saying we already issue voter ID cards. They aren’t enough given the times. Picture ID’s for employers to have to check, photocopy and keep in their employee files would give ICE officials another piece of hard evidence to use against them when they hire illegal aliens. Don’t depair! We have to try everything, and stay strong.

  • tinlizzieowner

    We all know how this is going to turn out. The ‘amnesty’ part will proceed at full speed and the border security part will disappear, just like it did under Reagan. It’s just a shell game.

    • OneThinDime

      And Hillary will win in 2016.

      • JRD1

        I don’t know about that. Cuomo is definitely running.

      • tinlizzieowner

        Not if I can help it.

        • OneThinDime

          Jeb Bush (rich white guy) v. Hillary Clinton (victim woman) is a shoe-in for Hillary.

          • tinlizzieowner

            We don’t need another Clinton in the White House. We don’t need another Bush there either. We left Europe to ghet away from ‘family rule’ in the first place. It’s become bad enough here already.

            • OneThinDime

              I agree but that is what we have. The GOP has chosen Rubio and the Dems have chosen Hillary. Both campaigns have been kicked off.

              • tinlizzieowner

                We will wander down the same path we have in the last 2 Presidential elections. ‘The Beltway Republicans’ will select another ‘one size fits all’ candidate under the misconception that ‘being inclusive’ will win elections and one again, we will loose. :-(

  • JRD1

    Scoop, Floridians didn’t send Rubio to DC to do Jeb Bush’s business or to run for POTUS in 2016. We sent him there to vote against Kerry, he was a no show. We sent him there to vote against Hagel. Instead he’s in Israel for the second time. Why does a junior senator from Florida have to be there? Is he going to miss the vote against Hagel too so the Democrats can’t brand him with that in 2016? Why isn’t Rubio all over the Lew nomination? Lew’s Citibank bonus at the tax payers expense is actually something that pisses off some Democrats and most Independents too.

    Rubio is a first term senator that hasn’t done anything, just like Obama.

    Rubio has no executive experience, just like Obama.

    All Rubio does is talk, just like Obama.

    Rubio hasn’t cultivated any relationships to assist him in accomplishing anything, just like Obama.

    Rubio is a legend in his own mind, just like Obama.

    Are we all just hypocrites now? Do we all believe in Affirmative Action now? Do we just reward Rubio for doing nothing and having no experience governing just because the Democrats did it?

    Rubio is looking like the poster boy for Steve Bannon and Peter Schweizer’s “Boomtown.”

    It’s way past time for Rubio to represent Floridians and take care of the business we sent him there to do. Addressing amnesty is not even on Floridian’s radar screen. Admit it, if Rubio ran on pushing Jeb’s amnesty he would never have gotten elected.

    Floridians have the right to be incensed. He joined the cesspool. Shame on him!

    If running for POTUS was in Rubio’s dreams he should have ran for governor. Charlie Crist was leaving. He could have proven to people that he knows how to govern. Rubio is a con artist snake oil salesman. He got out maneuvered by a better snake oil salesman.

    Rubio is the typical snot nose that thinks he should be rewarded with the corner office on his first day. Sorry, but conservatives still believe that you earn our respect the old fashioned way. You earn it! You don’t get paid just for showing up. You actually have to be qualified for the job and your resume has to prove your accomplishment.

    • sDee

      I believe you have assessed Rubio well – and us for not seeing him for what he is. A post turtle.

      It was hard for me too because I did support Rubio’s campaign, but now I see I was just caught up in the rhetoric and 2010 wave to get rid of the likes of Crist. Once I learned that neither of his parents were citizens and he was avoiding the same NBC eligibility issue as Hussein his deceptions became crystal clear. He held the power to knock usurper Hussein off the throne yet he put his political ambitions above our sovereignty.

      • white531

        Eligibility is no longer an issue in future elections. Obama tore down that barrier, and left the door open for anyone from any foreign country.

        It’s sad, really. If they are going to destroy The Constitution, I would rather they just burn it on the Capitol steps in front of all the major news networks, instead of killing it a piece at time.

        • OneThinDime

          Obama’s failure to be a Natural Born Citizen has not been adjudicated to be the case, at least not yet. That does not prevent the Dems from challenging Rubio and can not be raised as a defense.

          • lanahi

            The bar is much higher for presidential eligibility than it is for citizenship. Writings from the founding fathers made it plain that they did not want divided loyalties from a president, thus his parents must also be citizens, especially the father. This was the original intent, and one that Obama fails. But, because it wasn’t defined in depth in the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS was called upon to rule on the issue. They failed to define the terms and end the debate regarding Obama because they were cowards. Even Clarence Thomas indicated that much…they did all they could to ignore the issue. Sooner or later, they will have to tackle it, since several possible GOP candidates have the same eligibility issues. This could get sticky.

            • white531

              With all due respect, lanahi, no one cares anymore. It isn’t an issue, because no one cares. It all comes back to one thing, and one thing only. Progressive Indoctrination.

              • lanahi

                They don’t care anymore because nothing will be done about it anyway and it’s confusing. It’s not even worth talking about, actually, because it doesn’t matter…nothing will change it.

                • white531

                  I wish that wasn’t true, but I’m afraid you are right.

              • OneThinDime

                They will care when Rubio moves forward.

                • white531

                  What I meant was that no one cares as long as the candidate is a Democrat. A Republican, like Rubio or Cruz, will be an entirely different matter.

                • OneThinDime

                  Okay good. You always have excellent posts so I had to sit back from the prior one for a moment, thanks for clarifying! With Ted the “Cruz Missile” he will have his constitutional ducks in a row before he goes on a ticket, be sure of that.

                • white531

                  I like the man. Since we seem to be headed for an Hispanic President in the near future, I hope its Ted Cruz.

                • OneThinDime

                  Agreed. Ted the Cruz Missile!

            • OneThinDime

              You and I are in total agreement on this.

            • white531

              I agree. There is a double standard by the Democrats on more than one issue we are grappling with. It is almost a certainty that they will attack any Hispanic candidate on eligibility, just like they did with McCain. Ted Cruz will be next.

              Here’s link to a story on Politico:

              http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/cruz-draws-presidential-buzz-but-is-he-eligible-85873.html

      • JRD1
    • white531

      But he will OWN the Hispanic vote, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is all that matters to the Republican Establishment.

      • demographicallychallenged

        No he won’t Hispanics break themselves down by country of origin, i e Mexico, Porto Rico, Cuba, etcetera. I believe because he is Cuban, the Hispanic vote will follow the benefits, not the common background.

        • white531

          demographicallychallenged, you just made my point. Thank you.

          • white531

            Not really.

        • white531

          It isn’t the fact that he is a Cuban Hispanic. It’s the fact that he is one of the strongest promoters of Amnesty. Amnesty benefits all Hispanics, not just Cubans.
          Except perhaps those who arrived here legally.

          • OneThinDime

            Mark Levin did a nice show on this, the Hispanics overwhelmingly go Dem even though it is a Repub that goes the amnesty route. They go for the freebies.

            • white531

              I agree with both you and lanahi that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, but they have never had the opportunity to vote for an Hispanic Presidential Candidate. I understand the, “freebie thing,” but just like 98% of blacks voted for Obama, I think you will see a majority of Hispanics voting for Rubio, or any other Hispanic candidate the Republicans run.

              One thing is for sure. Cubans vote Republican.

              http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/09/20/cuban-american-voters-lean-toward-right-other-latinos-to-left-poll-says/

              • OneThinDime

                For Rubio to go full bore on amnesty for people who have violated the laws of this country in exchange for votes makes him no better than a pimp (a Bush pimp at that). He does not respect our Constitution or Rule of Law. He may pick up Cubans but he will so alienate the base that millions upon millions more will either not vote or will vote Dem. The Dem will run the 1st woman and Hillary, with the backing of the Obama fraud machine and her husband will clean up the polls.

                • white531

                  No one has ever measured the minds of Illegals. There is no real way of knowing what they are apt to do. You and lanahi and others, have pointed out that they like welfare. That they come to this country, not for Freedom, but for Free stuff, which is not exactly the same as the Freedom we believe in.

                  One thing is for sure. Because our government lacks the ability or the fortitude to secure our southern border, they are coming here in large numbers.

                  It is like the Star Trek movie about the, “Borg.” Except we are not the ones doing the, “assimilating.” They are.

                  Give it another twenty years or so, and I believe you will find descendants of white Europeans, pretty thin on the landscape.

                  The magical experiment in Freedom that began over two hundred years ago, may just be drawing to a close. And as Obama lies sleeping, he is smiling. Because he knows full well that all his lies are believed by those among us who believe in the Federal Government. The level of fifty per cent has been reached and surpassed. The pigeons are feeding, and they are happy.

                  And they are not about to listen to anything you or I have to say.

                • OneThinDime

                  Well here’s a little something to slap the likes of McCain, Rubio, Grahamnesty and the rest of the Gang of 8 in the face! http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE91K01A20130221

                • white531

                  Good link. I guess we won’t see that one on the six o’clock news.

              • OneThinDime

                When I saw this from Daily Caller, I thought of our chat today. This would be awesome! http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/20/sen-ted-cruz-heads-to-ohio-ahead-of-possible-presidential-run/

      • lanahi

        Cuban does not equal Hispanics in their minds. That’s a misconception that the GOPe has.

        • white531

          Please tell me why. Just like Obama, I’m all ears.

          • lanahi

            You will have to ask the Hispanics and Cubans and Puerto Ricans, etc., why.

            Just because they all speak Spanish does not mean they identify with each other, because they don’t. Non-Spanish speakers lump them all together, but they themselves do not lump themselves together with other Spanish-speaking populations…the “lumping” is an insult because it shows your ignorance about them.

            It’s also true that illegals harm the Hispanic population more than anyone, and not all Hispanics are pro-amnesty for that reason.

            This lack of knowledge of the Spanish speaking populations also does not endear the panderers to them. If you are going to pander, you need to know who you are pandering to.

            Better yet, don’t pander to anyone…just spread the same conservative message to everyone and see how it works.

            • white531

              Excuse me lanai, but you are the one who made the statement,

              “Cuban does not equal Hispanics in their minds. That’s a misconception that the GOPe has.”

              I simply asked you to tell me why, but you failed to do that. Instead, you suggested that I ask the Hispanics and Cubans and Puerto Ricans, etc., an incorrect statement in itself, since Cubans and Puerto Ricans are Hispanic. See below.

              The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines “Hispanic or Latino” as “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race”. – wikipedia

              For the record, I did not say that they identify with each other’s culture, nor did I, “lump” them together, as you imply. All I said was, “Rubio will own the Hispanic vote,” which is why the Republican Establishment is grooming him for 2016. Hispanics will vote for him because he is Hispanic, and he is the poster child for Amnesty, not because he is Cuban. If that is what you call, “lumping,” then the insult is yours, not mine, because I did not make that statement. Ignorance is where you find it.

              You seem to like to make assumptions. For instance, what makes you assume that I have a lack of knowledge of Spanish speaking populations? To make that determination from a ten word question that I posted to you is a remarkable feat indeed.

              I studied Spanish and Spanish Literature for six years in High School and College. I used to be so fluent in the language that I could pass for a native. While I have never been to Cuba, I have spent considerable time in Mexico and Spain. I have many Spanish speaking friends whom I have collected over the years, even a few Cubans. My first wife was Mexican, from Mexico City. Three of my four sons are half Mexican. So, I guess, “pandering” to those among us who speak Spanish, really never occurred to me. Your words, yet again.

              You may be highly qualified to talk about such things. I have no way of knowing, since I don’t know you. Sort of like the way you didn’t know me, before you made all those comments.

              We shouldn’t be arguing with each other at all really, because we are both on the same side of what this country is facing. But you seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason. You may find that by removing that chip, you will perhaps enjoy better conversations here on Scoop. At least with me.

              • lanahi

                Oh, chill out, white. I used the generic “you”, but I guess I needed to be more clear. I was not referring to you as a person at all, so your assumptions about my assumptions arn’t correct either! I don’t post to a person but just the message, so it isn’t all about you. I am not the one arguing, and I won’t.

                Regardless of whatever the dictionary or the government has to say about who is “Hispanic”, I know that those with Mexican backgrounds do not automatically regard Cubans as “one of theirs”, and electing a Cuban just isn’t quite the same to them and won’t necessarily get you the “Hispanic” vote. I said you would have to ask THEM why not because I don’t know. Maybe it is the same as not identifying Australians or British with Americans just because we all speak the same language, I don’t know. Like I said, you will have to ask them why, not me.

                • white531

                  Well lanahi, I don’t think I need to, “chill out,” but thanks for the explanation, nonetheless. Interesting that you don’t want to argue, but you do want to have the last word. That’s okay. We’ll let the subject go.

    • Amjean

      WOW! I agree with you 100%. There is something suspicious about Rubio’s actions.
      I want to like him, and I sorta do, however, there is always something
      niggling in my brain when his name comes up.

      • lanahi

        He has been groomed by the establishment. He is too weak to walk away from them later…he’s owned by them now.

        • Amjean

          That makes sense….”owned by them”. That is why I like Sarah Palin,
          Rand Paul and thus far, Ted Cruz. I don’t have the impression that
          they are owned by anyone.

          • lanahi

            Like Sarah says, she is not for sale. Rubio sold himself long ago and is no longer free to do as he wants or what he thinks he should do. That was his price to pay for being groomed as a leader.

    • OneThinDime

      Rubio is not a natural born citizen just like Obama.

      • JRD1

        That is exactly why the RINO’s didn’t back us up when we raised holy hell. Jeb had Rubio sitting in the wings.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GDJGRV2MMCB6P2ZYTUZW6BHFVA Richard

    Rubio is lying and is NOT qualified to be president.

  • Philo Beddoe

    Well it appears that Rubio is ANOTHER politician who is more concerned with HIS future than the future of America.

    What is the big deal about wanting to secure the border before giving amnesty?

  • Rocco11

    Rubio is a disaster, he’s the Latino John McCain and Lindsay Graham…

    • dontdrinkthecoolaid

      Could not agree with you more. I was blasted by others when I posted on another site that Rubio could not be trusted and here we are watching him turn left. He once strongly suggested in a speech, about 8 months ago, that none of issues are going away because if they did, politicans would have nothing to campaign for/against. One of the talk hosts said, I believe it’s true, the DEMs will get more votes fighting with REPs about immigration, than acutally granting amnesty.

      • Rocco11

        He lost me for good when he drooled all over Hillary in the Benghazi hearings. Inexcusable, unforgivable.

    • http://www.facebook.com/quindan Daniel Quinn

      Jan. 29 when Rubio was on Rush in the 2nd hour @17.23 min. he told Rush “Nothing is done here to discourage people coming here illegally in the future.” talking about his immigration proposal. When I heard that I new I was done with him.

  • http://twitter.com/commonsenseobse commonsenseobserver

    “Aye” is no test when he already opened the door to it, and took away cover from quite a few already rather squishy GOPers in both houses.

    • lanahi

      They are simply “sacrificing” Rubio to be the voice of amnesty, and they can stay neutral while he talks it up.

      Does Rubio even HAVE any other issues he cares about?

  • ApplePie101

    If Rubio is afraid of getting beaten over the head by Democrats, he’s not our man.

  • http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    No matter how you slice it or dice it, this is going to be amnesty, just like it was in the 1980s under Reagan. And remember, the Republicans did NOT get any credit, let alone more votes, from the hispanics because of that amnesty. If you think those people are going to “love” us because we came up with “comprehensive immigration reform,” dream on. Hispanics are just like any other special interest group. They could care less about the welfare of this country. The only thing they ARE concerned about IS welfare, and housing benefits, and Obamacare, and free education, food stamps, and just about any other Federal program the government can hand to them. You are NOT going to get their votes with amnesty. You have to get them the old-fashioned way. You have to buy them. And the Democrats fully understand that, which is why they always get those votes.

    • Amjean

      Unfortunately, you are 100% correct in my opinion. I think that people do not understand what is going on, how illegal immigration is bankrupting
      hospitals, construction companies, etc. and that they are part of the 47%.

      This situation is bankrupting our country.

    • lanahi

      Reagan gave millions amnesty and said it was the biggest mistake of his career.

  • notebene

    First of all, Rubio is too young to be running for POTUS in 2016. The last thing we need is another pup to play puppet with our nation! Secondly, we have laws on the books that need to be upheld regarding immigration already! We don’t need to dumb it down or make it easier! Freedom comes at a price! We are the only nation on earth that allows people to invade us illegally and get rewarded for it! Secure the borders!

    • lanahi

      We are also the only nation that gives citizenship to anyone born here, even if their parents were not legal citizens.

  • Sober_Thinking

    Giving illegal aliens a Social Security Number and a driver’s license is unacceptable and completely wrong! I will fight this tooth and nail. Because once they get these – even though they’re here illegally – they can vote and live life just about as freely as anyone else can in America.

    Once all this crap is in place, it won’t be undone – heck, they don’t even enforce the laws today. Obama is already giving amnesty, Holder is suing states that try to enforce the laws, caught illagal aliens are released, people keep hiring illegals… there’s nothing but lawlessness over this subject. Until we a) secure the border and then b) enforce existing laws… we have nothing else to talk about. Period.

    See what happens when you water down the gene pool by having Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, McCain, and Graham in the Great 8 debate? Fools!!! And Rubio wants to be a rising star in the Republican party by playing along and embracing crap that these jack wagons propose? Seriously?

    I’m all for giving Rubio a chance… I like him… but this is WAY wrong and it just guarantees him the key to the executive establishment washroom is all. If Rubio keeps pushing this smelly legislation, I won’t be able to support him. Heck, I’ve already taken him off my Christmas card list.

  • maynardb50

    We’ve already been down this road. Even during the Bush years, we got monies allocated for increased numbers of Border patrol officers and a border fence. Probably billions of dollars that were never used. I say keep the illegals ILLEGAL. We owe them absolutely nothing.

    • OneThinDime

      Correct, we own the nothing! But this country does OWE American citizens, including our legal immigrants, the Rule of Law and enforcement of our laws, penalties for those that violate them.

  • Amjean

    Has anyone come up with a comprehensive plan? I assume that everything
    is still evolving as to what needs to be done.

    We can’t send them all back. We let them in, we let them work, we let them
    drive, we let them stay here for decades. Therefore, we bear responsibility
    (at least some) for their plight and ours regarding this issue. However,
    this dishing out of govt. benefits needs to stop.

    Do you know that if an illegal has a child in this country, that child
    is eligible for full govt. benefits? Housing, medical, food, etc.?
    What a gig. Why not take the risk to come here? We hold out the carrot.

    Therefore, securing the border needs to be No. 1.

    As far as Rubio goes, I do not trust the man. I used to. There is something about him now that I do not like. It is a feeling. A feeling that he is
    a rino in conservative sheep’s clothing. I hope I am wrong.

    • demographicallychallenged

      In reference to your last sentence, look behind you a very long line is forming!

  • OneThinDime

    Until all of the illegal aliens are fingerprinted, DNA taken and run against all of the unsolved crimes in this country, there is not proof that they have not committed violent crimes.

    In CA 95% of outstanding homocide warrants in CA are for illegals http://www.cis.org/articles/20

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    ” the problem with Rubio’s immigration plan is that everyone gets a legal status, which is a level of amnesty, on day one before anything is done to the border.”

    BULLS EYE!

  • hrh40

    God forbid he runs for president in 2016.

    God forbid.

    He’s a Bush globalist and crony. When they say jump, he jumps. When they say get out front on immigration as our Hispanic token boy, he does.

    Please understand who made Rubio and who his Ultimate Loyalty is. Jeb Bush. Not the tea party.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Be aware that a large percentage of illegals are jihadis… They may have an hispanic or asian name, but they are Islamic jihadis…and a danger to national security.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chester.simms.1 Chester Simms

    I’ve commented on TRS about this in response to several videos. What about the people who are legal and are waiting for the next visa to hold on to their status? What about people on HI work visas, whose wives are on H-4 visas, and want to work?

    Because of the state rules (PA), my wife who was on an H-4 (spouse of H1-B) visa was not even allowed to apply for a Social Security Card.

    I’ve wondered about this: Is Rubio’s perspective from one of personal experience? How did his parents come to the U.S., legally, or illegally? Inquiring minds want to know.

    What a joke this has become? What a travesty?

    • OneThinDime

      Rubio has stated he would have entered this country illegally if need be. That’s when I was finished with him.

    • white531

      Don’t remember who, but someone here posted that there are rumors going around that his parents were part of Reagan’s Amnesty.

      • OneThinDime

        That was me with “rumors” because I hadn’t researched them sDee posted a day or so ago the history on his parents. They became citizens 4 years after his birth.

    • http://www.facebook.com/quindan Daniel Quinn

      H-4 visa holders are not eligible to get a Social Security Number and cannot be employed, but they can hold a driver’s license, open bank accounts, and get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number for US tax purposes…according to wikipedia (which should be taken with a grain of salt). Hope that answers your question?

  • kssturgis62

    Sorry RS your Wrong in your Assessment. He is going to do this, and I Hope your done with him after that. Daily Caller has an article where Rubio’s Amnesty Includes their FAMILY MEMBERS. Rubio is NOT To be Trusted. I don’t understand why this Guy is BEING PUSHED AND SHOVED IN OUR FACES.

    This is a Liar, to the Core of his being. you need to show where Rubio Lied during his Election in 2009 about how he said HE WOULD NOT EVER DO THIS.

    I have Shared my Story here plenty. Rubio is NOT I REPEAT NOT A CONSERVATIVE> he Voted every Which way he can with McCain.

    YOU DO NOT WORK WITH DEMOCRATS. Nothing the Democrats are working on or pushing is for the Good of the Nation. Rubio is the Perfect Politician. He is a KARL ROVE BOY, you need to show the Article on Rove and Rubio together doing a Speech.

    It is Outrageous to constantly say this guy is a Conservative. I am tired of hearing pundits push that, because he is not. it is just like I told Leslie Marshall on her radio show, problem is you think Republicans are Conservatives, they are NOT, the only reason you don’t see it yet, is because they haven’t moved far enough left for you.

    I and My Canadian husband were punished for a Mistake, Three Years later, but hey let them all in right.

  • http://bit.ly/d2n5i7 Forums4Justice

    SAY NO TO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS http://forumsforjustice.com/forums/showpost.php?p=955&postcount=1

    • 57thunderbird

      Thanks for the link.

  • ApplePie101

    Rubio and Obama are playing good-cop/bad-cop, but both have the same end in view.

  • white531

    Scoop, I was going to make a comment, but I’m not really sure of your belief on this.

    I think I’ll wait until things are more clear.

    One thing is for sure. I don’t trust Rubio. I guess for me, that is the hard, cold, fact. I don’t trust him. Doesn’t mean you can’t. That’s just me, and I’ve been wrong before.

    But I don’t think I am wrong this time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/charlie.soroka.7 Charlie Soroka

    This proposed legislation should be called “Back door men.” Sorry Jim, but your song pretty much fits here.