It was weird, because I’m not a hardnose when it comes to immigration, and it amazes me how far to the wrong side of me he is.
When I heard him saying that opponents must not know any illegals, because if you did, you’d want them to stay, I thought — that is a great pitch for the million or so illegals who fell INTO illegality because of the difficulty of staying on the right side of immigration law, and if that was all the bill handled, I’d be a strong supporter.
In my analogy, those would be the people who were in line with tickets, but it turns out the tickets were issued incorrectly by the vendor, so they don’t meet the correct standards. And the poor guy who had tickets for tomorrow night, but showed up the wrong day after a 10-hour drive. I’d let that person in as an exception.
But his bill simply says “every person here illegally deserves to be left alone, and welcomed with open arms”. And I don’t see how we EVER stop illegal immigration if that is an acceptable position, because no matter what we do with the boarder, in 10 years there will be another 10 million people here illegally, if not more because of this bill, and the EXACT same excuse would apply to make them legal.
The argument seems to be “yes, we need a border, and we need laws, but if anybody manages to get over the border, it would be unfair to make them leave, unless they actually commit serious crimes while they are here”.
Frankly, if I lived nearby, I would be sorely tempted to pitch a tent in Rubio’s back yard, and argue that it would unfair to move me since I’m not committing any violent crimes.
Rubio, like Schumer, is a racist. All this “noble savage” nonsense that they spew is pure racism.