Posted on 06/20/2013 3:27:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Rubio was on Fox News a few minutes ago as I’m writing this to tout the new Corker/Hoeven plan that Ed wrote about earlier. No video yet, but both Byron York and Elise Foley quote him similarly. Rubio’s spent the last few weeks searching for an amendment that will tighten the border but not tighten it so much that Democrats will walk away from the Gang of Eight bill. And now, it seems, he’s found it:
Rubio on Fox: 'This is dramatic expansion & improvement in border security that I hope will allow this legislation to have support it needs'
— Byron York (@ByronYork) June 20, 2013
Rubio on Fox News: "I think this amendment is a dramatic improvement on border security."
— Elise Foley (@elisefoley) June 20, 2013
The GOP gets lots more Border Patrol officers, high-tech surveillance equipment for watching the border, full implementation of E-Verify, and 700 miles of fencing that Congress already authorized seven years ago. What do Democrats get? It’s what they don’t get. Instead of the biometric entry/exit system that Republicans wanted to help crack down on visa overstays, we’ll have a lower-tech biographic system instead. And more importantly, the “triggers” for enforcement will be soft:
But and this is big the provision sought by conservatives such as John Cornyn, that 90 percent apprehension be achieved as a hard trigger is no longer in the deal as a precondition for citizenship. As the Times puts it: Republicans agreed to make the 90 percent figure a goal rather than a requirement. The key is that additional Republicans beyond the gang of eight such as Bob Corker and John Hoeven appear prepared to accept this.
Leading immigration advocate Frank Sharry, who was briefed on the emerging deal, tells me Dems successfully beat back Republican demands for inclusion of the 90 percent hard trigger. And so Sharrys group, Americas Voice, can support the deal, albeit reluctantly.
The deal is ridiculous from a policy point of view its excessive and wasteful, Sharry tells me. But from a political point of view, if it brings 10 or 11 Senate Republican votes, well probably will be able to live with it. Sharry says this is because the current triggers in the emerging compromise are doable and achievable.
Democrats still get probationary legalization for illegals right away. That’s their core demand because, once some form of legalization is granted, political pressure will inevitably build to grant them full citizenship regardless of the state of the border. The only real leverage border hawks have in getting the left to follow through on the bill’s enforcement provisions is to demand that any form of legalization be suspended until security targets are met. Corker/Hoeven doesn’t require that; in fact, it apparently relaxes the requirements for the second stage of the legalization process too, i.e. the path to citizenship, by not absolutely requiring 90 percent apprehension before illegals start gaining eligibility for green cards. That’s the sort of compromise Rubio’s been looking for — something that improves border security on paper but doesn’t apply too much pressure to the other side to make that security a reality. He prefers to see a weak bill pass than to stand on principle for true border-security triggers. Remember that the next time you hear him say that he’s doing this because it’s good policy, not good politics.
A few random thoughts. One: This is all about gaining Republican votes, not building a well-crafted bill. The effect on border security of adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents is, as far as I know, a total question mark. (With more guest workers allowed in under the bill and a comparatively weak system for detecting visa overstays, more border agents might not reduce the number of illegals in the U.S. dramatically.) We could gain some idea by holding hearings, but neither party in the pro-amnesty camp gives a wet fart about the actual policy effects here. The security measures in Corker/Hoeven are designed purely to make the bill look tougher so that wary Senate Republicans feel safer voting yes. It’s already working. Two: Needless to say, the CBO score that everyone was oohing and aahing over two days ago will have to be completely redone. The bill will obviously cost more now with tens of thousands of BP officers on the federal payroll. Their presence on the border will presumably reduce the forecast for new illegal immigration by some (smallish) degree, which means all the other economic effects in the bill will change. The whole point of the CBO study was that illegals will help reduce the deficit on balance (in the near term) because they’ll bring economic growth to America. Does that still hold true if there are fewer illegals coming across the border over the next 10 years?
Three: If — if — you trust House Republicans to demand border security before any form of legalization, then having the Senate pass this thing with Republican support isn’t a terrible outcome. The consolation prize for Democrats if the bill fails is demagoging the GOP for being anti-Latino, which might help them with turnout in the midterms next year. If 20 Senate Republicans vote for the Gang of Eight bill, that argument is harder to make. Suddenly it becomes a message about House Republicans specifically, and House Republicans have much less to fear in their small red districts than GOP senators do. The big question mark right now isn’t how Corker/Hoeven plays in the Senate, it’s how it plays in the House. Will GOPers who’ve been talking tough lately suddenly go soft?
Exit question via Conn Carroll: CBO estimated that, of the estimated 11.5 million illegals currently in the U.S., only eight million or so would qualify for the initial probationary legalization under the Gang’s bill. What happens to the other 3.5 million?
Only a fool and a idiot believes anything coming from La Raza Rubio.
So Marco, what happens when it finally gets back to the senate and disappears behind the closed doors of committee?
BS!!!! Wake up, Rubio, or switch Parties!!
I agree. This Rubio kid is a 100% fraud.
Of course the US government will never secure our borders. They will remain open until we disappear completely.
Marco Rubio, 2009
I am strongly against amnesty. The most important thing we need to do is enforce our existing laws.
We have existing immigration laws that are not being adequately enforced.
Nothing will make it harder to enforce the existing laws, if you reward people who broke them.
It demoralizes people who are going through the legal process, its a very clear signal of why go through the legal process, if you can accomplish the same thing if you go through the illegal process.
And number two, if demoralizes the people enforcing the laws.
I am not, and I will never support any effort to grant blanket legalization/amnesty to folks who have entered, stayed in this country illegally.
ScRew-U-BIO! You lying POS!
Don’t you pay advisors to tell you when you sound like a drunk idiot?
Rubio...you sound like a drunk idiot!
Where’s my $150k?
and how about when the feds say don’t deport or they have more rights than us.
This is B/S, we will have tens of millions coming here if this goes through and most of those millions will be from third world cess pits.
This shows how stupid Republicans in the Senate are. Or how stupid they think we are. Every Republican Senator who buys into this needs to be kicked out of office, and that especially includes our Senator John Cornyn who is up for re-election in 2014.
boy i hope people are already melting down the lines to corker and hoeven.
Please, Marco Rubio shut up.
You are telling untruths. Legalizing 11 million illegals is insanity. Why not focus on legal immigrants. What a complete sell out to his campaign pledge, no amnesty, no granting illegals citizenship. Someone find that in his campaign stops.
Senator Rubio, I was born at night, but not last night. You have ripped your drawers with me. There is nothing that you can do now or in the future to get me to vote for you. If you are the Republican choice, then I will sit out my first presidential election, and there have been quite a few because I am 73-years old.
Senator Rubio, I was born at night, but not last night. You have ripped your drawers with me. There is nothing that you can do now or in the future to get me to vote for you. If you are the Republican choice, then I will sit out my first presidential election, and there have been quite a few because I am 73-years old.
When Republicans fight citizenship provisions they are protecting their jobs not yours.
Any border enforcement will make little difference given that the bill will vastly increase legal immigration, swamping the country. No one will be spared: high skill, low skill. Remember according to those pushing the bill, if you are not a superstar (and most of us aren't) you don't deserve a job.
We have crowded schools, traffic congestion, overburdened infrastructure, water shortages, loss of open space: adding two million immigrants each year is not the solution regardless of border security.
More drones, when the ones CBP has now are more expensive than operating manned aircraft.
I wonder what the dems have on Rubio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.