Posted on 06/29/2013 7:12:27 PM PDT by markomalley
Many conservatives gave Sen. Marco Rubio the benefit of the doubt when he said securing the border first was a top priority for the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform effort. Later, when those conservatives realized that Rubio’s plan would first legalize the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, and only then put new border security measures in place, they expressed deep disappointment and disillusionment.
Now the Gang bill has passed the Senate and immigration is the work of the House, where former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan is a leading reform advocate. Ryan favors the same legalization-first sequence for immigration reform that Rubio and the Gang did. The difference is that now, more conservatives are aware of the basics of reform proposals. And that means Ryan might be in for a rougher ride with the conservative base than Rubio experienced.
That, at least, is one conclusion to take from Ryan’s appearance last Wednesday on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program. Hannity interviewed Rubio several times during the Gang of Eight deliberations. In later interviews, Hannity became more skeptical and questioning, and in the last such interview expressed surprise that Rubio had declared legalization would come before border security. With Ryan in the interview chair, the first thing Hannity wanted to know was when securing the border would come in the sequence of immigration reform.
“I’m sure you are aware, a lot of conservatives including myself are angry,” Hannity told Ryan. “No border security first. How do you feel about it?”
Ryan stressed that the House would not take up the Senate Gang of Eight bill. “We want to have real triggers on the border, real triggers on what we call the E-Verify,” Ryan said. But Hannity wanted to know if that meant border security would come first: “Is securing the border first a top priority for you?” he asked.
“It is a top priority for me,” Ryan answered. But then Ryan explained that immigration reform as he envisions it would, like the Gang of Eight bill, begin with legalization, and only after that would it do the work of securing the border:
Hear what I say. What we’re talking about in the House is we’re saying, people who are here undocumented, because we realize we cannot deport 11 million people and find them and deport them, so we want to put them on a probationary status, that’s the kind of thinking we have here, and they can’t get out of that probationary status, they can’t get legal permanent residence, which is what Chuck Grassley was talking there*, until these border efforts are made, until the border is secure, until the E-Verify set up.
Now, we don’t want to leave it to the executive branch like Janet Napolitano to make that decision, we want objective metrics, we want Congress’ auditing on the General Accountability Office to tell us whether or not these metrics have been met, whether or not the border is really secure, whether or not the verification system is up and running. And only until that has occurred can a person in this status change their status from probation to something other than that.
Ryan’s position could not have been clearer: First, comes the legalization, and then come the measures to secure the border.
Hannity was skeptical and challenging. “My sources have been telling me, congressman, that you guys are considering a five-year temporary legal status, and then if the border security measure is not met in five years, that that would be revoked.”
“That’s right,” Ryan said. “That’s right.”
“I don’t believe that would ever happen,” Hannity shot back. Ryan answered:
Well, look, they can’t get — what a person would want to have, is they would come out of the shadows, they’d get put on probation, they’d pay taxes, pay fines, learn English, learn civics. If they break the terms of their probation, they can be deported. And if the border is not secure by that time, if the verification system is not up and running, they can’t get — not only does the status go away, they can’t get legal permanent residence…
If you want to get this population, the undocumented population, in legal permanent residency, get them a green hard, then these other things have to happen first, the border has to be secured, the E-Verify system has to be up and running. That’s the kind of system we’re talking about here in the House.
That is precisely the structure provided for in the Senate Gang of Eight bill that Senate Republicans opposed two-to-one. Hannity sensed that immediately.
“But what I’m hearing you say, is you’re still giving them legal status first, albeit temporary,” Hannity said. “And I think I speak for a lot of people, congressman. Most people see that when we are promised spending cuts, we get the tax increase, we never get the spending cut. We get the amnesty, we never get the border security. Why wouldn’t you support something such as expediting, building the security measures in — I mean, we sent men to the moon, couldn’t we do within 12 months, 18 months?
Ryan didn’t answer the question, instead stressing that legalization is necessary for the government to learn the real identities of the 11 million currently illegal immigrants. “We think it’s important to get legal immigration working in order to secure the border, to do it this way,” Ryan said. “This is not giving anybody an amnesty.”
“All right,” Hannity said. “So, what you’re saying is, temporary legal status, do you blame me for being suspicious — ”
“Not at all,” said Ryan.
” — that it would never be revoked, whether or not the border was ever secure?” Hannity said. “That why I think myself and a lot of conservatives are saying, don’t we have a right to have sovereign borders and that done first? Why not do that first?”
“Sean, I’m suspicious as well,” Ryan said. Past reforms have not worked, Ryan added, and this time, he wants to take a “wide gate, high fence” approach to immigration. “We think legal immigration that works and is viable is the best way of securing the border — it’s sort of a wide gate, high-fence approach….We need a workable legal immigration system, while we get the border under control and have employment verification system, because illegal immigration and identity theft are sort of one in the same thing.”
No matter how many times Hannity asked the question, Ryan’s answer was still the same: legalization first. But Hannity kept trying. “You know, I’m listening to you, and obviously, you put a lot of thought into this,” he told Ryan. “I talk to a lot of conservatives, they write me, they’re writing me right now on Twitter, and I can predict for you what the answer is going to be. If you don’t trust the government, and I don’t trust the government, and we can send a man on the moon, why don’t we just secure the border and expedite it immediately? Make it a national security priority and then deal with these other issues. Why is that not an option for you?”
“Because in order to secure the border, you have to have a workable legal immigration system that people who are trying to come to this country to work have a way of coming here legally,” Ryan said. “You can’t just seal it off, you need to make sure that people can come here legally and we also have to remember, we’ve got 11 million people in the country who are undocumented who either overstayed their visa or crossed the border illegally. What are we going to do? We’re not going to be able to find them and deport them. We have to find a way of dealing with this population, we want to do it in a way that respects the rule of law, and puts them at the back of the line, so that everybody who did things right — ”
“Can’t you do that after the border is secure, though?” asked Hannity.
“We think it goes with the border,” Ryan said. “We think it’s the best way to secure the border is to have this workable legal immigration system alongside it.”
By that point, it was obvious that Ryan is firmly and probably unchangeably committed to the legalization-first approach. Knowing that many conservative Republicans are firmly and probably unchangeably committed to an enforcement-first approach, Hannity moved on to the consequences of an internecine fight over the issue. “I’m concerned that there’s going to be a conservative revolt and a divide in the Republican Party,” he said. “Are you at all worried about that?”
“Of course I’m worried about that,” Ryan said. “But I want to get it right. I want it to work.”
Hannity’s tone was respectful throughout. But all in all, the interview had an entirely different tone from the questions asked Marco Rubio early in the Senate Gang of Eight process. Look for Paul Ryan to face a more aggressive, and more skeptical, conservative media as the House reform work goes forward.
* It’s unclear what Ryan meant by the reference to Grassley. The Iowa senator introduced an amendment that would have delayed the initial legalization of immigrants until after border security measures were in place. That was a non-starter both for Democrats on the Gang of Eight and would most likely be for Democrats in the House as well.
It’s no accident that the ads that Halely Barbour’s group (a pro amnesty group) is running are featuring Rubio and Ryan...while simultaneously trying to co opt Rand Paul into their ilk. Rubio served the crony capitalists Barbour is attached to by posing as the face to quell Conservative voters until it was too late, and he hopes to pull off the same stunt with Paul Ryan. Their ads from “Americans for a Conservative Direction” (a hideous hijacking of Conservatism), implore Conservative voters to get on board with the Amnesty Rubio tried to hide until the last minute and that Ryan wholeheartedly supports.
They are trying to ram this down our throats whether we want it or not, hoping we won’t notice or won’t care. They got a whole lotta other things coming.
Except for Sessions, Cruz and some others, you can’t tell them from dhims. I’m done with them.
Wrenched my back hauling a window AC down from the attic, and flat out of patience with the GOP-e serving the labor unions and idle rich who need their slave labor.
Let ‘em burn.
“Except for Sessions, Cruz and some others, you can’t tell them from dhims.”
Sessions and Cruz are the only two that I have any use for.
But even those two never mention Deportation. At least I’ve never heard it if they did.
In WWII we found a way to ship out over 100k GIs per month for many months running - and that’s with a population of a bit less than half what we have now.
The welfare has to dry up too.
.. and Dwight Eisenhower, when he was President, managed to ship over a million illegal aliens out of the country.
He called it ‘Operation Wetback’.
The name alone makes the politically correct sissies in charge of the GOP pee down their legs in fear.
They keep saying it’s 11 million that need to come out of the shadows. How do they know it’s that many. What if it’s 35 million?
This amnesty proposal is like a blank check and we have no idea what the true tab will turn out to be. Only fools and traitors could support this nonsense.
Why the hell not?
The US government, with the overwhelming support of the legal population, managed to do a proportionate job with a minimum of fuss or whining ---- in 1954!
During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.
One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day.
By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Now, to me, that's in the neighborhood of 1,200,000 in three months.
By my cyphering, we can get rid of the mere 6,000,000 claimed by the doofuses --- in about 12 months!
It's not rocket science. Amazingly, if you decide that something can't be done, the odds are YOU probably can't get it done.
It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. Works every time!
That’s the problem when you go chasing after the ‘Conservatives’ into the ‘Constitutionalists’.
Even us (L) types would be ‘enforce the laws or get rid of them’; not ‘break the law, and we’ll let you rob the Treasury blind’
How many realize that Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower deported between 9 and 11 million illegals each in order to make jobs for American Citizens. Have you read that anywhere in the media??? Has anyone’s son or daughter come home from school and said they read that in their history lesson?? No and none. The censorship that is going on in this country and the lemings that only care about their own skin and benefit is nausiating. We are all going to pay dearly.
BS. Would this probationary status include SSNs, work permits, and family reunification? This probationary status is the same thing McCain-Kennedy did in 2007 with the Z visa. Now we have the Rubio-Schumer RPI visa. Old wine in new bottles.
Why is it necessary to give them any legalization? Supposedly, many are paying taxes with their phony SSNs and ITNs. Many are already receiving EITC money to the tune of over $4 billion a year. Half of the illegals lack even a high school degree. The vast majority of them won't be paying any income taxes.
The Heritage study correctly includes that over the lifetime of these illegals, the net cost will be $6.3 trillion to the taxpayer. The illegal aliens will collect far more in benefits than they will be paying in taxes.
The border is really not the most important consideration with this bill. It has become the central issue to the talking heads and the the spin masters like Ryan and Rubio who want to take away the focus on the real problems with this bill.
Rubio-Schumer increases legal immigration over the next ten years to 33 million, which is the equivalent of the number of permanent legal immigrants over the past 40 years. It also doubles the guest work program increasing the number by 1. 6 million the first year and 600,000 every year thereafter. And these limits can be waived by HHS. We have 22 million unemployed or underemployed Americans. Who should be our first concern? The people who flaunted our laws or the citizens of this country?
And the illegal aliens are already getting handouts thru their American born children--300,000 to 400,000 a year. One in ten children in this country is born to an illegal alien. Once they start paying into SS and Medicare, how do you exclude them from getting those programs benefits? And the reality is that many states are already paying benefits to illegal aliens, e.g., CA. Once you legalize the status of the lawbreakers, they will get access to many benefits.
Why must we legalize these people? The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Arizona proving that it does.
I heard Ryan on some talk show saying the illegals would have to pass an exam showing they had learned English. This is just incredible. How many examiners would it take to give 11 million probationary American citizens English exams? How many teachers? 50,000? where is the money coming from for the teachers and examiners? Are we really going to round up these new probationary American citizens for deportation because they are a little bad on their language skills? This is just plain ridiculous.
Maybe it is a good thing Ryan did not become VP.
On the other hand, if we can round them up to take an exam, why can't we round them up to deport them?
Mass deportation will never happen.
The GOP members are lining up to give them tax money and the vote.
I am not sure what year your fantasies are from but going back to ~ 30 years ago Reagan gave them access to tax money (EITC) and the vote. Now they all vote for big government, etc, for Obama.
That is why I am skeptical of the ‘head in sand’ approach. I would gladly accept a few of them really paying taxes (unlike the Senate bill which is the same) then going through that again.
Why didn't you stop the Senate monstrosity bill? We wouldn't be in this mess ...
Lie-lie that what I posted is the same as those.
2007 McCain-Kennedy gave them the vote and EITC and food stamps for their dependents.
This Senate Rubio bill gives them the vote and EITC and food stamps for their dependents.
Reagan gave them the vote and EITC and food stamps for their dependents, and they all voted FOR Obama.
My comment was attacking that.
See the pattern?
You seem to be missing the point. No one of any stature or substance is suggesting mass deportation. It is a phony strawman meant to conjure up images of the Holocaust and packed trains of victims. Attrition thru enforcement is the solution--not a blanket amnesty.
I am not sure what year your fantasies are from but going back to ~ 30 years ago Reagan gave them access to tax money (EITC) and the vote. Now they all vote for big government, etc, for Obama.
Are you sure you are addressing the right person? I am against legalization, aka amnesty. The 1986 amnesty was supposed to be a one-time affair never to happen again. Schumer even said that in 1986.
Why didn't you stop the Senate monstrosity bill? We wouldn't be in this mess ...
LOL. Why didn't you?
In order to qualify for the 1986 amnesty, you had to be here longer than 5 years. The bill included fines, learning English, and fines for employers hiring illegals. The process was rife with fraud. The USG estimated one million would apply and the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. One of the 1993 WTC bombers received amnesty thru this process. Reagan actually called it an amnesty while McCain and Rubio say their bills are not. See the pattern?
The problem is once you take the position that you are against anything, even if it is good for this country, even if all the Dems will reject it, then as far as you are concerned it doesn't matter how bad a bill is that the GOP signs off on.
How about a bill that raises your taxes to pay for a house and college for illegals and forces employers to give them preference over you? (and giving them the vote is already a GOP doctrine so I don't have to hypothetical that ).
It doesn't matter as far as you are concerned because your position is that legalizing a single illegal who pays $50K in federal income taxes is the same thing as giving them the vote and my money.
That didn't stop the Senate bill. Sometimes having an argument is helpful.
It doesn't matter as far as you are concerned because your position is that legalizing probational leglization w NO path to citizenship to a single illegal who pays $50K in federal income taxes and can get no benefits is the same thing as giving them the vote and my money.
That was the jist of my comment that you jumped on.
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.