IS THIS THE GREATEST MOMENT IN AMERICAN CONSERVATISM?
YOU ARE THERE
THE IMPOSITION OF OBAMACARE/ROMNEYCARE
AND DEATH PANELS BY MYTH ROMNEY
AND THE FELON.
Posted on 01/25/2012 10:25:37 AM PST by Happy Valley Dude
Sen. Marco Rubio scolded Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign over a Spanish-language radio ad that accuses rival Mitt Romney of being “anti-immigrant.”
“This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,” Rubio told The Miami Herald when asked about the ad.
“The truth is that neither of these two men is anti-immigrant,” Rubio said. “Both are pro-legal immigration and both have positive messages that play well in the Hispanic community.”
By mid-day, Gingrich’s campaign said it would pull the radio ad out of “respect for the senator’s wishes.” About the same time, former Sen. Mel Martinez and a group of Hispanic leaders aligned with Romney in issuing a letter demanding Gingrich remove the ad.
"We respect Senator Rubio tremendously and will remove the ad from the rotation," said Gingrich's Florida campaign leader, Jose Mallea.
Earlier, Gingrich defended the ad during an interview at Univision where he attacked Romney as being too hardline and too unrealistic about immigration.
"He certainly shows no concern for the humanity of the people that are here," Gingrich said.
Rubio’s sharp rebuke comes a day after he subtly corrected Gingrich for comparing Romney to former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, branded by conservatives as a turncoat who left the party before Rubio beat him in 2010.
Both Romney and Gingrich are in Miami on Wednesday for speeches about Cuba and Latin America.
The criticisms from someone of Rubio’s stature in the Republican Party comes as polls show a near-even race, albeit with Gingrich surging.
Rubio plans to stay neutral in the race. He’s a potential running mate whom both candidates would love to have on the ballot. And he’s gaining iconic status among many national Republicans who see him as a face of the future in a nation that’s growing more Latino.
Miami, Rubio’s hometown, is a key battleground. The candidates are all wooing the Cuban-exile community here, which accounts for nearly three-quarters of the Republican vote in the largest county of the nation’s largest swing state.
Already, about 54,000 early ballots have been cast in Miami Dade, where nearly three-quarters of the Republicans are Hispanic.
Rubio’s statement was fueled by the explosive, partisan debate over immigration, a key issue this election season as both parties aggressively court the Hispanic vote.
Democrats and liberals have tried to paint the Republican candidates as anti-immigrant or even anti-Hispanic for opposing legislation such as the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants — mainly college students and soldiers.
Rubio, who frets that the DREAM Act gives too much “amnesty” to a broader class of immigrants, and other Republicans have accused Democrats of playing rank ethnic politics.
So when Gingrich’s radio spot described Romney as “the most anti-immigrant candidate,” Rubio and others felt he not only crossed the line — he was adopting liberal criticisms.
Earlier in the campaign, Gingrich was accused of sounding like a Democrat when he bashed Romney’s time leading Bain Capital, a private-equity firm that, at times, had profited from restructuring companies and laying people off.
Despite the condemnation from conservatives, though, Gingrich went on to surge in South Carolina, where he drubbed Romney on Saturday.
Two days before, Gingrich began running his Spanish-language ad, which begins in shocking fashion by playing an excerpt of Fidel Castro repeating his trademark line: “Patria o muerte, venceremos!” — Fatherland or death, we shall overcome.
Romney in 2007 had mistakenly associated the Castro line with a call for a free Cuba during a speech. Some in the crowd of the Cuban-exile community were aghast.
“Unlike Romney, who uses statements from Castro, Newt Gingrich has fought against the regime,” the ad says, noting that Gingrich helped pass the Cuba-trade crackdown law, Helms-Burton.
“He supported the formation of Radio and TV Marti; and is in favor of holding the Castro brothers accountable for the shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue airplanes,” the ad says, referencing a 1996 incident where anti-Castro activists were killed by the Cuban military near the island’s airspace.
Ironically, the ad bears some of the handiwork of Rep. David Rivera, a Rubio friend and confidante who backs Gingrich.
Rivera this fall helped stitch together a boycott of a proposed Univision debate by the Republican presidential candidates over the way the Spanish-language network reported a story about Rubio’s brother-in-law.
Rubio bears no personal ill-will to Gingrich, who helped support him when Rubio was Florida House Speaker in 2007 and 2008. Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush are headlining a Friday Hispanic Leadership Network event where they’ve invited all the major GOP candidates. Gingrich on Monday night began airing a new, positive Spanish-language TV ad.
The candidates Republican candidates initially balked at attending a U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce forum tied to Univision, but Gingrich and Romney have decided to attend today. Gingrich was being interviewed by Univision when word of Rubio’s criticism broke. On Tuesday on the campaign trail, Gingrich addressed large, enthusiastic crowds in St. Petersburg and Sarasota, where he invoked Rubio’s name.
"As many of you know Jose Mallea is helping us with our campaign. He was Marco Rubio’s campaign manager. We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign people," Gingrich said in St. Petersburg amid a smattering of boos at the mention of the former governor’s name. "That sort of tells you everything you needed to know about this contest."
Turns out, Mallea worked for Crist years ago as well. And Romney has some high-profile Rubio workers on his staff just as Gingrich does.
Later in the day, when asked about the use of his name and the linking of Romney and Crist, Rubio didn’t sound pleased about it.
"Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative,” Rubio said. “And he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.”
Agreed.
40% of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country came here legally and overstayed their visa. Securing the border only solves part of the problem.
I don’t know why you’re even bringing any of that up, since nobody disagrees with the premise that enforcement thru attrition works.
Why?
Barack Obama is patently ineligible to be the President as both of his parents were not US citizens. He may also still be an Indonesian citizen and not even a naturalized US citizen. He is totally aware he is ineligible which is why he has sealed all of his records. By some patent unspoken agreement the two political parties and both houses of Congress circumvented the Constitution and allowed him to be elected. This is a mistake that must not be allowed to be repeated.
The Supreme Court has already ruled in 4 separate cases over the years that a Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the US of two US parents. There are currently numerous lawsuits such at the one in GA challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot. We do not need the chaos that will ensue if Newt or Mitt try to run Rubio as VP this year.
Not true, the current mess was created in 1986 when the ONE TIME AND ONE TIME ONLY amnesty was passed, that amnesty encouraged more to come here. Candidates running today have records going back to 1986. They also have records on border enforcement and employer sanctions.
No, he is advocating allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country and become legal. Not necessarily a bad position, but certainly no more acceptable to the pro-law crowd here than allowing illegal immigrant children to get a break on their tuition costs.
And he is defending it as “humane”, and saying people who disagree with him are inhumane. In that regard, it is exactly like Perry saying people who disagreed with him didn’t have a heart. Perry said people who thought illegal immigrants should be barred from paying in-state tuition for college didn’t have a heart, Gingrich says that people who think all illegals SHOULD be removed from this country are inhumane.
That’s not about whether it is PRACTICAL — it’s an indictment of the motivations of those who want illegals to be removed.
It’s not hard for me to overlook — I agree with Gingrich on the merits, but don’t think others are inhuman, just wrong.
Like it or not, most people don’t support hardline stance on illegal immigration.
Non-Americans outnumber us. Live here and you will think that out a little longer before painting with a broad brush.
Because it seems that Newt and others are making fun of Romney's self-deport remark, which may have been unartful, but that is the objective of attrition thru enforcement. I wish all the Rep candidates would say that they support attrition thru enforcement and are against any kind of amnesty.
In 1986 we had a "one-time" amnesty (Simpson-Mazzoli) that was supposed to solve the illegal alien problem for good. The advocates stressed that it would be one-time affair and that never again would we have an amnesty. The government estimated that 1 million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million and the process was rife with fraud as phony document centers were set up within blocks of the processing centers. Under the 1986 law you had to prove you had been here for five years. One of the people given amnesty was part of the 1993 WTC bombing.
We now have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens and now there is another major push for a second amnesty. It doesn't work. When you reward something, you get more of it.
DOn’t get me wrong, Newt vs Romney is no contest for me. I’m currently trying to decide if I’d support Paul over Romney (I do believe though that if Newt had burned out, we’d be a pro-Ron-Paul site now).
Given that we are going to have Newt, I wish we’d spend less time defending him, and more time pointing out where he is wrong and getting ready to pull him back to the right on the issues that matter to us.
I guess others think this is too early, because he could still lose, and I respect that. But it’s not like what we say here matters, this is inside game, and I’d like to see us be honest about what we need to hold Gingrich to the fire on, like that he has to stop attacking conservative positions and adopting liberal talking points. I don’t think that is too much to ask of the guy we’ve decided to accept as the conservative alternative for President.
Ok, in the abstract, yes you have a point - that some of the folks running have something to do with the current problem of illegals. But on the whole, this problem goes back a lot longer than 86 and is a lot bigger than any laws passed or not. It is largely the impact of a supply and demand issue plus an open border. That is far more important than anything any of these guys did or did not do, but you have a technical point.
Now look at what you just said. You quoted an exact percentage, and then had no idea how many folks to apply it to. 12 or 20 million? My point is this: that 40% figure is dubious, very dubious. The biggest part of the problem is due to those who crossed the border illegally and the way to stop the biggest bleeding is to stop that.
I totally agree with that. Until we secure the border, any other dissuasion is theatre and a theoretical waste of time. Stop the bleeding, then once that’s done, we can address the realities of reversing this 60 year problem without thinking it’s getting worse by the minute.
This is why triage is done before surgery. It is the only way it makes sense.
In 2008 the Senate asked Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson for their opinion on McCain's eligibility. Here is what they said suggesting that either jus sanguinis or jus solis could confer NBC.
Per request from Senator McCain two researchers presented a report on March 19, 2008, declaring McCain to be eligible.
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
and
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
and
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the opinion above is really irrelevant. This must be adjudicated in the courts sooner rather than later. We have 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born to illegal aliens every year. Today, one in 8 residents of this country is foreign born, the highest it has been in 90 years and by 2050 one in 5 will be foreign born. It is urgent that we resolve this matter.
I am pretty sure that we are the only first world nation bordering a third world nation that does next to nothing to control the flow of illegal immigration. I am also pretty sure that we are the only nation where those calling for enforcement of a lawfull immigration policy are called heartless and inhumane by our political leaders. Newt stepped into the illegal mess early in his campaign and dropped like a rock in the polls, looks like he is stepping back into it and he will AGAIN pay a heavy price for being an advocate of amnesty for illegals and calling those of us who disagree inhumane. I would remind you of the beating Republican President Bush took on this issue, dido the failed candidate McCain.
Conferring rights and privileges upon illegal aliens has a corrosive effect on the Rule of Law, the very foundation of our Republic. It is also a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws.
We have over three million intending immigrants waiting their turn overseas to enter this country legally. They have completed all of the paperwork, background investigations, and physical examinations. What kind of message does it send to them that those who entered illegally get to stay and work here, the object of their crime?
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty.
The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
Agreed and this should be bedrock conservative policy, maybe you can send Newt a meno?
Well the anchor baby question will have to be addressed through an interpretation of the 14th ammendment.
The NBC question was last addressed by the SCOTUS in about 1870. Minor vs Happersett identified natural born citizens as born in the US of two US citizens. I personally think the SCOTUS will have to address the question again and make a final interpretation to clear the matter up. They are trying to avoid it so who knows when it will be resolved. More and more states are challenging Barack Obamam’s eligibility so one of those cases may make it to the SCOTUS.
The Birther train left the station a long time ago and nobody is going to run after it.
Rubio is qualified. Not a court in the world gonna say otherwise.
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.