Jeb Bush Defends Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Latin American Herald Tribune ^ | 9/22/15 | LAHT

[wastoute]

Here is a thought. Just maybe we should send these illegals home where they can insist on the freedom they have enjoyed here. It would be an act of love.

[from occupied ga]

Bush is like his relatives GOP-e to the bone.

[exit82]

When Jeb opens his mouth, it is the USCOC that speaks.

Hey GOP-E—we are NOT voting for another Bush.

Get with the program or get Trumped.

[exit82]

Everyone must remember this; Rubio stabbed every Floridian in the back when he agreed to co-author the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill with Chuckie Schumer, not to mention in league with John McCain, Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham.

I haven't forgotten what this little weasel did.

[BobL]

Does Bush even WANT TO WIN, at this point?

I kind of suspect so, but his life, I guess, has been SO SHELTERED from the real world that he just has no clue as to what is going on outside his gated (and walled) compound.

[VTenigma]

[Bush is a self-referential mobius-loop caricature of himself.]

Good one, I like that.

[biff]

I wonder if this numb nuts will ever discover that 80% of his party supporters are not in favor of his immigration plan? His quest is about as smart as republicans trying to convince democrats the government is spending too much money.

[ek_hornbeck]

The nomination of Jeb Bush, in the unlikely event that it occurs, would signal open revolt in the Republican Party and unquestionably lead to the election of a Democrat. That is because immigration is the key issue in this election, virtually the only issue for conservatives, and Jeb Bush's latest position statement on immigration is utterly intolerable because it signals the end of conservatism in America.

It pleases me to see that opposition to amnesty for illegals is on its way to becoming a litmus test for GOP candidates. With any luck, nominating an open borders candidate 4 years from now will be as unthinkable as nominating a pro-abortion or gun-grabber is today.

We're not quite there yet, since of the existing pool of Presidential candidates, only Trump and Cruz are in sync with conservative grassroots on the immigration issue. The rest of the bunch are on the same page as the Democrats and the GOP establishment, no matter how much they try to backtrack.

[nathanbedford]

So far we have only one candidate, Donald Trump, who is explicitly standing for deportation of illegals and even Trump would readmit some undefined portion of them. Cruz seemingly avoids talk of deportation.

Romney, of course, was exactly right on the issue both politically and practically. He would so structure the environment that the bulk of illegals would simply self deport because they could not find jobs or welfare benefits. The climate in 2012 was so rigidly politically correct that even the phrase "self deportation " was enough to damage Romney in the polls when demagogued by the media.

One of the few things for which Donald Trump deserves credit is that he broke China in the political correctness store and he has now made it possible to discuss the issue of immigration. So far Ted Cruz has not used this new freedom of expression to move to his right on immigration. For those of us who regard immigration as a key issue in this race without which there is no future for the conservative movement, Cruz's reticence is disquieting. In the absence of a forthright statement of his position, we are left to hope that Ted Cruz's office would behave like Mitt Romney the candidate

With the increasing likelihood of Marco Rubio eclipsing Jeb Bush as the anointed establishment favorite to stop Ted Cruz, Rubio's treachery on the subject becomes even more dangerous.

[RKBA Democrat]

That we will see mass deportations of illegals is highly unlikely regardless of who is elected. Bluntly, the politicians are all of one voice and one view on this issue. Donald Trump is slightly different in that he would actually build a wall, and would probably throttle down the numbers of new arrivals. Those who are here, though, have little to worry about. At least those who don’t commit violent felonies thus earning themselves a well-deserved deportation.

What will be interesting to see is what overtures are made to those who are here and how they react. All of the politicians across the uniparty spectrum want to bring the illegals into the mix. Some/most want essentially instant citizenship. Others want a more drawn out process. But all want some sort of normalization. And that’s really the untold story of all this. Governments derive their power from the obedience of the governed, and lose power when the governed don’t comply. Here we have a significant portion of the population who are surviving and in some cases thriving outside the official economy. They’re disobedient and in most cases are doing just fine. The danger then to the powers that be is that other segnents of the population will decide that obedience to their edicts is a suckers game. And they can’t have that.

[ek_hornbeck]

Romney, of course, was exactly right on the issue both politically and practically. He would so structure the environment that the bulk of illegals would simply self deport because they could not find jobs or welfare benefits. The climate in 2012 was so rigidly politically correct that even the phrase "self deportation " was enough to damage Romney in the polls when demagogued by the media.

Karl Rove and the RNC peddled the meme (myth) of the "redemptive Hispanic" very aggressively in the last couple of election cycles. The myth is that Mexicans in the US are all conservatives and would back the GOP 100% if only in return we gave them "immigration reform" (i.e. amnesty for their family and friends here illegally). A lot of Republicans hopped aboard this bandwagon (and are still riding it), not realizing that the strategy attracted very few new Hispanic GOP voters while alienating core voters who already voted Republican. Hence the low GOP voter turnout in elections with pro-amnesty candidates like McCain and Romney (who said the right things about self-deportation, but didn't mean a word of it given his support of "Sanctuary Cities" in Massachusetts).

As for Cruz, he's mealy-mouthed on the immigration issue, he opposes amnesty but probably won't support mass deportation. Trump I suspect is mostly bluff and bluster, I doubt he'd push deportation either. As you say, the most logical strategy is to deny benefits and social services to illegals (and heavily penalize businesses and individuals who knowingly hire them) so that they leave on their own accord.