Marco Rubio Admits: Amnesty Critics Have ‘Very Valid Argument’

All good questions. Here is the answer. You will never deport an illegal from a blue state. Won’t happen regardless of law put into place. It is a fools errand to think so. However, you can make it so tough that they self deport.

So first you stem the flow. Once that is done, you get rid of the incarcerated and families. If they are committing crimes, you can bet they are abusing the system. Once you are done with that, go after the money. Charge very high fees for moving money out of the country. Also, fine and jail any business knowingly hiring illegals.

For the remaining illegals, offer an incentive for leaving. Say 5k per family with a one way ticket to several destinations. I figure by the time they hit this, there will be 10 million left. At 5k, that’s 50 billion.

Any illegal who chooses to stay after all of this happens, the family cannot vote for three generations. That means grandmother, mother, child. Any child under 21 automatically loses all benefits at 21, regardless if they have a child.

Finally, anyone left must have a sponsor at work of American citizenship that will put up a bond for them. (Forget the pay the fine. Let the sponsor do that if they love the family so much) If the sponsor refuses to put up bond, the family must leave the country.

If the sponsor accepts the family, that family is granted amnesty.

All good questions. Here is the answer. You will never deport an illegal from a blue state. Won’t happen regardless of law put into place. It is a fools errand to think so. However, you can make it so tough that they self deport.?

We deport hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers a year now even in "blue states" despite Obama's lax enforcement of our immigration laws. Do you really think people in "blue states" like to pay taxes to educate and incarcerate illegal aliens? Or have the ERs crowded with both legal and illegal immigrants? Or be the victims of criminal aliens? Why do you think Trump is having such resonance with his immigration message across partisan lines? Deportations will always take place regardless of who is in the WH.

So first you stem the flow. Once that is done, you get rid of the incarcerated and families.

40% of the flow comes from people who come here legally and overstay their visa. We have 300,000 to 400,000 children born to illegal aliens households annually. They are American citizens at birth entitled to all the benefits the welfare state has to offer.

Many countries will not accept back the criminal aliens who are in our jails. There are laws that say we stop issuing visas in those countries that refuse to accept them back, but they are not enforced. And Obama has been releasing criminal aliens back on to the streets.

Once you are done with that, go after the money. Charge very high fees for moving money out of the country. Also, fine and jail any business knowingly hiring illegals.

Over $124 billion a year is sent out of this country in the form of remittances. Both legal immigrants and illegal aliens send money back to their home countries. It is currently against the law to hire illegal aliens and it is also illegal for someone who is not here legally to work in this country. Our current laws are not being enforced.

For the remaining illegals, offer an incentive for leaving. Say 5k per family with a one way ticket to several destinations. I figure by the time they hit this, there will be 10 million left. At 5k, that’s 50 billion.

Not going to happen. 5K is nothing compared to the benefits they receive in this country.

Any illegal who chooses to stay after all of this happens, the family cannot vote for three generations. That means grandmother, mother, child. Any child under 21 automatically loses all benefits at 21, regardless if they have a child.

Chooses to stay? It shouldn't be a matter of choice. The courts would never approve such measures in any event. Prohibiting the right to vote over three generations is nonsense.

Finally, anyone left must have a sponsor at work of American citizenship that will put up a bond for them. (Forget the pay the fine. Let the sponsor do that if they love the family so much) If the sponsor refuses to put up bond, the family must leave the country.

There are now laws on the books for those who sponsor relatives to join them. Immigrants (green card holders) are not entitled for welfare benefits until they are in the country for five years. They are not being enforced. The families won't leave the country voluntarily. They will either be deported or life made so miserable, they will leave on their own accord.

If the sponsor accepts the family, that family is granted amnesty.

Why should we reward people who broke our laws? We have over 4 million intending immigrants waiting their turn to enter overseas, some for many years. They have completed all the paperwork, background checks, etc. How fair is it to them to have the lawbreakers jump to the head of the line and be allowed to stay and work here, the object o their crime?

We had a one-time amnesty in 1986. The supporters of the amnesty said it would never happen again. The USG estimated that 1 million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. Now we have 12 to 30 million expecting a second amnesty. When you reward something, you get more of it.

FYI: The 1986 process was rife with fraud with phony document mills being set up blocks from the processing centers. Can you imagine the size of the bureaucracy needed to process what you suggest. How long will it take to process 12 to 30 million illegal aliens to see who is eligible for your amnesty?

Illegal aliens are not allowed to join the military. There is an expedited process for citizenship for green card holders who join the military. That said, they are only given limited security clearances. Certain kinds of intelligence are not permitted to be given to foreigners including green card holders.

We have 300,000 to 400,000 children born to illegal aliens households annually. They are American citizens at birth entitled to all the benefits the welfare state has to offer.

I don't agree with that and it my understanding that a President Trump would not either.

It is part of US code. The laws would have to be changed. I would like an end to birthright citizenship and Trump is really the only guy who makes a point of doing so. Rubio is against changing the current laws on birthright citizenship.

“FYI: The 1986 process was rife with fraud with phony document mills being set up blocks from the processing centers. Can you imagine the size of the bureaucracy needed to process what you suggest. How long will it take to process 12 to 30 million illegal aliens to see who is eligible for your amnesty?”

Fair enough. How long will it take to find them, capture them and deport them while they continue to come across the border, take benefits and jobs from Americans?

We can discuss this all day long. Seems to me the difference between Republican candidates is who said they are for amnesty and who said they are against. Doesn’t change the fact illegals are streaming across our borders at an alarming rate and our only plan to stop it is to say, “they cannot do that. They are illegal. We have laws.”

You know a lot more about this than I. What would be your plan? Everything I said you threw back in my face, so as someone who doesn’t know a lot about this I can only assume:

Building a wall is off the table.
Taking away benefits is off the table.
Charging employers for hiring illegals is off the table.
Going after money sending operations is off the table.
Sponsors are off the table.

That about right?

You apparently know the hoops and ropes on such situations. However I am of the opinion many of those I was thinking about would be willing to be just ordinary grunt foot fighting men or of similar rank in the mechanized forces. Such I would have welcomed in WWII as opposed the fake soldier from Idaho.

The only exception I might make is for kids who have grown up here as deportation to latin America would be extremely hard on them. But no citizenship. Unless they serve 4 years in the military.

We have been downsizing the military for years forcing tens of thousands of uniformed military out of the service, many of them combat veterans. And you want to allow illegal aliens to compete with American citizens and legal immigrants for scarce positions in our military where it is a privilege to serve? Why don't you start worrying about your fellow citizens and how "hard" these positions you take will be on them?

Fair enough. How long will it take to find them, capture them and deport them while they continue to come across the border, take benefits and jobs from Americans?

You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can secure the border, have a system to track and deport visa overstays, shut off the job market, and leverage state and local law enforcement to identify illegal aliens.

Here is what a real immigration reform plan looks like:

Advocate a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration. Republicans need to provide the American people with their own comprehensive immigration reform plan, i.e., give people a reason to vote FOR something rather than just attack the other side’s proposals. Such a plan should contain the following:

 Formulate a merit based immigration system that brings in the skills and talents to keep us competitive in the global economy;

 Reduce immigration levels based on need more closely approximating historical levels of 200.000 a year;

 Eliminate extended chain migration, i.e., family reunification, limiting it to the nuclear family;

 Enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) make mandatory and improve such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;

 Eliminate birthright citizenship;

 Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;

 Streamline the processing and adjudication of immigration cases;

 Promote pro-immigrant measures that help newcomers assimilate and embrace the values and principles of our Founders and the Constitution.

See my post #48. It is hard to justify bringing in illegal aliens into the service while we are kicking out American citizens and legal immigrants as part of downsizing.

It my understanding that it is not part of US code, rather an interpretation of a random comment of a dissenting SCOTUS justice on another case.

“You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can secure the border, have a system to track and deport visa overstays, shut off the job market, and leverage state and local law enforcement to identify illegal aliens.”

You have a pretty good plan there. And it is not even a page. I like that. However, any plan that doesn’t start with “Secure the border 100%” is worthless.

As long as people can just walk across the border, an immigration plan will never come to fruition. Even worse, existing laws will never be followed. That’s the real travesty here.

It has been institutionalized in US Code so consular officers and ICE officials can issue passports and other documents.

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

“Secure the border 100%” is worthless.

When you say secure the border, that is what it means. That said, nothing is !00%. Even the Berlin Wall was breached.

I don’t believe the US will keep on downsizing. Such change will happen once Obama and his enablers lose influence or better yet lose any participation relative to the structuring of US armed forces.

I don’t believe the US will keep on downsizing.

I wouldn't be too sure. We have been downsizing for decades. The problem is one that besets great nations and how they handle the welfare state. We are witnessing the old battle between Guns vs Butter. Butter usually wins because it has more constituents.

You just have to look at the decline of the UK. No troops East of Suez became a mantra as the struggle for resources became more and more acute. Nations like the US and the UK start rationalizing the reductions in the military by changing the scenarios. We once had a two and one half war strategy and built our forces to meet those conditions. When I was in the US Navy in the 1960s, we had a 600 ship navy, compared to the less than 300 now. The other services have experienced similar reductions.

You can rationalize these reductions using changing threats, better technology, etc. They have some basis in fact, but they are also driven by the fact that we have defense competing with the voracious welfare state that now consumes almost two thirds of the budget. The entitlement programs are growing and growing as our aging population increases.

By 2030 we will double the number of those over 65 to 80 million. By 2030 there will be only two workers for every retiree compared to 16 to one in 1950. And we are already borrowing about 40% of the money we spend. And once interest rates rise to normal levels, our debt servicing costs will skyrocket on our $18.5 trillion national debt that was $10 trillion when Obama took office and $5 trillion when Bush 43 took office. In sum, our national debt has almost quadrupled since 2000.

The US is on the same path of military decline that the UK followed as well as the rest of Europe. In the case of the UK and Europe, they had the US security umbrella protecting them. We don't have any such luxury.

Unwise comments, Rubey.