# Rubio won't back his own immigration bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 5, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242 "2013-06-05T21:24:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/41 "2013-06-07T23:29:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The majority of Americans who want enforcement first. No, you claimed it was the Tea Party, which is nowhere near a majority of Americans. They can’t be, since we’re about half Republican and half Democrat, and the Tea Party is a subset of the Republicans. And have you again forgotten that you said you would only talk about financial issues because they were the only ones with which you had any expertise? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/42 "2013-06-08T00:04:30Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I think the racist postion would be enforcement ONLY, which if you looked deep in the souls of Tea Party types is what they really want. I think if you look deep into the souls of America as a whole, skepticism of immigration is motivated by the same fears that create skepticism of free trade. After all, they are exactly the same thing: free movement of labor across borders. > [@](#): > > If enforcement is a joke, it’s somewhat less of a joke under Obama with sharp increases in deportation since he’s been in office. Yet the chances of being deported are still ridiculously low. Also, the deportations were part of the political strategy to build support for immigration reform: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html) When the first attempt at immigration reform failed(the DREAM act), the President announced that he simply wasn’t going to enforce the law anymore except against immigrants who committed crimes. > **[US Gives Break to Illegals Facing Deportation](https://www.newser.com/story/126220/obama-administration-eases-deportation-policy-will-deport-only-illegal-immigrants-with-criminal.html)** > > It will go after only those with criminal records in the US Then he just implemented the Dream act by executive fiat. So there’s a trust gap here, justifiably so. But even if there wasn’t, most administrations, Republican or Democrat, are soft on enforcement. So if we’re going to have immigration reform, the gap between what the law says and what is actually done has to be closed. I’m actually inclined to let everyone who wants to come to this country, come to this country, provided they don’t have a criminal record, don’t have an contagious disease, and are not eligible for welfare benefits. But I also believe in rule of law. Whatever the law says about who is eligible to come here and who is not, those who are not must be efficiently removed from this country. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/43 "2013-06-08T00:06:18Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No, you claimed it was the Tea Party, which is nowhere near a majority of Americans. They can’t be, since we’re about half Republican and half Democrat, and the Tea Party is a subset of the Republicans. In this case, public opinion is much closer to the Tea Party than to the Gang of Eight. > [@](#): > > And have you again forgotten that you said you would only talk about financial issues because they were the only ones with which you had any expertise? Immigration is a commerce issue more than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/44 "2013-06-08T00:58:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In this case, public opinion is much closer to the Tea Party than to the Gang of Eight. > **[Strong Support For Legalizing Undocumented: Poll](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/immigration-poll-legalization_n_2972333)** > > Strong Support For Legalizing Undocumented: Poll > [@](#): > > A strong majority of Americans believe that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, although a smaller portion believe they should be given a pathway to citizenship, according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday. > > The polling of a broad swath of Americans nationwide found that 71 percent of people say undocumented immigrants should be legalized, while 27 percent say they should not. A plurality – 43 percent – says immigrants in the U.S. without authorization should be allowed to become citizens and 24 percent say they should become legal permanent residents, according to the poll. \*\*adaher \*\*your points are like the ones from Fry of Futurama when he told about the the bad things a post apocalyptic LA was, > **[Los Angeles - The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki](http://theinfosphere.org/Los_Angeles)** Changing the dialogue a bit: “Fry: But the Tea Partiers show no sign of civilization whatsoever!” “Bender [To Leela]: He just won’t stop with the social commentary.” The point is that if you think you are helping Rubio and not helping me point at how irrational and inhumane the Tea Partiers are you really can not stop with the social commentary that makes the Tea Partiers and Rubio look worse at every “defence” you are pointing at. I do not have any problem with that effort or “help” you think you are giving them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/45 "2013-06-08T04:01:49Z")
Most Americans favor amnesty. But they also favor enforcement and if asked, favor enforcement first. An amnesty with no real enforcement would be another betrayal of the public. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/46 "2013-06-08T04:16:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Most Americans favor amnesty. But they also favor enforcement and if asked, favor enforcement first. Nonsense, enforcement is not frowned upon even by Hispanics like me but we are not fooled when seeing that red herring of enforcement first, (once again it should happen at the same time), once again, the point here is that the Hispanics will never forget this, and once again thank you for making many in the community to become more aware of what the current crop of Republicans follow. > [@adaher](#): > > An amnesty with no real enforcement would be another betrayal of the public. [To other dopers:] He just won’t stop with the social commentary… Once again, **I** got amnesty thanks to “Saint Reagan”, **the current bill is not giving amnesty.** [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/14/rubio-immigration-plan-not-amnesty-border-security-still-trigger-for/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/14/rubio-immigration-plan-not-amnesty-border-security-still-trigger-for/) > [@](#): > > anybody living illegally in the United States and attempting to get a visa would face a long list of qualifications, which includes paying taxes, a fine and an application fee as well as having a job and waiting for at least 10 years. > > “That is not amnesty,” said **Rubio** , a Cuban-American considered a key member of the so-called bipartisan Gang of Eight. “Amnesty is the forgiveness of something.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/47 "2013-06-08T04:21:50Z")
The problem is that the bill allows the administration to waive the back taxes and fines. There’s just no reason to give the President that power, unless you intend for the enforcement to be waived. And enforcement first isn’t a red herring. We’re not doing this a third time. The bill even requires that the border be secure before current illegals can achieve anything more than provisional legal status. The law as written gives us conservatives everything we want. the problem is the power to waive the requirements or elide them. That’s what has to be tightened up. Once that happens, the bill will sail through Congress. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/48 "2013-06-08T04:30:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The problem is that the bill allows the administration to waive the back taxes and fines. There’s just no reason to give the President that power, unless you intend for the enforcement to be waived. Ok so now you are dumping on Rubio, you still think that I have a problem with your points? The best letters to the editor or relatives warning them about what the Republicans really think are very easy to make now. The most likely reason is that there will humanitarian and law enforcement issues that the executive will have to have available, so unless you are willing to say now that Rubio is lying, the most likely implication is that you are mistaken on the levels the administration will use that waiver. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/49 "2013-06-08T04:37:17Z")
A waiver is not necessary for criminal background checks, or back taxes. The fines I can see a reason for a waiver. But paying back taxes should be non-negotiable. As should not having committed crimes. See, there’s plenty of room for compromise here. Just no funny business. We already did that in 1986. and as 2007 showed, we don’t even have to do this a second time, much less a third time. Conservatives can easily scuttle the whole endeavour, and if you think the voters won’t side with us, you’re nuts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/50 "2013-06-08T04:40:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Conservatives can easily scuttle the whole endeavour, and if you think the voters won’t side with us, you’re nuts. He just won’t stop with the social commentary… 🙂 I know that you are just looking for the so called imagined “Tea party majority” but I’m referring to the Hispanics, so once again, the more examples of silliness and intransigent points the better. Not what you mentioned early, you said that bit of waivers as it was an absolute and it was just a ridiculous exaggeration. And indeed Rubio does see that it is for exceptional situations that waivers are there: [http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=a495e814-5409-4d27-8393-05065d838d6c](http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=a495e814-5409-4d27-8393-05065d838d6c) > [@](#): > > THE CONCERN: The immigration reform legislation grants the federal government, particularly the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), excessive power and discretion through hundreds of waivers and exceptions. > > ``` > RUBIO: "First of all, I think that's a legitimate and valid point that we should look at. If there's a way to tighten this up, we should. ... If there are legitimate concerns out there about the number of waivers in the bill, we should tighten that. There's no reason why we shouldn't, and I've always been open to that. I've always said that I'm looking for ways to make the bill better. **Some waivers, quite frankly, some, not all, but a few might be justified. They're not all created equal. I'll give you an example. We have a work requirement. When you go and apply for your temporary permit to be renewed, you have to have been required to be working. But what if you got hit by a bus and you've been disabled for six months? There should be a waiver for someone that's in a hardship like that. So the waiver is really for exceptional circumstances.** It's not for, you know, 'we don't like the law not going to apply it.' I'm open to tightening the bill and making sure that and other legitimate concerns are addressed. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/51 "2013-06-08T04:44:44Z")
The law itself can include such contingencies. That’s why we have a disability system, rather than just a pot of money that the President can hand out for “exceptional circumstances”. Yes, there are examples I can think of where waivers would be useful. However, most of them can already be written into the law. The example Rubio came up with is an extremely easy one to just write into the bill. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/52 "2013-06-08T04:55:28Z")
Once again, your point told all that the waivers would be abused, or just applicable to the fines; in reality many are already mentioned in the law, and many do not apply to the fines, even when waivers could be used to avoid deportation that does not remove the fines and once again, the point that this was an amnesty was a very dumb one. And Rubio is even referring to ones that are already included, once again, the more examples of silly and intransigent points coming from the tea party opponents, the better for the points that I will use in my communications to other Hispanics. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/53 "2013-06-08T06:00:18Z")
It is an amnesty. When taxpayers are required to pay their taxes to avoid criminal sanctions, it’s an amnesty. It’s a tough amnesty, but it’s still an amnesty. The only real issue of disagreement is whether the amnesty should be tough, or whether it should be more like 1986. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/54 "2013-06-08T06:09:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It is an amnesty. When taxpayers are required to pay their taxes to avoid criminal sanctions, it’s an amnesty. It’s a tough amnesty, but it’s still an amnesty. > > The only real issue of disagreement is whether the amnesty should be tough, or whether it should be more like 1986. Repeating that (and by moving the goal posts) will not make it so, it is still a very dumb point to make, and you are dumping on Rubio. Somehow you still think that your points are useful, well they are, just not for the ones you think of. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/55 "2013-06-08T06:47:41Z")
Okay, so if I’ve been hiding money in Switzerland, and I agree to pay the taxes owed in exchange for avoiding prosecution, that’s not an amnesty? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/56 "2013-06-08T07:55:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Okay, so if I’ve been hiding money in Switzerland, and I agree to pay the taxes owed in exchange for avoiding prosecution, that’s not an amnesty? No, that was a plea bargain, and once again paying what the government decided was what you owned is not an amnesty. Forgiveness and not having to pay is amnesty. In the 80’s I did not pay anything when I got my residency thanks to the NACARA and other laws (in practice I still had to pay legal fees), and then I did not had to do much to eventually get my citizenship, the current immigrants will not have an amnesty, > **[Definition of AMNESTY](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amnesty)** > > the act of an authority (such as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals… See the full definition > [@](#): > > The act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals. > > Synonyms > absolution, pardon, forgiveness, remission, remittal > > Antonyms > penalty, punishment, retribution And indeed it is the opposite of an amnesty when they have to jump to a lot of hoops and pay a penalty. > **[Amnesty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty)** > > Amnesty (from Ancient Greek ἀμνηστία (amnēstía) 'forgetfulness, passing over') is defined as "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of people, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of people who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted." Though the term general pardon has a similar definition, an amnesty constitutes more than a pardon, in so much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense.\[2 Am... > [@](#): > > Amnesty includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense. The word has the same root as amnesia. Amnesty is more and more used to express ‘freedom’ and the time when prisoners can go free. So if you want to continue this silliness you will have to explain why that forgiveness I got in the past was \*\*not \*\*an amnesty because that is what you are implying. And then you have to explain what is the magical thought process that has made the definitions change in tea party world. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/57 "2013-06-08T08:29:33Z")
This is really a semantics issue, but in regards to Swiss bank accounts, the government engaged in what it called an amnesty: > **[Amnesty Program Yields Millions More in Back Taxes (Published 2011)](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/business/amnesty-program-yields-millions-more-in-back-taxes.html)** > > More than 12,000 American taxpayers have revealed their secret offshore bank accounts as part of the government’s latest efforts to deter tax evasion. Many tax lawyers had been skeptical that the I.R.S. amnesty program, which imposes stringent penalties, would be enough to lure tax evaders out of hiding. In addition to requiring that taxpayers repay as much as eight years of back taxes, the I.R.S. also added a penalty equal to 25 percent of the highest balance of the overseas account from 2003 to 2010. But Mr. Shulman said that the number of people who came forward exceeded the agency’s expectations. They called that an amnesty. So while we can disagree on whether making illegal immigrants jump through hoops is amnesty, the term is certainly broad enough that my use of it is not out of line. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/58 "2013-06-08T08:48:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is really a semantics issue, but in regards to Swiss bank accounts, the government engaged in what it called an amnesty: > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/business/amnesty-program-yields-millions-more-in-back-taxes.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/business/amnesty-program-yields-millions-more-in-back-taxes.html) > > Many tax lawyers had been skeptical that the I.R.S. amnesty program, which imposes stringent penalties, would be enough to lure tax evaders out of hiding. In addition to requiring that taxpayers repay as much as eight years of back taxes, the I.R.S. also added a penalty equal to 25 percent of the highest balance of the overseas account from 2003 to 2010. But Mr. Shulman said that the number of people who came forward exceeded the agency’s expectations. > They called that an amnesty. So while we can disagree on whether making illegal immigrants jump through hoops is amnesty, the term is certainly broad enough that my use of it is not out of line. It is out of line. The forgiveness there is referring to amnesty to criminal charges, they still have to pay the taxes. For the illegal immigrants the penalty imposed for being here illegally is not forgiven. So, one more silly opposition point to report to other Hispanics. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/59 "2013-06-08T08:56:52Z")
The primary penalty imposed is forgiven: deportation. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/60 "2013-06-08T09:01:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The primary penalty imposed is forgiven: deportation. That is still in the books, and you seem to have trouble understanding that many will still get deported and if the law passes it means that not paying the fine leads to… deportation. _ **Bender:** _ “He just won’t stop with the social commentary…” 🙂 Heh, no problem, it makes good copy for other Hispanics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242.md?page=4)