But, but, a minimalist bill is totally at odds with the fundamental Conservative principle of small government! How can you have small government if the laws you pass are minimalist?
Enforcement promises were not met in 1986, so it’s understandable that conservatives would be demanding something just a little better than executive branch discretion for future enforcement. You only get to do the bait and switch once.
As a Hispanic, it seems to me that Rubio is the one doing the bait and switch, as explained by others, provisions for more enforcements are already in the new bill items like e-verify that have done a lot to discourage employers from hiring the undocumented, going now for more extreme enforcements in a clear attempt to claim later that he was for it before voting against it, is the bait and switch.
Damn those Republican presidents, can’t trust them!
There’s no extreme enforcement, just mandates to do what Congress has already mandated be done. There’s no reason to believe that any of these things will be done this time either.
Missing the point, Rubio should not had put his name on this if he did not had those extreme enforcements that he is demanding now. And this is convincing Hispanics of supporting someone else rather than Rubio in the future.
I agree he hasn’t handled this as well as he could have, but he does have to sell this to Tea Partiers, and that’s what Tea Partiers are demanding: enforcement before legalization.
And thank you for pointing that out, it saves me a lot of time when showing other Latinos who is Rubio looking for.
The majority of Americans who want enforcement first.
Can you point to a single thing that the Tea Partiers have ever bought? When they talk about immigration, the only things they want to discuss are how high can we make the fence, how many volts will it be electrified, and whether it be guarded by pit bulls, alligators, or both.
Rubio and his brethren are trying to have it both ways. They want the Hispanic vote so they want to put on the appearance of moving toward immigration reform, yet they don’t want to abandon the white racist vote that they have depended on for nearly fifty years. When push came to shove, they decided they need the racist vote more.
I am sure that this majority you are talking about has been pleased with Obama’s performance in this arena at least. Record deportments and nearly doubling the presence on the border. He has done at least twice what Bush did during his administration. How do you feel about this?
His mistake then was thinking he could sell absolutely anything to the Tea Partiers.
He himself is a Tea Partier, as is Jeff Flake. And Rand Paul, of course, who is also a possible “yes”.
And Bob, there’s a lot more than the white racist vote wanting enforcement first. The black racist vote also wants enforcement first. 
In any case, the mainstream position is ruthless enforcement, along with a tough amnesty for those already here. This bill is not a mainstream bill yet. The amnesty is soft and allows the President to waive most of its requirements, and the enforcement is what it always is, a joke.
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.
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.
“And I’ve been saying ever since I first commenced it,
I’m against it!”
- Prof. Quincy Adams Wagstaff, or Marco Rubio, your choice.
And many in the Hispanic community see that as a double red herring, the effort should be simultaneous, both allowing a legalization of many in the USA and enforcing too. And then this does not take away the conclusions from many that are seeing the extreme enforcement additions as poison pills amendments, indeed a double red herring.
But this leads once again to the issue that you are missing the point, following the dictates of the tea party are not conductive to making inroads to convince the community to vote for you in the future.
Exactly. The only reason the GOP is even considering immigration reform is to court the hispanic vote. “Tea Party aproved” immigration reform would do the complete opposite of that.
Exactly. It’ll just be a fresh reminder to Hispanics that the GOP really doesn’t like them.
More proof of Republican dishonesty on this issue:
Iowa Rep Steve King proposed the amendment (shocking, I know :rolleyes:). It basically calls for an end to the DHS’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative, which sets aside deportation of undocumented immigrants who were brought as children into the US by their parents.
The vote is largely symbolic–the amendment will never make it out of the Senate–but IMO it’s time to take their symbolism at face value.
I wouldn’t call it dishonesty, the party is strongly divided on the issue between the side who knows they need this to win national elections and the side that knows it has to please it’s insane base in local elections.