Do Republican's have a new defentive immigration stance?

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,753
6,368
136
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/06/3745898/rubio-immigration-new-hampshire/

Rubio Takes A Trump-Like Tone On Immigration In New Hampshire

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has been offering increasingly tough talk on immigration as he steadily gains on Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in New Hampshire ahead of the state’s first-in-the-nation primary on February 9.

As Trump has won over angry crowds across the state with speeches linking immigration to crime and terrorism, Rubio has begun to mimic his hard-line stance.

“The first thing we must do is make sure ISIS never gets into the United States using our immigration system,” he told a crowd in Laconia on Wednesday. He added that, if elected, he would hire 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, finish 700 miles of fences and walls along the U.S./Mexico border, and strip federal funding from “sanctuary cities” like Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C. Rubio also blasted the current system for legal immigration based on family reunification, saying that “maybe that worked okay in the 1950s,” but he would institute a system based solely on work skills.

Residents of New Hampshire’s northern lakes region who packed into the nation’s oldest textile mill to grill Rubio about immigration and other topics had mixed reactions to these promises.

Some, like 77-year-old Vince Merola from Wolfboro, criticized the first-term senator for sponsoring a comprehensive immigration bill in 2013, asking how he could trust him as president based on that record. Other voters slammed Rubio for being too harsh, demanding to know why he no longer supports a path to citizenship for undocumented people who have made a life in the United States.

As he has done in the past, Rubio disavowed his past support for comprehensive immigration reform, claiming that such an effort is now impossible.

“Over the last five years, we’ve had two executive orders that legalize people, and zero enforcement,” he said, adding that there are two million more undocumented people in the country than there were in 2010, “and the number continues to grow.”

In fact, the number of undocumented people in the U.S. has fallen over the last decade, recently dipping below the often cited 11 million figure. More Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than arriving. And despite Rubio’s claim of “zero enforcement” under President Obama, his presidency has seen record deportations, the expansion of private immigration jails, and controversial raids targeting Central American asylum seekers. President Obama has also overseen a massive increase in Border Patrol agents and border militarization efforts.

While Rubio’s hard-line stance pleased many in the room, who greeted his promises with cheers, one man stood up and confronted him. “I hire an illegal immigrant named Fernando,” he said. “He’s been with me for several years. He has a master key to all the apartments I manage. He’s never raped anybody. He’s never stolen anything. How about a path for the Fernandos, to legitimize them?”

Rubio responded, “I sympathize with the story you told, but I also sympathize with the American people who have to bear the burden of people coming into this country illegally.” He then insisted that “for every Fernando there’s a story that would outrage you,” giving the example of Cubans who abuse the “wet foot, dry foot” refugee benefits program, which drew cries of outrage from the audience.

In the end, he answered that “we’ll figure something out” for hard-working long-time residents like Fernando, “but not until illegal immigration is under control.”

After the town hall, other residents told ThinkProgress that despite they still viewed Rubio as “weak” on the issue despite his promises of deportations and border build-ups. “He may say all the right things, but when you check his record, he’s an opportunist and he does what the party wants,” Merola said. “And when he was in the Florida legislature, he supported free tuition for illegal immigrants. Why should I believe him now?”

Merola added that he can’t vote Rubio because of this. “Immigration affects all aspects of our lives,” he said. “It affects our debt, because we’re spending billions on illegal immigrants, it affects legal immigrants and citizens who are not finding jobs. It affect our health care costs, because we’re giving them free health care.”

Though immigrants in New Hampshire contribute tens of millions of dollars in taxes each year and present a far smaller burden on programs like food stamps than native-born residents, many voters share Merola’s fears and concerns.
Laconia is one of four New Hampshire cities participating in a multi-year project to make the state more welcoming to immigrants. Kate Bruchacova and Susan Laverack with the New Hampshire Partnership for Public Health, who work with immigrants in Laconia, told ThinkProgress they’re worried anti-immigrant rhetoric from Rubio and other Republican candidates could pose a serious setback.

“With all the things people hear on the news, it’s not easy to make people appreciate the newcomers in the area,” Bruchacova told ThinkProgress. “We really have our work cut out for us. We have to help people get to know each other so they don’t see each other as so different.”

Bruchacova, a Slovakian native who is now a U.S. citizen, describes herself as Laconia’s “walking welcome center” for new immigrants. She teaches them how to navigate the confusing bureaucracies of the local and federal government. She holds cooking classes, language exchanges, and soccer games to help those born in New Hampshire and those born abroad get to know one another. They’re also recruiting new citizens to serve on local city councils and other boards to feel more invested in their communities.

“In the past, when someone new would migrate here, especially a person of color, they were a target,” Laverack said. “But with the work we’re doing, helping people tell each other their stories, I really think it’s helping.”
As in the rest of the state, the vast majority of Laconia residents are white. But influxes of immigrants and refugees over the last few decades from China, Bhutan, Jamaica, South Africa, and various Latin American countries have diversified the once homogeneous community. Though some immigrants work in the local hospital and in manufacturing plants, most work in the hospitality and tourism sectors — jobs that are seasonal and barely pay above minimum wage.

“The wages are not attractive for local people, but they are attractive for the new immigrants,” Bruchacova said. She added that she does see some hiring discrimination against immigrants, citing the case of an Iraqi refugee with two Masters degrees who struggled to find work and eventually left the state. “He’s not a drain to society, but he was still getting mistreated, just because he had an Arabic name.”

“Meanwhile the population of age 65 and above is going to double in the next decade, and many of the young people leave for college and don’t come back, so who is going to be our labor force?” Laverack added. “We think immigrants are vital to the social and economic fabric of our community. So hopefully before they go to vote next week, enough New Hampshire residents will do their homework and understand the benefits of immigration.”

I was reading this today and I really think Rubio has a chance of getting the nomination. Anyways since I'm interested in what both choices I get.. this one line in the whole article caught my eye and concerned me..

Rubio also blasted the current system for legal immigration based on family reunification, saying that “maybe that worked okay in the 1950s,” but he would institute a system based solely on work skills.

Do you guys think that this is just political pandering to get votes or is this actual policy? Are we on the verge of becoming a country like say Denmark or Thailand where you can marry a native of the country but never ever pray to have legal status outside of a visitor visa and once your spouse dies, you and your children have to go back? It might sound harsh but it's very much a reality.

Would it be better than the current policy or would even Republicans hate it since it would mean people who qualify for H1B's coming here enmasse to replace American workers over say Russian/ Filipino/ Chinese mail order brides?

What do you guys think?

Is this for real or it's too flawed to be real policy?
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
Rubio is full of shit! I know his previous positions on this and he's going Trump, only because he thinks it will help him with votes. This is not who he is. Fuck Rubio!

This election is coming down to Trump and Bernie, as I see it. That's unless Biden jumps in to try and save the Democrats.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,399
4,457
136
This election is coming down to Trump and Bernie, as I see it.

Ha! Least likely scenario.


oh-wait-youre-serious-let-me-laugh-even-harder.jpg
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
3
0
Rubio is full of shit! I know his previous positions on this and he's going Trump, only because he thinks it will help him with votes. This is not who he is. Fuck Rubio!

This election is coming down to Trump and Bernie, as I see it. That's unless Biden jumps in to try and save the Democrats.
Prob Cruz or Rubio,

Does not matter who the republican candidate is, they would lose by a mile against Bernie.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,271
323
126
Lmao at Rubio saying maybe family reunification would have worked in the 1950s. The only reason why immigration was 40,000-50,000 a year in the 1950s was because we didnt have the current family reunification system, and it was limited by immigrants that came for employment and had people who would sponsor/vouch for them in case they lost the job so it wouldnt be on the taxpayer to take care of them. It was the 1965 act that changed immigration into a family reunification based system.

The old quotas largely remained for working immigrants, but relatives could come in unimpeded. Thats why our immigration has exploded to over a million a year despite tight quotas since family members dont count towards the quota, and again, 80% of the growth in entitlement spending since 1965 is directly attributed to the 1965 immigration act, since 95% of legal immigrants arent held to the same standard we hold the few working immigrants we allow in (sponsors and employment).
 
Last edited:

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,753
6,368
136
Lmao at Rubio saying maybe family reunification would have worked in the 1950s. The only reason why immigration was 40,000-50,000 a year in the 1950s was because we didnt have the current family reunification system, and it was limited by immigrants that came for employment and had people who would sponsor/vouch for them in case they lost the job so it wouldnt be on the taxpayer to take care of them. It was the 1965 act that changed immigration into a family reunification based system.

The old quotas largely remained for working immigrants, but relatives could come in unimpeded. Thats why our immigration has exploded to over a million a year despite tight quotas since family members dont count towards the quota, and again, 80% of the growth in entitlement spending since 1965 is directly attributed to the 1965 immigration act, since 95% of legal immigrants arent held to the same standard we hold the few working immigrants we allow in (sponsors and employment).

Ya but do you see the GOP changing its stance to limit immigrant's families on this issue or this is just pandering?
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
They do but I'm sure its contradictory and doesn't make sense similar to the let people buy insurance across state lines. States don't want that because it endangers jobs and they'd have to vet every insurance plan to see if it meets state requirements, hospitals don't want it because none of them would likely be considered in network
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
It is a lie. Trump forced the others to take a tougher stance on immigration, but they are not genuine. Not a damn one of them would actually do anything about immigration. Every 4 years there is a steady stream of lip service but absolutely nothing more and that is the way they like it. The electorate is like Charlie Brown going for that football...