Diary

Rubio: "I was against amnesty before I was for it and now I'm against it again."

Marco Rubio_amnesty_timeline_2-15-2013

Up vote/recommend my diary post on Facebook/Twitter!

A RedState Editorial for all of our readers:

John Kerry, in 2004, was nailed over flip-flops regarding the Iraq War. It eventually helped to sink his bid for the presidency.

Now Rubio is coming under intense scrutiny over a pattern of deception some argue involving amnesty.

Once illegals who tend to support Democrats several times to one are legalized, liberals win nearly all elections going forward. Many naive Republican figures like to argue that many such “undocumented” persons are socially conservative, against abortion, etc. since they are typically Catholic, etc.

However, this is fantasy.

Not only is there evidence to the contrary, but it makes sense because they come from repressive governments that brainwash citizens into supporting welfare state like living conditions where the rulers are seen as handout dispensers.

They vote their pocketbook interests, so they think, and that means Democrat by a large margin since the grand old party can never compete with the party of free stuff, liberals know it, and so they back amnesty to the hilt.

But our side doing so is a suicide mission.

Mexicans are not going to vote over abortion, they are going to vote over benefits, even if they oppose infanticide individually on faith.

The problem with Rubio is he’s backed by donors that will expect a return on their investment, and that means open borders.

The problem with Marco is his history shows a pattern of deception on this issue, and that is sadly demonstrable:

Rubio has now effectively wormed his way into a position where championing mass immigration and amnesty would involve breaking what seems to be an explicit policy pledge. But anyone who has followed Rubio knows that’s exactly what he’ll do. a) He’s done it before, having opposed amnesty when seeking his Senate seat only to become its front man on arriving in Washington; b) He dissembled when necessary to push the Gang of 8 bill, why not dissemble now? c) The GOP establishment thinks that’s exactly what he’ll do; d) His retreat from the Gang of 8 has been grudging and weaselly, always giving as little ground as he thinks he can get away with until he discovers he has to give a little more; e) He still hasn’t repudiated the bill, let alone apologized for it; and most important, f) actually achieving an Enforcement First solution would mean standing up to the Democrats, who will demand quick legalization, and the bulk of the GOP Congressional caucus, who will be happy to settle for a fig-leaf of enforcement they can try to sell their voters (not unlike the fig leaf added to the Gang of 8 by the for-show-only Corker-Hoeven “double the border patrol” amendment). The current flash mob of GOP representatives streaming into Rubio’s camp suggests they recognize him as someone who won’t make their lives difficult — when that’s exactly what is required.

Source: Kaus. Read other criticism heavy material on Rubio here:  http://www.kausfiles.com/2016/02/

The pattern is disturbing since Rubio did not simply back the gang of 8 in spades, he ran against the very concept to get elected PRIOR to the joining of Schumer. 

Now, he is claiming to support enforcement, but will that even be seriously attempted? Will his donors expect him to deny their route to cheap labor or will they expect him to “evolve” on this issue a third time?

It’s pretty obvious that given his comments on recent Sunday shows and in a recent debate, that Rubio is still hedging his bets and has NOT backed away from the spirit of allowing incremental changes which will lead to Democrats demanding full pathways out of “human rights” and no “second class citizens” in America, etc.

He wants to allow them to stay and views deportation other than voluntary as unrealistic, instead of having the courage to at least try to do so without expecting overnight results of course. He has said he differs from many voices in the GOP including Cruz, over the details of handling the illegals already here.

Rubio can spin this any way he wants, but the signs are all there in spades.

There is nothing to stop him from flip-flopping again, and he will because powerful entrenched interests will demand it as a condition of getting their money. And Rubio is already taking that to gain the office of all offices.

Many claim falsely that immigration does not matter. They say no bill will go anyplace even later on, so it’s a fake issue.

I beg to differ.

Fact is, we already came close to this becoming reality. All too close. There is no reason to believe, with all the existing traitors or if the houses flip but Rubio is still in office, that he will not deal with Democrats or spineless Republicans to either make enforcement meaningless or for outright amnesty or some other pathway that effectively loses over time the whole enchilada.

He not only sympathizes with that approach on some level, he is backed by donors that will expect him to play ball in return for their putting him in the White House using their money.

Trump’s rise shows this issue is totally dominant, no matter what some claim in other polling data. Perhaps it’s a bit of a case of people not wanting to admit this over fear of being called racists. Nativism is on the rise all over Europe, even in socially super liberal places like Sweden. Not surprisingly, locals see their own self interest and the money they paid into the system, even in welfare state nations, being tossed aside for immigrants who come in waves to overwhelm their resources at the expense of legal and heavily taxed citizenry. Then the governments ignore their pleas. That is leading to violence already abroad.

Rubio has not shown an unwavering culture warrior interior core in his history over critical issues. He’s shown a willingness to play ball with the Establishment and politically correct factions in Washington, as evinced by the campus rape due process affair as noted by respected RedState front page writer streiff. 

That bill contributes to anti-male policy approaches favored by the left. Think of what it will look like with a flood of new Democrats minted from eventual amnesty.

Rubio has favored a de facto surrender first reaction to same sex marriage rulings, essentially arguing that it’s “the law” but not settled since we can just overturn it later by better justices.

No, that is too conventional thinking for unconventional times, Marco.

That ruling, not a law, was not based on evidence nor even a valid claim of equal protection since opposite sex persons also could not marry (possibly for business reasons/arranged, etc.) and the prohibition was over bio-gender, not self proclaimed sexual orientation fairness, since nobody can even tell if you are telling the truth about your attractions, in reality.

The implication of gays not being able to marry was false, they had exactly the same rights as straights did with the same rules.

We can try to brain storm different ways to reign in the court ASIDE from accepting the terms of the left on rulings being “the law of the land” which they will not respect whenever a ruling fails to go their way anyway. SCOTUS can issue an opinion, but we have ways of refusing to comply in creative ways, at minimum. They abuse their authority on this, in spades.

He opposed a constitutional amendment to return the issue to the states according to the Hot Air link. Does Rubio assume the only legitimate way to stop same sex marriage is through high court selections advocating a reversal of Obergefell?

He backed away from Kim Davis with a similar approach. He tried to have it both ways:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: In a statement to the New York Times, Rubio called for “a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions.” Noting that the clerk’s office has a “governmental duty to carry out the law,” he urged that, “there should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.” He added that the nation “was founded on the human right of religious freedom, and our elected leaders have a duty to protect that right by ensuring that no one is forced by the government to violate their conscience and deeply held religious beliefs about traditional marriage.”

A ruling is not exactly the same thing as legitimate standard law.

In fact, one can argue the original concept of judicial review was invalid since it meant that the high court was assigning a power not specifically granted to it by our system, which effectively allowed one branch to control the other ones, when the founders wanted to have them fighting among themselves to provide a balance of power using human nature instincts against those trying to enhance their share of the power structure nefariously. The thought being that it would lead to self-policing.

Many also argue Davis was following the laws of her state, actual laws passed with some level of consent of the governed.

Some question his political core beliefs, suggesting either none or opportunism. My gut tells me the answer lies someplace in the middle. He has real clear social conservative inclinations, a huge plus, but the expression of those may be less promising.

I don’t question his sympathies, I question his ability to resist trying to be too bone throwing at the premises of the other side. I question his ability to stand against the voices of the Establishment which will ask him to moderate SCOTUS picks to avoid spending political capital on a confirmation fight because it might lead to midterm losses. I question his resistance, because in the past he’s shown a proclivity toward trying to curry GOPe favor. He is too much of a team player in times that reject that.

If we lose on this issue, we will eventually lose on GUN CONTROL because once Democrats win enough sure, recurring votes, they will use any threshold in the senate reaching near 60 votes with a liberal president to pass that in draconian terms. They will stack the Supreme Court. Then, it won’t matter who wins for generations as the society will be altered using the judiciary to enact liberal policy preferences on every social issue imaginable. Democrats will not wait for laws or actual consensus, they are now going for the kill by design and seek to use their power to silence free speech/dissent for anyone disagreeing with them.

If we lose this issue, and new Democrat voters are minted, we will face “hate crimes” bills criminalizing speech where somebody opposing as an opinion same sex marriage or pro-life views will be treated as a domestic enemy by law.

Comparing Cruz to Rubio I am reminded by many of the reasons I will only back Marco in the Fall if he’s the only option left…