UH OH! He's backin up! Sen. Marco Rubio seeks middle ground on immigration as Hispanic voice for GOP

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2012 1:44 AM GMT
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/sen-marco-rubio-seeks-middle-ground-on-immigration-as-hispanic-voice-for/1223860

    WASHINGTON — Two years after embracing hard-line immigration positions during his rapid political climb, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is on a difficult quest for middle ground.

    He emerged on the issue late last year with calls for less heated rhetoric and is now working on an alternative to the Dream Act.


    I'm laughing!
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Apr 09, 2012 2:29 AM GMT
    If he's setting up himself to be in the middle regarding illegal immigration, he's going to find himself as a target in the next primary election.

    The casual voter generally doesn't vote in the primary race, unless it's a major battle. Otherwise, you're dealing with voters who are a bit more selective in who they want to see in the general election. By proposing DREAM-lite, Rubio may have already sealed his fate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 6:14 PM GMT
    Rubio has revealed himself to be a craven flip-flopper - just like Mitt Romneycare!

    Rubio is hoping to be Mitt's vp pick - and to make himself more palatable as an hispanic running mate who could supposedly get some Latinos to vote for Romney - Rubio is trying to soften his bitterly anti-Latino immigration stance.
    Of course Latino voters won't be tricked by such an obvious flip-flop.

    Clearly a Romney/Rubio ticket would be a 100% FLIP-FLOPPER ticket!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 6:22 PM GMT
    RickRick91 saidRubio has revealed himself to be a craven flip-flopper - just like Mitt Romneycare!

    Rubio is hoping to be Mitt's vp pick - and to make himself more palatable as an hispanic running mate who could supposedly get some Latinos to vote for Romney - Rubio is trying to soften his bitterly anti-Latino immigration stance.
    Of course Latino voters won't be tricked by such an obvious flip-flop.

    Clearly a Romney/Rubio ticket would be a 100% FLIP-FLOPPER ticket!


    I'm quite sure that Romney would very much like him to be on the ticket, but after saying that he won't do it umpteen million times, I start believing him. However, he’s only been in the senate for a little over a year so he’s no ways near ripe yet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 6:39 PM GMT
    There's no such thing as an "anti-latino immigration" stance. The most MORONIC invention ever. You are either standing for fairness to individuals (not a group or nationality or ethnicity) who go through the hoops to become a legal citizens or you are in favor of giving an unfair advantage to those who do not go through the proper avenues for citizenship over those who do go through the lawful process. There is no "race" or "group" or "creed" attached with this activity regardless of demographics. Being anti-crime does not make one anti a particular group but rather anti whoever partakes in that activity.

    Anyone who tries to twist it into something else for political advantage is a dishonest piece of shit.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 7:22 PM GMT
    There's a huge problem with this 'shipem out' talk in that it was our local, state and federal government with the help of the Republicans who facilitated the illegals presence in our country for decades for the sake of the wealthy who liked the low wage help for profits. Their tacit and legislative approval even going so far as to build Centers where immigrant / day workers could meet potential employers in metro areas all across the nation.

    This 'official' acquiescense to immigration rule breaking for decades led to children growing up here and being educated all the way through college and since the government was complicit, it is anything but fair from that same government to suddenly bring down the 'follow the rules' hammer and 'shipem out'. It is not these peoples fault that some followed the rules and others didn't and got by with it, it is the governments fault and mostly the rich who benefited.

    Funny thing is that is was the republican 'lord and saviour' Ronald Reagan who first offered 'and saw through legislation known as the first an 'amnesty' offering for immigrants. Little changed in how the rules were inforced so now we find ourselves right back in the same situation as when Reagan offered 'amnesty' as a reasonable way to resolve the problem.

    But now its become another point to hammer the dems over the head with, much like the Insurance 'mandate' issue. Both were Republican Ideas until it became handier to forget that fact and turn it around as something to fight dems over.

    How will we appear to the rest of the world if we deport families and their grown children whom we facilitated being here for up to in some cases 40 years ? Seems to me we'll have to be more reasonable in fixing the current problem we made for ourselves, then start from square one, follow the rules and not let the inconsistencies take place again for fairness sake in the future..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 8:19 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who tries to twist it into something else for political advantage is a dishonest piece of shit.

    Anyone who claims that the whole immigration thing would still be an issue if the illegal immigrants were coming from Germany, England or Scandinavia is a dishonest piece of shit.


    LMAO, how you manage to come up with fanciful ideas like this is beyond me. Problem is, it's not just insulting to anyone with an ounce of intelligence but it's hugely insulting to the thousands of non-white American citizens (which you discount because of your subconscious air of white superiority carefully disguised in a heap of seeming white guilt) who believe in an orderly immigration process and who stand against illegal immigration based on principle.

    The only reason why there is an actual widespread issue with illegal immigration is because of the EXPENSE and COST to the taxpayers. Very few people actually care about WHERE the immigrants are coming from. So contrary to your absurd comment, yes, ABSOLUTELY there would be an issue currently if Germany and the UK and Scandinavia were the source of an identical problem including hundreds of thousands of mothers using anchor babies as a way to stay in the country, thereby incurring huge costs on the taxpayers.

    The reason immigration in the past didn't matter so much was because there were no safety nets which had to be funded by taxpayers. People came to America understanding the risks of failure as well as their hopes to score big. Now, it's a whole different ballgame. Every empire and country or nation in the past formed an identity at some point in time, and now that we have an established nation we must worry about national sustainability.

    North America went from being a grand casino of the world where people came to try out their luck knowing they could win or lose in the game of life to all of a sudden a casino that insists no one should be a loser -- subsequently forcing the few winners to divvy up their earnings with all the losers. Talk about an exciting casino!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 9:07 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who tries to twist it into something else for political advantage is a dishonest piece of shit.

    Anyone who claims that the whole immigration thing would still be an issue if the illegal immigrants were coming from Germany, England or Scandinavia is a dishonest piece of shit.


    LMAO, how you manage to come up with fanciful ideas like this is beyond me. Problem is, it's not just insulting to anyone with an ounce of intelligence but it's hugely insulting to the thousands of non-white American citizens (which you discount because of your subconscious air of white superiority carefully disguised in a heap of seeming white guilt) who believe in an orderly immigration process and who stand against illegal immigration based on principle.

    The only reason why there is an actual widespread issue with illegal immigration is because of the EXPENSE and COST to the taxpayers. Very few people actually care about WHERE the immigrants are coming from. So contrary to your absurd comment, yes, ABSOLUTELY there would be an issue currently if Germany and the UK and Scandinavia were the source of an identical problem including hundreds of thousands of mothers using anchor babies as a way to stay in the country, thereby incurring huge costs on the taxpayers.

    The reason immigration in the past didn't matter so much was because there were no safety nets which had to be funded by taxpayers. People came to America understanding the risks of failure as well as their hopes to score big. Now, it's a whole different ballgame. Every empire and country or nation in the past formed an identity at some point in time, and now that we have an established nation we must worry about national sustainability.

    North America went from being a grand casino of the world where people came to try out their luck knowing they could win or lose in the game of life to all of a sudden a casino that insists no one should be a loser -- subsequently forcing the few winners to divvy up their earnings with all the losers. Talk about an exciting casino!

    I'd call this the silliest thing you've ever written----and there is some competition for that dubious honor, trust me!---but what keeps this from being just more of your inanity is that you manage to insult me several times en route to your delusional conclusions.

    For the record, I have no "white guilt". Unlike you, my people got here much too late to participate in oppressing either blacks or Indians, so no worries there. You really don't know what you're talking about, but then, you never do.


    Who is "my people" ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 9:58 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidThere's no such thing as an "anti-latino immigration" stance. The most MORONIC invention ever. You are either standing for fairness to individuals (not a group or nationality or ethnicity) who go through the hoops to become a legal citizens or you are in favor of giving an unfair advantage to those who do not go through the proper avenues for citizenship over those who do go through the lawful process. There is no "race" or "group" or "creed" attached with this activity regardless of demographics. Being anti-crime does not make one anti a particular group but rather anti whoever partakes in that activity.

    Anyone who tries to twist it into something else for political advantage is a dishonest piece of shit.

    Uh I have news for you tike... You're wrong. very wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 5:23 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie saidThere's no such thing as an "anti-latino immigration" stance. The most MORONIC invention ever. You are either standing for fairness to individuals (not a group or nationality or ethnicity) who go through the hoops to become a legal citizens or you are in favor of giving an unfair advantage to those who do not go through the proper avenues for citizenship over those who do go through the lawful process. There is no "race" or "group" or "creed" attached with this activity regardless of demographics. Being anti-crime does not make one anti a particular group but rather anti whoever partakes in that activity.

    Anyone who tries to twist it into something else for political advantage is a dishonest piece of shit.

    Uh I have news for you tike... You're wrong. very wrong.





    Mock lives in a bubble of right-wing happy talk bullshit.

    It will be years before Mock and his fellow Repubs realize that they've totally screwed themselves with their ANTI-LATINO IMMIGRATION STANCE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 5:49 AM GMT
    The only principled position is that people shouldn't be treated like criminals for simply crossing a border.

    The "solution" to "illegal immigration" is legalizing immigration.

    A closed border patrolled by armed guards with a fence or wall (as proposed by the crazy right-wing) is something only totalitarian countries do.

    A truly free nation would keep its borders open, and welcome those who would seek residency and citizenship. A free world would allow everyone the freedom to seek residency and citizenship in the country they choose, without the bureaucratic hassle of being treated as some kind of enemy trying to bring down the country.

    Xenophobia, is historically, and presently, the only reason that immigration has ever been politicized. The issue attracts mostly those who want to keep "those people" out of America. Many conservatives don't even try to hide their racism when discussing the issue. They're often the first ones to racialize the issue, by talking about Mexicans and Hispanics in their usual derogatory way. Most conservatives are bigots, if most of them are proud to hate gays, is it that surprising their motives for opposing immigration would be similarly prejudiced?

    Back when the immigrant rights activists held those marches, The Great American Boycott, a lot of people alleged that there were just Mexican flags they were waving. the truth was, most of those demonstrations had American flags. and LOTS of them. It looked very patriotic. This is very contrary to the idea that Mexicans desire a "Reconquista" of the Southwest. These people seemed very proud of being part of America. So much for the right-wing lies.

    This is from one of the pro-immigrant rights' demonstrations. Look at all those American flags.
    Protest-Crowd-from-Above-eecue_28760_6gx
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 6:06 AM GMT
    MOTD saidThe only principled position is that people shouldn't be treated like criminals for simply crossing a border.

    The "solution" to "illegal immigration" is legalizing immigration.

    A closed border patrolled by armed guards with a fence or wall (as proposed by the crazy right-wing) is something only totalitarian countries do.

    A truly free nation would keep its borders open, and welcome those who would seek residency and citizenship. A free world would allow everyone the freedom to seek residency and citizenship in the country they choose, without the bureaucratic hassle of being treated as some kind of enemy trying to bring down the country.

    Xenophobia, is historically, and presently, the only reason that immigration has ever been politicized. The issue attracts mostly those who want to keep "those people" out of America. Many conservatives don't even try to hide their racism when discussing the issue. They're often the first ones to racialize the issue, by talking about Mexicans and Hispanics in their usual derogatory way. Most conservatives are bigots, if most of them are proud to hate gays, is it that surprising their motives for opposing immigration would be similarly prejudiced?

    Back when the immigrant rights activists held those marches, The Great American Boycott, a lot of people alleged that there were just Mexican flags they were waving. the truth was, most of those demonstrations had American flags. and LOTS of them. It looked very patriotic. This is very contrary to the idea that Mexicans desire a "Reconquista" of the Southwest. These people seemed very proud of being part of America. So much for the right-wing lies.

    This is from one of the pro-immigrant rights' demonstrations. Look at all those American flags.
    Protest-Crowd-from-Above-eecue_28760_6gx






    The Repub party's bigotry has been a formative factor in the development of the Repub party's policies from the early days of the Southern Strategy in the sixties til today.

    Anti-black bias has impacted the Repub party's policies on welfare and social safety net policies and education policies.
    Anti-gay bias has impacted the Repub party's drive to deny gay Americans equal rights.
    Anti-Latino bias has impacted the extreme immigration laws advocated by the Repubs.
    And anti-women bias has impacted the Repub party's opposition to equal pay for women and full reproductive rights for women.

    The Repub party is a party OF white straight men FOR white straight men.

    Thats why they've adopted policies that are biased against folks who aren't white straight men.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 1:13 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who tries to twist it into something else for political advantage is a dishonest piece of shit.

    Anyone who claims that the whole immigration thing would still be an issue if the illegal immigrants were coming from Germany, England or Scandinavia is a dishonest piece of shit.


    LMAO, how you manage to come up with fanciful ideas like this is beyond me. Problem is, it's not just insulting to anyone with an ounce of intelligence but it's hugely insulting to the thousands of non-white American citizens (which you discount because of your subconscious air of white superiority carefully disguised in a heap of seeming white guilt) who believe in an orderly immigration process and who stand against illegal immigration based on principle.

    The only reason why there is an actual widespread issue with illegal immigration is because of the EXPENSE and COST to the taxpayers. Very few people actually care about WHERE the immigrants are coming from. So contrary to your absurd comment, yes, ABSOLUTELY there would be an issue currently if Germany and the UK and Scandinavia were the source of an identical problem including hundreds of thousands of mothers using anchor babies as a way to stay in the country, thereby incurring huge costs on the taxpayers.

    The reason immigration in the past didn't matter so much was because there were no safety nets which had to be funded by taxpayers. People came to America understanding the risks of failure as well as their hopes to score big. Now, it's a whole different ballgame. Every empire and country or nation in the past formed an identity at some point in time, and now that we have an established nation we must worry about national sustainability.

    North America went from being a grand casino of the world where people came to try out their luck knowing they could win or lose in the game of life to all of a sudden a casino that insists no one should be a loser -- subsequently forcing the few winners to divvy up their earnings with all the losers. Talk about an exciting casino!

    I'd call this the silliest thing you've ever written----and there is some competition for that dubious honor, trust me!---but what keeps this from being just more of your inanity is that you manage to insult me several times en route to your delusional conclusions.

    For the record, I have no "white guilt". Unlike you, my people got here much too late to participate in oppressing either blacks or Indians, so no worries there. You really don't know what you're talking about, but then, you never do.


    I'd be curious what you would say to most Indian-Americans, as an example, who might favor the legal immigration process? I'm sure I can guess that the vast majority of Indians who come here would not be in favor of illegal immigration. Have you ever heard of a widespread outrage about Indian Americans immigrating here because they are non-white?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 1:27 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who tries to twist it into something else for political advantage is a dishonest piece of shit.

    Anyone who claims that the whole immigration thing would still be an issue if the illegal immigrants were coming from Germany, England or Scandinavia is a dishonest piece of shit.


    LMAO, how you manage to come up with fanciful ideas like this is beyond me. Problem is, it's not just insulting to anyone with an ounce of intelligence but it's hugely insulting to the thousands of non-white American citizens (which you discount because of your subconscious air of white superiority carefully disguised in a heap of seeming white guilt) who believe in an orderly immigration process and who stand against illegal immigration based on principle.

    The only reason why there is an actual widespread issue with illegal immigration is because of the EXPENSE and COST to the taxpayers. Very few people actually care about WHERE the immigrants are coming from. So contrary to your absurd comment, yes, ABSOLUTELY there would be an issue currently if Germany and the UK and Scandinavia were the source of an identical problem including hundreds of thousands of mothers using anchor babies as a way to stay in the country, thereby incurring huge costs on the taxpayers.

    The reason immigration in the past didn't matter so much was because there were no safety nets which had to be funded by taxpayers. People came to America understanding the risks of failure as well as their hopes to score big. Now, it's a whole different ballgame. Every empire and country or nation in the past formed an identity at some point in time, and now that we have an established nation we must worry about national sustainability.

    North America went from being a grand casino of the world where people came to try out their luck knowing they could win or lose in the game of life to all of a sudden a casino that insists no one should be a loser -- subsequently forcing the few winners to divvy up their earnings with all the losers. Talk about an exciting casino!

    I'd call this the silliest thing you've ever written----and there is some competition for that dubious honor, trust me!---but what keeps this from being just more of your inanity is that you manage to insult me several times en route to your delusional conclusions.

    For the record, I have no "white guilt". Unlike you, my people got here much too late to participate in oppressing either blacks or Indians, so no worries there. You really don't know what you're talking about, but then, you never do.


    I'd be curious what you would say to most Indian-Americans, as an example, who might favor the legal immigration process? I'm sure I can guess that the vast majority of Indians who come here would not be in favor of illegal immigration. Have you ever heard of a widespread outrage about Indian Americans immigrating here because they are non-white?
    Have you ever heard right wingers and others call those Indian immigrants "fucking rag heads"? If not you need to get out of your tea partys with the ladies more often and actually get closer (yeah I know, its beneath you but try) to those scummy straight redneck uneducated bluecollar folks you loathe so much. BTW, they vote republican too.icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 1:34 PM GMT
    MOTD saidThe only principled position is that people shouldn't be treated like criminals for simply crossing a border.

    The "solution" to "illegal immigration" is legalizing immigration.

    A closed border patrolled by armed guards with a fence or wall (as proposed by the crazy right-wing) is something only totalitarian countries do.

    A truly free nation would keep its borders open, and welcome those who would seek residency and citizenship. A free world would allow everyone the freedom to seek residency and citizenship in the country they choose, without the bureaucratic hassle of being treated as some kind of enemy trying to bring down the country.

    Xenophobia, is historically, and presently, the only reason that immigration has ever been politicized. The issue attracts mostly those who want to keep "those people" out of America. Many conservatives don't even try to hide their racism when discussing the issue. They're often the first ones to racialize the issue, by talking about Mexicans and Hispanics in their usual derogatory way. Most conservatives are bigots, if most of them are proud to hate gays, is it that surprising their motives for opposing immigration would be similarly prejudiced?

    Back when the immigrant rights activists held those marches, The Great American Boycott, a lot of people alleged that there were just Mexican flags they were waving. the truth was, most of those demonstrations had American flags. and LOTS of them. It looked very patriotic. This is very contrary to the idea that Mexicans desire a "Reconquista" of the Southwest. These people seemed very proud of being part of America. So much for the right-wing lies.

    This is from one of the pro-immigrant rights' demonstrations. Look at all those American flags.
    Protest-Crowd-from-Above-eecue_28760_6gx


    You should feel really dumb after I point this out to you, but not one politician, conservative or liberal, supports the idea that we should have open borders. Why? Because the answer is one that someone your age should already know: safety nets and welfare would have to be eliminated in our society for that to work (ANY society or nation of the world). A "nation" does not exist without borders. They are mutually exclusive concepts. If you have open borders welfare must be eliminated, or vice versa. I would imagine you don't want to leave our citizens hanging without a safety net? Not even I'm that extreme.

    Interestingly enough, as a libertarian I like the idea of open borders, but since it's unrealistic, I believe in a secure and orderly immigration process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 1:38 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    You should feel really dumb after I point this out to you, but not one politician, conservative or liberal, supports the idea that we should have open borders. Why? Because the answer is one that someone your age should already know: safety nets and welfare would have to be eliminated in our society for that to work (ANY society or nation of the world). A "nation" does not exist without borders. They are mutually exclusive concepts. If you have open borders welfare must be eliminated, or vice versa. I would imagine you don't want to leave our citizens hanging without a safety net? Not even I'm that extreme.

    Interestingly enough, as a libertarian I like the idea of open borders, but since it's unrealistic, I believe in a secure and orderly immigration process.
    What an utter crock of bull......... OMG.. the hypocrisy in this quote is mind boggling.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 1:40 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said

    You should feel really dumb after I point this out to you, but not one politician, conservative or liberal, supports the idea that we should have open borders. Why? Because the answer is one that someone your age should already know: safety nets and welfare would have to be eliminated in our society for that to work (ANY society or nation of the world). A "nation" does not exist without borders. They are mutually exclusive concepts. If you have open borders welfare must be eliminated, or vice versa. I would imagine you don't want to leave our citizens hanging without a safety net? Not even I'm that extreme.

    Interestingly enough, as a libertarian I like the idea of open borders, but since it's unrealistic, I believe in a secure and orderly immigration process.
    What an utter crock of bull......... OMG.. the hypocrisy in this quote is mind boggling.icon_rolleyes.gif


    Logic is often mind-boggling to those who don't possess it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2012 5:36 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said

    You should feel really dumb after I point this out to you, but not one politician, conservative or liberal, supports the idea that we should have open borders. Why? Because the answer is one that someone your age should already know: safety nets and welfare would have to be eliminated in our society for that to work (ANY society or nation of the world). A "nation" does not exist without borders. They are mutually exclusive concepts. If you have open borders welfare must be eliminated, or vice versa. I would imagine you don't want to leave our citizens hanging without a safety net? Not even I'm that extreme.

    Interestingly enough, as a libertarian I like the idea of open borders, but since it's unrealistic, I believe in a secure and orderly immigration process.
    What an utter crock of bull......... OMG.. the hypocrisy in this quote is mind boggling.icon_rolleyes.gif


    Logic is often mind-boggling to those who don't possess it.
    I know that.. you are a prime example! Its so obvious even a cave twinkie could see it.