The Obama-Rubio immigration plan

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

    Jan 17, 2013 5:24 PM GMT
    Yet another instance of the ongoing political tragi-comedy called "Only good ideas can come from Republicans, while they are bad ideas when endorsed by Obama."

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/rubio-immigration-plan-conservatives-love-looks-lot-obamasThe centerpiece of Rubio's proposal—his plan to handle the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already here—is strikingly similar to the plan Obama described it in 2011. Rubio told the Journal that undocumented immigrants in the US would need clean records, and that they would have to "pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They would have to prove they've been here for an extended period of time. They understand some English and are assimilated. Then most of them would get legal status and be allowed to stay in this country." Eventually, the Journal says, Rubio's proposal would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship.

    All of Rubio's immigration reform criteria—fines, back taxes, proof of residence, background checks, and learning English—are part of Obama's plan. The Journal describes Rubio as "charging up the middle" on immigration, even as the Florida Republican rides next to the president. And Rubio's big idea isn't much different in substance from what immigration reform advocates want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 9:11 PM GMT
    If he has any leadership, he should embrace Obama's 2011 (not 2012, mind you) plan and reintroduce the DREAM act or a variant thereof. He STILL hasn't offered anything in writing, mind you.

    OPRubio hasn't actually offered a written proposal, however. He spent last spring talking about putting together an alternative to the DREAM Act, the bill that would have granted citizenship to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US by their parents and were eligible to go to college or serve in the US military. Rubio wanted to offer those immigrants legal status, but not citizenship. Two months later, Rubio didn't have a bill, and his position on this slice of immigration reform became moot when the Obama administration issued a Department of Homeland Security directive sparing DREAM Act-eligible immigrants from deportation.

    Rubio's latest remarks on immigration reform, like his DREAM Act posturing, could be just talk. Rubio might merely be providing conservatives cover on immigration reform by sounding like he's open to compromise. He might just be boosting his own profile. Talking about immigration reform without proposing anything concrete wins Rubio plaudits from conservative thought-leaders without fully alienating the hard-line immigration opponents in his party.


    The White House is giving credit where it's due. Let's hear something similar from Rubio.

    "We are encouraged…that Sen. Rubio's thinking—as reported—so closely reflects the president's blueprint for reform," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday. "We hope that it signals a change in the Republican approach to this issue."

    Who's doing the filibustering, Obama or the GOP, in 2010?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act#2010The DREAM Act, along with a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2011. On September 21, 2010, the Senate filibuster of the bill was maintained in a 56–43 vote; it would have taken 60 votes to stop the filibuster and continue the progress of the bill.[34] The following day, Durbin introduced the bill once again along with Richard Lugar. Only two senators co-sponsored the bill and it was defeated again.[35] Less than a month later, on November 16, President Barack Obama and top Democrats pledged to introduce the Dream Act into the House by November 29.[36] The House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act on December 8, 2010,[37][38] but the bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to end debate on the Senate floor (55-41—Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5281).[39]



    All I'm saying is, if Rubio's ideas are so good, why won't he admit that other people have thought and written about them, even if they are not from the GOP?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 11:33 PM GMT
    It's all rather like Romney/Obama-care isn't it?

    Which, by the way, is working tremendously in Massachusetts! Thanks, Mitt X
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 11:43 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidIt's all rather like Romney/Obama-care isn't it?

    Which, by the way, is working tremendously in Massachusetts! Thanks, Mitt X


    Yep, exactly the same:
    obamacare-romneycare-with-footnotes1.jpg

    Also, Romneycare didn't rein in costs as was intended with a number of other side effects:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81837.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 1:30 AM GMT
    @Tiger
    http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
    History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
    Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

    The fact that many of the major provisions that expand coverage aren't going to take place till 2014 destroys much of the "facts" in that table of yours, Riddler.

    And, yes, it's constitutional, final answer. And no, we don't need Mitt.icon_lol.gif

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

    Jan 18, 2013 2:55 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said@Tiger
    http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
    History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
    Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

    The fact that many of the major provisions that expand coverage aren't going to take place till 2014 destroys much of the "facts" in that table of yours, Riddler.

    And, yes, it's constitutional, final answer. And no, we don't need Mitt.icon_lol.gif


    Yes—the fact that a plan invented by the Heritage Foundation caused so much horror among the GOP still beggars belief!

    It's really too bad...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 4:07 AM GMT
    If the Republicans are truly pragmatists, they will acknowledge credit where it's due and implement policies that their political opponents agree with them on. By treating everything Obama says (even if it's their own policy and/or supported by a majority of the people) as anathema is plain stupid and counterproductive.

    And it's hypocritical for Rubio say the SAME things again (when it was already said before) and present them as something novel and only he had said them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 4:33 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidIf the Republicans are truly pragmatists, they will acknowledge credit where it's due and implement policies that their political opponents agree with them on.


    In other words, everyone should just do what the left wants? If the situation were reversed, would you really believe that? And, why should someone idealogically opposed to the majority just give the majority whatever it wants? Could it be that the right may have some principles that it cares about more than just achieving power?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 5:24 AM GMT
    Au contraire, it's definitely isn't that everyone is doing what the left wants. I'm talking about what Obama does what Republicans have either done or proposed (and praised themselves about), and instantly it's Marxism/Fascism/unconstitutional/you-name-it-bad-word.

    To wit (sorry for the proof by verbosity, but it's all verifiable, and GIYF):

    --giving States flexibility with welfare policy
    http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2012/10/when_barack_obama_supports_the.html

    --appointing people across the aisle
    http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/republicans-have-amnesia-about-obamas-bipartisanship

    --weapon treaties like START
    http://nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2012/6/25/16023/9908

    --cap-n-trade (a GHW Bush idea)
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219753-obama-cap-and-trade-was-a-republican-idea

    --the DREAM act (with Republican sponsors, no less)

    --the various Republican health care ideas (and here's the White House's giving Republicans credit)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas

    --tax cuts in the stimulus (and tax cuts are less effective as a form of stimulus to start with)

    --immigration enforcement is at an all-time high (and yet Obama is "not protecting the borders")

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html?hpid=z2
    ----------------
    The point is, even when Obama is doing what the Republicans wanted, it's not enough, in fact, it's instantly labeled as "left-wing."
    http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/10/obama-the-most-partisan-president-in-u-s-history/And who can blame them? After all, President Obama is the most partisan president the U.S. has ever seen. He has consistently and brazenly chosen Republican policies (foreign and economic) over those of Democrats.

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Jan 18, 2013 6:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidIf he has any leadership, he should embrace Obama's 2011 (not 2012, mind you) plan and reintroduce the DREAM act or a variant thereof. He STILL hasn't offered anything in writing, mind you.

    OPRubio hasn't actually offered a written proposal, however. He spent last spring talking about putting together an alternative to the DREAM Act, the bill that would have granted citizenship to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US by their parents and were eligible to go to college or serve in the US military. Rubio wanted to offer those immigrants legal status, but not citizenship. Two months later, Rubio didn't have a bill, and his position on this slice of immigration reform became moot when the Obama administration issued a Department of Homeland Security directive sparing DREAM Act-eligible immigrants from deportation.

    Rubio's latest remarks on immigration reform, like his DREAM Act posturing, could be just talk. Rubio might merely be providing conservatives cover on immigration reform by sounding like he's open to compromise. He might just be boosting his own profile. Talking about immigration reform without proposing anything concrete wins Rubio plaudits from conservative thought-leaders without fully alienating the hard-line immigration opponents in his party.


    The White House is giving credit where it's due. Let's hear something similar from Rubio.

    "We are encouraged…that Sen. Rubio's thinking—as reported—so closely reflects the president's blueprint for reform," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday. "We hope that it signals a change in the Republican approach to this issue."

    Who's doing the filibustering, Obama or the GOP, in 2010?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act#2010The DREAM Act, along with a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2011. On September 21, 2010, the Senate filibuster of the bill was maintained in a 56–43 vote; it would have taken 60 votes to stop the filibuster and continue the progress of the bill.[34] The following day, Durbin introduced the bill once again along with Richard Lugar. Only two senators co-sponsored the bill and it was defeated again.[35] Less than a month later, on November 16, President Barack Obama and top Democrats pledged to introduce the Dream Act into the House by November 29.[36] The House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act on December 8, 2010,[37][38] but the bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to end debate on the Senate floor (55-41—Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5281).[39]



    All I'm saying is, if Rubio's ideas are so good, why won't he admit that other people have thought and written about them, even if they are not from the GOP?


    If the goal was to get it passed think about Rubio embracing Obamas plan. It will give it the kiss of death.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 9:21 PM GMT
    Yeah, if only Obama were to stop endorsing such reasonable positions, because people like Rubio would be committing political suicide to endorse them. Sheesh.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/18/is-the-republican-party-obamas-fault/No one knows that better than Republicans themselves. But it’s very difficult to be a Republican in a time of GOP dissolution. And so recent weeks have birthed the strangest strain of commentary I can remember: The Republican Party’s crazy opinions are President Obama’s fault.

    The logic here is weirdly impeccable. The Republican Party’s dilemma is that House Republicans keeps taking all kinds of unreasonable and unpopular positions. If Obama weren’t president, the House Republicans wouldn’t be taking so many unreasonable and unpopular positions. But since Obama is president, and since he does need to work with House Republicans, he is highlighting their unreasonable and unpopular opinions in a bid to make them change their minds, which is making House Republicans look even worse. And so it’s ultimately Obama’s fault that House Republicans are, say, threatening to breach the debt ceiling if they don’t get their way on spending cuts. After all, if Mitt Romney had won the election, the debt ceiling wouldn’t even be a question!
    ...
    There’s an Occam’s Razor problem with all these columns: Perhaps the White House is hewing to the popular, reasonable positions it took in the 2012 campaign because, well, those are its positions. If the Republican Party can’t either agree to them or come up with popular, reasonable positions of its own, the problem here might be located inside the Republican Party rather than at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.


    If you are googling the right wing blogs, there are already a ton of them denouncing Rubio's volte-face. After all, he campaigned on "no amnesty" for his Senate seat.