Quote:Do you think that the republican base will overlook his amnesty ordeal if it looks like Rubio is the best option at keeping Hillary or Bernie out of office?
I think that many perceive his "amnesty ordeal" wrong. He has talked about it and explained it, though not in as much detail as in his book. He was part of a bi-partisan bill that got rejected. The reason is because it was way too broad and didn't get down to specifics. The process should be as follows according to him, and I agree with him.
1. Shut down the border and ensure that it's secure. This includes everything from building a barrier (fence or wall) to using technology and man power.
2. Next, update the current broken system regarding those that entered the country legally and have over-stayed their visa (this is actually a real problem). We need a way to track these people and an e-verify process should be a requirement.
3. At the same time, we must deal with others that entered the country illegally, and this is where he gets accused of "amnesty". It would require that those that are here to work come forward and register. They would have to undergo a background check, and if they pass then they can go to the next step. In exchange they would be granted a work visa, be charged a fine, would not be eligible for any federal benefits or to vote and they would have to start paying taxes. They could work here as long as they don't violate any laws, and would have this status for a period of time. After that period of time (I want to say that it was 10 years, but I might be mistaken on that) they would be placed at the
back of the line with regards to those trying to gain citizenship legally. This seems to me to be a reasonable alternative to the un-realistic "round them all up and send them back" mantra that some advocate.
4. Enforce existing immigration law, especially in cases where illegals are involved in criminal activity. Do a google search on MS13 as an example. These are the ones that should be "rounded up and sent back". Also, (and this is my own opinion) cut off any and all federal funding to the so-called "sanctuary cities".
To answer your question, I would think that most of the republican base would agree that this is a sensible approach to the problem. There are the fringe voters that think this is "amnesty" and do believe in the "round them all up and send them back" mantra, but that's not realistic.
Quote:I think that many perceive his "amnesty ordeal" wrong. He has talked about it and explained it, though not in as much detail as in his book. He was part of a bi-partisan bill that got rejected. The reason is because it was way too broad and didn't get down to specifics. The process should be as follows according to him, and I agree with him.
1. Shut down the border and ensure that it's secure. This includes everything from building a barrier (fence or wall) to using technology and man power.
2. Next, update the current broken system regarding those that entered the country legally and have over-stayed their visa (this is actually a real problem). We need a way to track these people and an e-verify process should be a requirement.
3. At the same time, we must deal with others that entered the country illegally, and this is where he gets accused of "amnesty". It would require that those that are here to work come forward and register. They would have to undergo a background check, and if they pass then they can go to the next step. In exchange they would be granted a work visa, be charged a fine, would not be eligible for any federal benefits or to vote and they would have to start paying taxes. They could work here as long as they don't violate any laws, and would have this status for a period of time. After that period of time (I want to say that it was 10 years, but I might be mistaken on that) they would be placed at the back of the line with regards to those trying to gain citizenship legally. This seems to me to be a reasonable alternative to the un-realistic "round them all up and send them back" mantra that some advocate.
4. Enforce existing immigration law, especially in cases where illegals are involved in criminal activity. Do a google search on MS13 as an example. These are the ones that should be "rounded up and sent back". Also, (and this is my own opinion) cut off any and all federal funding to the so-called "sanctuary cities".
To answer your question, I would think that most of the republican base would agree that this is a sensible approach to the problem. There are the fringe voters that think this is "amnesty" and do believe in the "round them all up and send them back" mantra, but that's not realistic.
I still believe that a border fence is a ridiculous boondoggle and the money should go elsewhere, but otherwise I think Rubio has the best immigration platform out there.
Quote:I still believe that a border fence is a ridiculous boondoggle and the money should go elsewhere, but otherwise I think Rubio has the best immigration platform out there.
A proper border fence should be put up where practical. What is there now is pretty much a joke.
Quote:A proper border fence should be put up where practical. What is there now is pretty much a joke.
A border fence is a waste of time and money. It's easy to defeat. Beefing up e-Verify and putting a digital "fence" in place that removes access to housing, education, government benefits and employment for illegal immigrants is a much better system for stopping the flow across the border than any fence which can be easily climbed over, tunneled under or cut through would be.
Quote:A border fence is a waste of time and money. It's easy to defeat. Beefing up e-Verify and putting a digital "fence" in place that removes access to housing, education, government benefits and employment for illegal immigrants is a much better system for stopping the flow across the border than any fence which can be easily climbed over, tunneled under or cut through would be.
This x1000 to end illegal immigration we have to deal with the magnets bringing them.
Quote:Why not do both?
Because a border fence is a waste of time and money, and a digital wall is not.