It’s starting to feel a lot like 1984. Not the year, but the novel. Big Brother is watching just about everyone and everything, and the language of politics is being twisted and distorted beyond anything even Orwell could have imagined.
Orwell’s glimpse of the dystopian future, in which the leaders of society engage in doublespeak, turning truth on its head every time they open their mouths, is upon us. In fact, at this very moment it is on the floor of the United States Senate, where a bill to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is being sold as the antidote to amnesty for illegal aliens.
Neither party has a monopoly on political doublespeak. But, as the debate over the Gang of Eight immigration bill, S.744, heats up, pro-amnesty Republicans seem to be raising it to an art form.
Unlike the majority of their colleagues from across the aisle, most Republican members of Congress ran for office disavowing the idea of granting amnesty to illegal aliens. That would include Gang of Eight member Marco Rubio (R-FL), who, as a candidate for the Senate in 2010, argued that “earned path to citizenship” is “basically a code for amnesty.”
The bill Sen. Rubio authored is precisely that, however — unless one buys into the idea that citizenship can be “earned” by simply continuing to breathe for the next 13 years without being convicted of a serious felony. Miraculously, after just two and a half years in Washington, Sen. Rubio’s notion of what constitutes amnesty has completely changed.
In paid ads, and in just about every TV or radio interview, Rubio can be heard to utter the words, “Our current immigration system is a disaster. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” In other words, by not granting amnesty to illegal aliens, we are granting them amnesty, according to the convoluted logic of Florida’s Republican senator.
But Rubio is not the only practitioner of Orwellian amnesty doublespeak in the Republican ranks. A small sampling of what some other prominent Republicans have had to say on the topic recently bears that out:
- “[T]he status quo isn’t working — it’s de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
- “Millions here illegally have de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
- “I’ve got a news flash for those who want to call people names on amnesty. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
- “What we have right now is de facto amnesty — meaning there are currently 11 million immigrants living undocumented and without legal status in the United States.” ~ Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
A cynic might even get the idea that somewhere on Capitol Hill there is a Republican talking points memo on amnesty floating around — or at least a de facto memo.
In reality, what we have right now is not de facto amnesty. What we have right now is an administration that is refusing to enforce our immigration laws and openly defying Congress’s constitutional authority over our immigration policies. What we also have is a Congress in which many members of both parties seem unwilling or unable to defend the interests of the American people or hold a rogue administration accountable.
However, rather than reining in the Obama administration’s excesses, Rubio and some other prominent Republicans have decided to ratify the president’s abuse of discretionary authority by supporting a bill that not only grants de jure amnesty to illegal aliens, but gives his administration even greater discretion to ignore immigration laws in the future.
Political doublespeak may alter some people’s perception of reality, but it cannot change reality itself. The reality is that the Gang of Eight bill would bestow immediate amnesty on some 12 million illegal aliens, and citizenship within 13 years. American taxpayers would spend trillions of dollars on social benefits for this largely low-income population. And the American labor market would be flooded with tens of millions of new permanent and temporary workers over the coming decade.
Rubio is correct about one thing: Our current immigration system is a disaster. Despite the doublespeak emanating from the Republican camp, the Gang of Eight bill is a massive illegal alien amnesty that would only make things worse.
Ira Mehlman is the media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
How Marco Rubio Evolved on Immigration Reform
From NationalJournal
(Chet Susslin)
Arizona Sen. John McCain partnered with liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy in 2005 to offer illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, then allied with border security hardliners during a tough 2010 Republican primary. "Complete the danged fence," McCain cracked in a widely publicized television spot.
Less well known is the equally dramatic pivot by Marco Rubio, from 2010 candidate who dismissed McCain’s proposal as “amnesty,” to U.S. senator who on Monday championed reforms McCain said had “very little difference” from his previous plan, which became the blueprint for failed legislation in 2006 and 2007.
During a March 28, 2010 Fox News debate against then-Gov. Charlie Crist, Rubio said: “He would have voted for the McCain plan. I think that plan is wrong, and the reason I think it’s wrong is that if you grant amnesty, as the governor proposes that we do, in any form, whether it's back of the line or so forth, you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.”
In a CNN debate on Oct 24, 2010, moderator Candy Crowley asked, “So your plan is that you're going to close the borders, get the electronic system, fix the legal system, and then do what?" Rubio responded: “And then you'll have a legal immigration system that works. And you'll have people in this country that are without documents that will be able to return to the -- will be able to leave this country, return to their homeland, and try to re-enter through our system that now functions, a system that makes sense…Earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.”
The legislation Rubio backed Monday requires illegal immigrants to pass a criminal background check, hold down a job, pay fines and back taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line – just like previous proposals. “It is not going to be an easy process, but it's certainly going to be a fair one and a humane one and one that speaks to our nation's legacy, both as a nation of laws, but also as a nation of immigrants,” Rubio said at the Capitol Hill press conference. As details of the new legislation are still emerging, it’s unclear what Rubio sees as the differences between it and past proposals.
What is apparent is that the turnaround by the potential presidential contender reflects a changing political calculus. Rubio went from longshot to rock star in the tea party-dominated 2010 campaign in part by running to the right of the moderate governor. Now, after two years of burnishing his conservative record in the Senate, immigration reform offers one of the nation’s most prominent Hispanic Republicans an opportunity to show leadership and substance as he positions himself for a possible White House bid.
“He took a right turn on immigration but he’s slowly coming back to where I think he’s naturally oriented,” said Marshall Fitz, direction of immigration policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. “He understands he has to be a player on this issue.”
As Rubio's star power and skills at framing the immigration debate begin to lure conservatives to the table, the potential for a breakthrough in Washington is already overshadowing his previous policy shifts.
As a state lawmaker in 2003 and 2004, he co-sponsored bills to give college tuition breaks to illegal immigrants. As Florida House Speaker in 2008, half a dozen bills that aimed to crack down on illegal immigrants fizzled on his watch.
But during the 2010 campaign, Rubio toed the anti-amnesty line demanded by the conservative base of his party. He even argued the U.S. census should count “only legal citizens” because including illegal immigrants would “actually incentivize politicians to perpetuate our broken immigration system by rewarding states with large illegal immigrant populations with a louder voice in Washington.” The statement drew rebukes from fellow Republicans and led Rubio to clarify that only legal residents should be counted.
In Oct. 2011, when Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s advocacy for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in his own state had, in part, cost him the lead in the Republican primary, Rubio retreated from his previous support for such tuition breaks. “As a general rule, people in the United States who are here without documentation should not benefit from programs like in-state tuition,’’ Rubio said at the time.
Rubio’s approach changed again a few months later when he began touting legal status for illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military, and he criticized members of his own party for using “harsh and intolerable” rhetoric. “He put his neck out there,” said Jennifer Korn, executive director of the center-right Hispanic Leadership Network. “In watching him and seeing how he operates, I think he does things because he believes in them, not because they are politically expedient.”
But at the same time he was promoting an alternative to the DREAM Act, Rubio filed a bill that would make it harder for undocumented workers to claim a child tax credit.
“Frankly it was perplexing,” Fitz said. “I don’t know if it was an effort to inoculate him from attacks on the right, but it didn’t make any sense to take food off the table from U.S. citizen kids in the name of trying to make life harder for their undocumented parents.”
Rubio never produced DREAM Act legislation, and his level of engagement wasn’t completely clear until two weeks ago, when he outlined his principles in an interview with The Wall Street Journal: tighter border security, temporary work visas for low-skilled workers, more visas for high-skilled workers and an arduous way for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. That’s roughly the same McCain plan Rubio once said he opposed. Yet immigration advocates who have criticized Rubio's policy shifts in the past are holding back as his presence gives new momentum to their longtime goals.
"Politicians do change their positions, for better or worse," said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. "It happened with John McCain, who moved to the right in an election and is now back in the mix, and it's happened with Rubio. People take their journey -- what I am more concerned about is their destination."
No comments:
Post a Comment