Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

Rubio is now willing to occasionally admit that his Gang of Eight immigration plan provides for amnesty first and border security and internal enforcement either later or never.   Meanwhile, a Rubio advisor has been caught arguing for a larger low-skill guest worker program despite double digit unemployment among the least-skilled American citizens and current residents because low-skill Americans “can’t cut it.”   It is good to see that the guy who wrote Romney’s 47% comment has found a new job. Rubio is also hinting that he might vote against the monstrosity that he has helped produce.

I can’t feel sorry for Rubio. He was caught working on behalf of the employer-interests trying to adjust Chuck Schumer’s immigration bill in order to make it even more damaging to the economic prospects of low-skill workers. On top of that, Rubio is trying to maintain his own viability as 2016 presidential candidate.

Rubio shouldn’t be the focus anymore. He has made the choice to be Chuck Schumer’s shill. Rubio is for amnesty without enforcement. He is for a guest worker program that will hurt the lowest-skill Americans and current residents. His function in the immigration debate is to fool right-leaning voters into believing the bill isn’t so bad. So don’t be fooled.

My concern is with those Republicans who are planning to run against Rubio in 2016.  Are they going to hit Rubio for supporting an amnesty-first/enforcement-maybe-never immigration plan? If so, now is the time to hit Rubio. The only chance to stop this bill is if center-right public opinion is sufficiently mobilized that enough House Republicans vote against the Gang of Eight plan despite pressure from the employer lobbies. Republican leaders should expect no credit for waiting until after the Gang of Eight plan is passed before they come out strongly against it. For 2016 Republican primary voters, the questions should be:

What were you saying when the Gang of Eight plan was being debated and how loud were you saying it?  Where were you when we needed you?

More on: Politics

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles