« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Schumer: Indeed Enforcement is Not a Precondition to Citizenship

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  February 1st, 2013 at 10:38 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

All things equal, when preparing to compromise on a policy issue, it is better for conservatives to first work together to craft a statement of principles, conditions, and red lines before signing onto a plan enthusiastically backed by the left.  That is why it is so disconcerting that the statement of “conservative principles” on the issue of immigration was first crafted with Chuck Schumer.

When speaking with conservative figures in the blogosphere and on talk radio, Senator Marco Rubio has rightfully pointed out that he desired to get Democrats on record as supporting major reforms.  He wrote in these pages earlier this week that conservatives won important concessions from Democrats in that they have agreed to make enforcement a precondition to any legalization.

We’ve already noted that the legal status for illegal immigrants would be granted immediately and unconditionally upon passage of the bill.  Once they obtain that status, it will be very difficult to stop the momentum of citizenship for enforcement benchmarks, which were left very ambiguous in their draft proposal.  However, Chuck Schumer has now ensured the public that there is no room for dispute.  He said the following regarding the preconditions in a press conference on Thursday:

“We’re not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship. We just want to make sure — and this is very important both substantively and politically — that there is a secure border, and we’re going to work for that,” he said during a press conference on Capitol Hill. “[The Gang of Eight] wants to make sure the border is secure, but not to use it as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship.”

There you have it – from the horse’s mouth.  Democrats don’t believe in their minds that they made any concession.  So the entire rationale for a bipartisan gang is out the window.

Now it’s time for Rubio and other conservatives to sit down and have a bicameral conservative working group laying out real principles with uninfringeable red lines and preconditions.  As Charles Krauthammer pointed out yesterday, it is not enough to give lip service to the border and discuss “high-tech” security measures.  We’ve tried them, and they failed.  The only thing that has worked in the past was a plain old border fence that was constructed in the San Diego area in the ‘90s.  A plain, dumb piece of wood and metal is not subject to executive discretion like people and drones will inevitably be once the sinister characters in the bureaucracies choose not to enforce the law.  (Hey, what ever happened to McCain’s election mantra of “build the dang fence already?”)

Aside for additional workplace enforcement and a visa tracking system, here are some other concessions we need to get in order to dry up the magnet of future waves of illegal migration:

  • Anchor Babies:  At present, our legal system operates under the false notion that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship for any child born here from someone who entered illegally.  This has created the allure of anchor babies, and serves as a huge magnet for illegal immigration.   While illegal immigrants are precluded from receiving most welfare benefits, many of them enjoy programs on behalf of their American-born children.  Obviously, any anchor baby already born here is a legal citizen, but we need to fix this going forward.  It will be challenged in the courts, but we have a strong case to make that the 14th Amendment never included children of illegals.
  • Interior Enforcement:  At present, we have a perverse reality in which states and localities that uphold federal immigration laws are sued by the federal government, while states and localities that thwart the immigration laws through “sanctuary city” policies are not punished.  Any enforcement legislation must unambiguously extend states the power to uphold federal immigration laws.  We need the confidence that in the event that the current or future administrations fail to uphold the law, states will have the power to take up the prerogative.
  • Benefits: Close the loophole that allows illegals to receive the Additional Child Tax Credit with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).

In other words, we need ‘comprehensive’ enforcement first.

Only if and when most or all of the aforementioned enforcement provisions are in place and cleared by the courts, will it make sense to discuss any ideas of legalization for those already here from the previous wave of lawlessness.

It’s time to learn our lesson.  We must not let the foxes guard the henhouse.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • cheesycon

    what do you mean, WE have to learn OUR lesson? it’s all THEM who are making these mistakes – THEY aren’t listening to US.

  • General_Confusion

    Could be, if he doesn’t end his participation now he will be a willing idiot.

    Honestly, looking at his co-conspirators, I mean gang members, is anyone seriously surprised that this was to be amnesty and ONLY amnesty.

    I guarantee this “gang” can’t wait to do this again in a few years with the next crop of “undocumented democrats”. If they can get a bunch of idiot RINO’s to go along yet again so much the better.

  • rightlane1111

    I am…however…there were general comments I wanted to post.

  • plh

    Not just securing the border. A sane set of penalties for those of the 11 million that wish to stay, with no Government benefits and no path to citizenship until at least 10 years after they register. Can’t be amnesty – that is, a pardon – for the initial offense of illegal entry.

  • General_Confusion

    Useful Idiot is a political term.

    Useful idiot: In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

    And yes, he is very much being a useful idiot. If he is not, it’s much worse and he is being a willing idiot.

    The ONLY goal of this gang is amnesty, period. There will be no reform, Schumer let the cat out of the bag early.

    Rubio is not a member of the gang because they want his input on the legislation, he is not a member because they want his help to shape the legislation, he is a member SOLELY to give a “conservative” stamp of approval to amnesty.

    Rubio’s job is to “rah, rah, reform” to the “rube” conservatives. Problem is there will be no reform, only amnesty.

    I am absolutely mystified that our side is once again telling the base to (blank) off so they can deliver another 11 million new voters to the Democrats.

    BTW, there are problems the really need to be solved, the budget (or lack thereof), the deficit and runaway government. Sadly our party is more interested in helping the Democrats solidify their hold than making our county solid.

    Lastly Einstein was right, oh…. and 1986 called, it wants its amnesty back.

  • PaladinLostHour

    The key point is this: Schumer clarified his no-enforcement predicate
    ++ yesterday++. So where’s Senator Rubio’s response to the thrown gauntlet?

    Senator Rubio responded to Erik’s column within 24 hours, and while all of us here bleed true Red(state), it’s just reality that this site doesn’t reach near the number of citizens as a press conference covered by ABC and Univision. And yet – crickets from all four Republicans in the Gang of 8.

    Now, we *know* McCain is just flat deceitful on this issue (and as an aside – can we all agree now that he’s exhausted the “war hero favor bank” at this point? McCain behaved in an inspiring manner, for a few years, nearly a half century ago. But before that he was an entitled admirals’ son / f-up; and post his service, he’s augmented that sense of entitlement with a nasty, condescending curmudgeoness. It’s past time to take the electoral hammer of Thor to this RINO – we can thank him for his service once we retire him).

    Similarly – Graham is just a mini-Me McCain on the matter; and Flake’s name tells his story.

    But Rubio? If he doesn’t disavow this deal, and quickly, in light of what Schumer said, we need to put him firmly in the ‘not suitable’ bucket and move on for 2016. His silence would mean 1 of 2 things: His prior tough talk on enforcement was just window dressing, or he’s afraid to pull out now and take the media excoriation for sinking the deal.

    The first would imply he’s both too disingenuous and too naive** for leadership . The second, that he lacks the courage for leadership.

    Either way, the clock is ticking.

    ** Give the devil his due – Obama’s no stranger to doubletalk, but he’d never have left himself similarly exposed, when a Senator cutting deals with Republicans. (Makes you wonder if part of the appeal of the deal for the Dems was, worst case scenario, it collapses and blows up a 2016 front-runner’s opposition candidacy)

  • General_Confusion

    1.) Secure the border. (Really secure the border, not the “let’s pretend it is” we have now)

    2.) Limit government welfare benefits to citizens. (Radical idea, I know.)

    3.) Cut off federal funds to sanctuary cites. (If they want them, fine, don’t expect the rest of us to subside it)

    4.) Cut off federal funds to states that issue driver license to illegal aliens. (If they want to make it easier for them by issuing official citizen identification, fine, but not on our dime.)

    5.) Assist employers to identify illegal aliens. (They are spotted all the time by the irregularities in the documentation they submit, but our officials simply ignore it.)

    6.) Heavily sanction employers that continue to hire illegal aliens. (Turn off the magnet.)

    Wait and allow the miracle of self-deportation to do its work. I know it’s progressively hip to say that self-deportation doesn’t work, problem is, it does work everywhere it’s been tried.

    Once things settle then we can talk about the need (or no need) to increase and/or streamline LEGAL immigration.

  • trem

    I’m sorry but you seem to be terribly confused. Perhaps you are assuming this recent push for immigration reform has anything to do with solving the problem? Well allow me to correct you. What we are doing here is fighting for those juicy latino votes. Your proposals would end up with latinos as solidly Dems as blacks currently are. This is of course a huge problem and the only reason our fearless Republican leaders are even talking about immigration reform right now. The current plan is to completely fold on this issue to remove it from the table so we have a chance in hell of actually winning elections and getting our way on other issues. Contrary to what people seem to believe around here getting your way after getting crushed in an election is quite difficult.

  • General_Confusion

    If only we could shed our principles, our base and especially those icky conservatives victory would be guaranteed.

    Granted, no matter how many times we try to out flank the Democrats on left we seem to fail, this time will be different!

    Damn the 11 million new Democrat voters and full speed ahead!

  • trem

    You people continue to act like it will be impossible to get those latino voters when in fact we already have. The difference between Bush’s 44% and Romney’s 27% is “mr president” vs “that loser”.

  • General_Confusion

    “We’re not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship.”

    It’s NOT amnesty, it’s just citizenship! Oh, and it’s not reform either.

    Thanks for clearing that up Chuck.

    John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham call your offices,
    someone spilled the beans to the “rubes” on your little agreement.

  • General_Confusion

    I don’t know if this is related but I just heard John McCain and Lindsey Graham just rushed off to the hardware store to buy some green paint. Apparently something red needed to be painted over real fast before anyone saw it!

  • fredflintlock

    Then in eight years the permanent Democrat majority can undo any part of any plan that includes security, enforcement and limited access to our soil by low skilled future dependents. Why can’t the Republicans see this coming? I don’t care how many lobbyists are pushing for more cheap labor sources, Republicans can’t be stupid enough to not see how this renders them powerless and useless as a party.

    Remember, the only time Democrats care at all about the minority opinion is when they are the minority. Amnesty is a strategy for never having to suffer minority party status again for as long as anybody in the game today is still alive.

  • plh

    Yes, immigration needs to be dealt with, but not the way the Democrats have always wanted. We should already have introduced common sense legislation – which I’m sure the majority of Americas would support – to gain control of the issue. But no, we didn’t lose that badly and winning doesn’t mean they get to have their way. They just get to push their agenda a little harder, that’s all. And we still get to stop them in the House with our majority, whenever we dare to do so.

  • trem

    According to the Fox News poll from a few days ago most americans support the current plan, and 66% specifically support a path to citizenship.

  • moonlight

    Look, immigration reform is long overdue, and this is a start. But here’s what it’s missing: (1) the only way to enforce the border is to cut off public benefits (except perhaps emergency medical care) to future illegal immigrants, (2) paying back taxes is an unenforceable joke – charge a flat fee based on how long the individual has been here illegally and (3) residence for law abiding citizens, yes, but no citizenship for those who came here illegally. That’s the penalty for doing so. Their kids, born here, are of course Citizens. And Senator Rubio is right about the need for a guest worker program.

  • runner12

    I would be interested to hear a response from Sen. Rubio on these comments. He clearly stated he would not support a plan that did not require securing the border as a prerequisite to everything else. It seems this “deal” is dead in the water, which is precisely what the Democrats want. They have no interest in solving an issue that has been politically profitable for them. And yes, I am insinuating that Schumer’s comments were a deliberate action to undermine the plan put forth.

  • gmat

    Pat said it better than I can.

    “McCain fears the future. We got 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in
    2012, and the reason is our position on illegal aliens, he argues. Until
    we get this behind us, we will never again get the 40 percent of the
    vote Bush got. Either we capitulate to Obama and La Raza, or we are
    doomed.

    Why is McCain wrong?

    He is wrong on principle. Should a majority of women tell pollsters
    they are against overturning Roe v. Wade, does the party abandon its
    pro-life stand and cease calling for Supreme Court justices who might
    overturn Roe?

    What kind of party is that? What kind of people do that?”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-the-gop-surrender-on-immigration/

  • plh

    Excellent post. The public benefit cutoff would need to be clarified in terms of whether free public schooling for their children counts. The flat fee idea is tons better than the back taxes thing, but maybe it could be a combination of both – whichever is higher. The only change in the no citizenship provision I’d make is that I’d allow them

  • davesinsanantonio

    So, the fact that we may lose means we should never fight??? With that kind of attitude we might as well turn out the lights, this show is over.

  • davesinsanantonio

    This is why we cannot rely on statements, or even on “promises”. They lie! Or, at best they may mean to do what they promise, but they always fail to. So, we must insist in actually enforcement and border security for a while until we can be confident they will do it. Only then should we look at the other provisions. ONLY THEN!!!! Anything else is a guaranteed fail, simply because they either lie, or they are incompetent.

  • davesinsanantonio

    You could make two separate posts, you know.

  • fuzzyuno

    Finally I read that the 14th Amendment, aka “anchor baby” rule, is on more prominent display. That is one of the first things that needs to be worked on. I really mean changed to a correct interpretation or wording. Don’t get me wrong. I love babies, all babies, legal and illegal. They never had a say in the matter. We are dealing with intent of the 14th Amendment, and intrepretation. The 14th Amendment was created to ensure former slaves were accorded the rights of citizenship, no others. At the same time build “the damn fence.” Folks where I live we are innundated with Somalis refugees. They are not immigrants. They need to go. They don’t even assimilate as the Mexicans do. There are more targets than the Mexicans and their border. Legal immigration needs to be addressed. That’s 1,000,000 per year. Some of those need to be allowed into the country but many in those numbers do not need to be allowed in.

  • lesismor

    Immigration reform is Not overdue. What is overdue is law enforcement.

  • lesismor

    Conservatives could put out the welcome mat for all illegals, make them citizens and give them all welfare and they would still vote democrate because the lame stream media tells them to.

  • eheassler

    Senator Rubio, you’ve just been boned by Chucky “The Tumor” Schumer. Now go home and wash the sleaze off and remember to never, ever trust him again.

  • mogul264

    The ‘anchor’ baby has long been a sore spot in our immigration enforcement! There have been MANY illegal alien mothers who’ve sneaked across the border to ensure their children are bona fide American citizens! Then, they have used this for welfare scams, and the ‘anchori’ing points as sponsors of mother, father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins entries into the U.S.!

    In the past, we have ‘rectified’ the illegal problem by just making them legal! We also promised ourselves we would correct the easy border access. And each and every time we did NOT! So, this time, FOR SURE, we are GOING TO SEAL THE BORDER, just as we have done so well so many times in the past! So why do I not believe this?