TIME Magazine’s Rubio Issue…

TIME Magazine placed Republican Senator Marco Rubio front and center on its latest issue, indicating the Mainstream Media is either warming to the conservative from Florida…or perhaps setting him up for what some are indicating will be an all out media assault to diminish him before 2016.

(Keep your friends close…and your enemies closer – Mainstream Media style…)

_________________________

EXCERPT: (via TIME)

Immigrant Son

…But while Rubio is a child of immigrants, he’s also a child of the conservative movement, an ambitious ideologue and former political operative who speaks partisan Republican with the fluency of a native. (Romney, by contrast, spoke it as a second language.) Like Paul Ryan, a potential 2016 rival, he’s part of a new generation of lean and hungry conservatives who grew up in the antigovernment Reagan era and entered politics after the scorched-earth Gingrich revolution. Bipartisan compromise is not usually his thing.

…In his autobiography, An American Son, Rubio says his closest boyhood friend was his cigar-smoking, Fidel Castro–hating grandfather, Pedro Víctor García, a proud Cuban exile who taught him to believe in Reagan, American exceptionalism and himself. Hobbled by childhood polio, more book-smart than business-savvy, Papa never achieved much material success. But he spent hours with his grandson reading Spanish-language newspapers, fulminating about communism and pushing the future Senator to expand his horizons beyond football. “He would scold me for performing poorly in school, but he never let me believe I was incapable of being successful,” Rubio wrote. “His dreams for us were his legacy.”

…Rubio is careful not to oversell immigration reform’s potential to revive the GOP brand: “If anyone is under the illusion that suddenly our percentage of Hispanic voters will double, let me dissuade them of that right now.” But he says many Hispanic Americans are forming their political identity in an era of Big Government and won’t even consider Republican arguments against it. “They’ve bought into the lie the left is putting out there that because we want to enforce immigration laws, we’re not welcoming,” he says. “It’s not true. It’s not fair. But it is what it is.” It’s no accident that Cubans, who enjoy more lenient rules than other immigrants, are more receptive to the GOP—or that non-Cuban Hispanics don’t always consider a Cuban-American politician one of them.

…There’s even a case to be made that Rubio might be a likelier Republican nominee in 2016 if his lily-white party hasn’t addressed its policy problems with Hispanics. What’s not in doubt is his influence. The legislation’s fate in the Republican-controlled House as well as the Senate may depend on Rubio’s blessing. GOP elites often follow his lead on Hispanic issues; the party’s presidential candidates all boycotted a proposed Univision debate after he got into a spat with the network, and Ryan endorsed his immigration principles the day he announced them.

…For now, though, Rubio says he’s content to stay where he is and try to help los pobrecitos secure a better life for their kids, just as his parents did for him. If that ends up helping his career, well, his parents wanted him to chase his dreams. “I’ve always viewed politics the following way: if you do a good job at the job you’re doing, you’ll have opportunities to do other things in the future,” Rubio says. “Maybe things you never envisioned.”  LINK

________________________

My own (humble) take on the TIME Magazine cover of Marco Rubio?

It is a pre-emptive warning shot to the Rubio camp – the media will look under ever nook and cranny to destroy him should he announce himself as a presidential candidate in 2016 – the very same treatment given to Sarah Palin in 2008.  Democrats have long enjoyed significant political success playing the false “Republicans hate immigrants” card in recent elections.  They are desperate to either keep that card, or be the visible architects of immigration reform.  Marco Rubio is attempting to trump that card with one of his own – and if he enters the presidential race, the media will not easily forget.

The good news is that figures such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul represent a new and exciting transformation going on within the Republican Party.  Men whose formative years took place under the presidency of Ronald Reagan and soon after,  the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Congress of the 1990′s.  The Democrats on the other hand, as Barack Obama continues his journey to has-been status, is left with a crop of too-long has-beens for their own 2016 roster.  The Democratic brand is quickly descending into the old fart party, while the Republicans are now starting to look downright cool.

-UM

437 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

46 Comments to TIME Magazine’s Rubio Issue…
    • silverdust
    • I think he’s in tight with the RINOs: Cantor, Boehner, Jebby. Getting the cover of TIME just convinced me he’s what the progunists want us to pick. No thanks to Amnesty 2.0.

      • BigTexas
      • I agree UM. The Republican party is looking much better these days. A lot fresher. I like Rubio and Cruz and Ryan too. All good. And don’t forget Nikke Haley too. The republicans are looking younger and a lot more energized. I love how you talk about Obama being a has been. That has got to be driving him nuts!

    • OustTheOs
    • The LameStreamMedia would love, love, love it if Rubio ran (and won) for Prez. He isn’t eligible but would set up Obama, making US unable to prosecute him for illegally storming OUR White House, twice… (Although, there is a plethora of charges that can still be brought against him)

      I truly wish that people would stop harping on holding up Rubio for Prez, in 2016. I also hope that the Rovians don’t carry through with their plan to run Jeb. We would end up with a Hillary…. (It’s time for Rove to let someone with a brain for winning to step in, in his place. That would improve the Republican territory about 50%! But Rove doesn’t have our best interests at heart. Just his own…)

    • ShainS
    • “…There’s even a case to be made that Rubio might be a likelier Republican nominee in 2016 if his lily-white party hasn’t addressed its policy problems with Hispanics.”

      Wow, nothing like a little racism and no shame to tell the world you’re a bigot. And did the author(s) ever once consider that it might be Hispanics that have a policy problem with Republicans — most illegals (who DO vote, BTW) being poor and happy to be dependent on the government yet resentful of the taxpaying U.S. citizens upon whose largess they suck — and not the other way around?

      Of course not …

    • Stan Lippmann
    • Rubio, Jindal, Haley, Cruz are not natural born citizens, under the Supreme Court standard set in Happerset. It doesn’t matter what Wikipedia or the Congressional Research Service or Fred Thompson think that much. It is important that these four politicians have a news conference and make it clear that they will never seek the Presidency, so some clarity can be brought to the Republican race starting now. If these people aren’t willing to follow the law, why should anyone else?

    • E.A.B.
    • Remember what WHI said during the Republican primaries about the “pump and dump” strategy?

      Well, the liberal media is starting out early this time.

      That tells me one thing: The left is TERRIFIED of Rubio.

    • E.A.B.
    • “many Hispanic Americans are forming their political identity in an era of Big Government and won’t even consider Republican arguments against it.”

      This paraphrase of Rubio articulates what I’ve been trying to say for the past couple of weeks.

      Hispanic voters simply aren’t going to listen to anything we have to say about big government, the Constitution, or anything, as long as a significant portion of our party stands for ethnically cleansing the American Southwest by deporting millions of Hispanics.

      As long as the immigration issue is on the table, conservatism is poison to the most rapidly growing demographic in the nation. Bite the bullet and take the issue off the table, and Hispanics will actually be willing to listen to what we have to say. And when they vote their morals and their pocketbooks, they’ll vote Republican.

    • sartana
    • “Ethnic Cleansing” E.A.B?

      You sad, pathetic troll. Just like the Left and their insane, tyrannical drive for “healthcare overhaul”, you lawless, anti-American Open Borders fanatics immediately turn to blood libel the second you feel the slightest resistance to your scheme. First the Left accuse us of being bigots and terrorists for and now you on the Vichy Right accuse us of the same.

      Both your kind and the Left just can’t make your case and defend it without immediately trying to shame, demean and destroy your opponent, right from the start. What’s the cause of this irrationality and hate on your part?

      It’s because you know you can’t win the argument. But like someone ruled by emotion or lust, you want what you want and you’ll go to whatever lengths to get it. Like a junky lashing out at anyone who gets between him and his fix. It’s sad to see the Right become just like the Left, and it looks like your kind are going to stuff this Amnesty down our throats just like they did Obamacare.

      You might be interested in these numbers:

      http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2011/07/23/7340/ice-deportations-by-the-numbers/

      It’s the amount of illegals deported every year for the last five years to the tune of 300,000 to 400,000 a year.

      Ethnic cleansing? Get a hold of yourself, man.

      • E.A.B.
      • Removing over 10 million people (more than the entire population of some nations) from a geographic region is ethnic cleansing.

        The motivation doesn’t matter (and for the record, I don’t think racial bigotry motivates this issue). Regardless of the motivation, the results are the same–ethnic cleansing.

        When “enforcing the law” becomes indistinguishable in practice from “ethnic cleansing,” it’s clear to any thinking person that the law in question needs to be changed.

        Nobody is talking about open borders. Rubio’s plan for one calls for securing the border.

        Rubio has proposed a solution. Bush proposed his idea of a solution before that. Your side, on the other hand, has demagogued and whined and done everything except present a feasible solution.

    • sartana
    • You’re insane. This has got to be the stupidest argument that’s been tried yet. Even in ’06 and ’07 the Amnesty advocates weren’t spewing such dribble and nonsense. You’re going the way of Crazy Nancy. You’ll say any damn thing.

      If you still can believe that this is not about Open Borders and the end of American Sovereignty then you are blind. You have the example of Europe and the outright tyranny of the Open Border EU superstate yet have no clue that this is exactly where they’re leading us. You have endless examples of Democrats attempting to mold our laws in line with UN decree. You have the president of the United States saying flat-out that citizens born in this country have no more claim to this land than anyone else around the globe. It’s staring you right in the face but you don’t see.

      It’s a waste trying to reason with someone as far gone as you. Just like the Democrats and their mad Ahab drive for Obamacare. I expect to have to argue with such people on the Left, but it’s just too much too see the Right going over the same cliff. The madness has spread.

      “Your side, on the other hand, has demagogued and whined and done everything except present a feasible solution.”

      OMG you’re such and idiot. Bush mad scheme was rejected by the American people and was his push for that brought our country to the brink of mass civil unrest, destroyed the Republican Party and paved the way for the rise of the obama. You want to take us back to that?

      We have a solution. It’s called The Law. It only needs to be enforced as is and this problem will be solved within a decade. I gave you the numbers which you just ignored. 300,000 to 400,000 deportations a year for the past five years. This is not counting voluntary self-removal which is a number either equal or only slight less. If our border was secured, deportations only slightly stepped up, and services and employment denied to illegals this nightmare would be over within five years.

      If Congress is allowed to pass Amnesty in clear opposition to the will of the American people, then that would set a precedent that the Federal government and a ruling political class that sees itself apart and above the people, and not subject to the very laws that they pass.

      That would mean Anarchy. The final end of America. You haven’t even taken two minutes to think about the ramifications, have you?

      • E.A.B.
      • Sartana, your solution is ethnic cleansing.

        Now stop lying, hate-mongering, and whining and come up with a real solution.

        Unless you don’t WANT to solve this problem at all. The socialists would like to keep using this issue against conservatives.

    • Mark
    • “Rubio’s plan call for securing the border.” Riight…..didn’t we hear that before when they amnestied millions of Hispanics years ago? Weren’t they going to “secure the border” then too?

      Get it through your head…..you’re rewarding illegal behavior by giving them a path to citizenship other than the traditional way it has been done THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAD TO GO THROUGH.

      Why are the current 11 million plus Hispanics any different and why do they deserve special treatment that no one else received?

      The fact that Rubio is now being annointed as a savior tells me that the Republican establishment is going to pull all stops to get him nominated…more vote rigging, more skullduggery etc.

      Lets take a look at what our friends at NPR say about the amnesty for 3 million Mexicans that took place under Reagan…originally designed as a “crackdown.”

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

      They’ve done this before using the same language. Why are we supposed to believe it will turn out differently this time?

      • E.A.B.
      • When the situation becomes such that enforcing a law becomes unconscionable, the law must be changed. This is not rewarding illegal behavior–it’s recognizing reality and doing something feasible about it.

        Before the civil war, there was a path to freedom for slaves, namely buying it. This was fundamentally immoral and for many slaves it was simply impossible, but it was “the law.” Many of those who couldn’t afford it escaped and fled to the free states or Canada in the north. This was “illegal.” The punishment could be as severe as execution.

        During the Civil War, the north changed its policy and permitted escaped and otherwise “illegally” liberated slaves to take refuge in the free states. Were they “rewarding illegal behavior” by giving slaves a path to freedom other than the traditional way it had been done that every other slave had to go through?

        (This is not to morally equate deporting illegal immigrants with slavery. What it is, is an example of a historical situation where an immoral law had to be overturned rather than enforced.)

      • E.A.B.
      • As for the rest of your post…

        The left-wing media is not “anointing” Rubio. What they’re doing is engaging in the “pump and dump” strategy WHI described during the 2012 Republican Primary. And they’re starting early–which means they’re deeply afraid of Rubio.

        Calling him “the Republican savior” is just projection. They regard Obama as a quasi-savior, so they operate on the assumption that we must do the same with any serious conservative contender.

        The Republican establishment didn’t like Rubio. The establishment backed Charlie Crist, and the Tea Party backed Rubio, until Crist left the party to continue his Senate run.

        Vote rigging? Skullduggery? Your beloved Ron Paul was a known cheater in the caucuses. You’re just mad that the rest of the party didn’t let you people cheat. And your beloved Libertarian Party played a decisive role in making the 2012 election close enough for Obama to steal. So don’t complain about vote rigging and skullduggery.

        Finally, you’re using an NPR article to bash Reagan. And you still pretend to be some kind of conservative?

        • Mark
        • Nice try in equating the immigration amnesty Reagan passed with bashing him. I’m still looking over that post looking for my “bashing” him. It isn’t there. What is there is proof that Hispanics do not vote for Republicans…even after being pandered to. I’ve provided numerous examples with firm numbers which included Reagan’s amnesty program….it’s your choice to ignore them and selectively cherry pick to try to score points.

          Also your comparison between slaves who were brought here against their will and illegal immigrants crashing the gates is laughable and can’t remotely be compared against each other. So the remedy of black slaves achieving citizenship is an example of why we should allow illegal immigrants into the country?

          Lastly….you’re position of Ron Paul cheating during the primaries is the exact opposite of what happened as anyone who followed the primaries knows. Anyone who followed the primaries knows that Ron Paul’s vote totals were cheated in Iowa. His delegation from Maine was not allowed to be seated. His vote totals were also cheated in Minnesota…I could go on…..

          • E.A.B.
          • You say that Reagan implemented “amnesty.” You despise “amnesty.” Therefore, you are arguing that Reagan did something despicable, i.e., you are bashing him.

            You have not given any examples showing that immigration reform would not affect Hispanic voting patterns, since data on immigration reform that has not happened is (unsurprisingly) sorely lacking.

            The issue of slavery is an example of unworkable laws that had to be overturned. As with slavery law in those days, immigration law needs to be reformed. The current legal immigration process is simply not feasible for dealing with the massive numbers of people who want to come here. I know a South Sudanese immigrant who waited in a refugee camp for ten years before his legal immigration was finally approved. Is this reasonable?

            Finally, cheating is exactly what Ron Paul did during the Republican primary. His campaign had numerous Paul supporters posing as delegates for Romney and Santorum. This was their STATED STRATEGY.

            It is notable that Paul did not win a single traditional primary. The more democratic and open the process was, the worse Paul fared.

            • Mark
            • Nice logic…if A does this and B means that…then YOU’RE GUILTY of commiting C. Reagan implemented a policy that conservatives abhor…true. The only true thing you’ve said in this debate. Because Reagan approves amnesty for 3 million illegals and I disagree with it..I’m bashing him?
              Here’s a question…if Reagan supported bad policy shouldn’t we citizens voice our concerns? Is Reagan infallable? None of our presidents…even the greatest ones were infallable E.A.B.

              I have shown 2 examples of how Republicans voting for immigration reform have not affected hispanic votes….Reagan’s amnesty of 1986 and John McCain’s 2007 “McCain -Kennedy’ immigration legislation that wasn’t voted on. What more do you want?

              Your statement ” The current legal immigration process is simply not feasible for dealing with the massive numbers of people who want to come here,’ is the very reason why we have immigration laws in the first place!!!!!
              These laws prevent us from being overrun and regulating the number of people we can absorb. Will you now pontificate on the exact number of people we should have living here.. couched in “unworkable laws” language?

    • sartana
    • Mark-

      The number is almost certainly much higher than eleven million. Probably closer to twenty million. Rubio knows that. They all do. But they throw out the “eleven million” figure so it’ll go down easier with a skeptical audience. They’re despicable liars, just like Democrats in pushing Obamacare- they will tell any lie, make any promise and falsify any study if it means getting to their goal.

      This is not even figuring in the chain-migration that would commence in the aftermath of the initial Amnesty, as the new citizens start bringing over family. Forty or fifty million is more like it.

      And a state that essentially invites in millions of foreigners to cross our border illegally with the promise of jobs, benefits and now citizenship is a state that will never seal it’s border.

    • Mark
    • sartana..I don’t disagree with your numbers or thinking one bit…not even a little. I use the 11 million as the conservative low end of the estimate and agree with you that the number is higher.

      The number of illegals would equal the number of citizens of the state of PA,or Ohio, Illinois etc….basically we’d be creating another mid size state with the number of illegals who would be granted citizenship.They in turn vote for whomever promises the most entitlements and then they have created a permanent majority.

      Someone else made the point to E.A.B. in another post, that hispanics will not vote Republican over 40%-45% at best…despite Reagan’s amnesty in 1986 and McCain’s continued efforts at amnesty in 2007. McCain received 33% of hispanic vote when he ran in 2008. G.W. Bush had gotten mid 40% despite campaigning in Spanish and having Latino relatives. To think Rubio will magically breach the 50% barrier let alone turn the tide to Hispanics voting majoirty Republican has no basis in fact.

      The last two paragraphs you wrote reminded me of the re-conquest movement afoot.

      • E.A.B.
      • You have no reason to assert that Hispanics will vote for whoever promises the most entitlements. The majority of Hispanics are socially conservative Catholics (more conservative than white Catholics); moreover, the assertion that they “do the work most Americans refuse to do” rings true, and says a lot about their character.

        Give them a chance to vote their morals and their pocketbooks, instead of voting between Democrat and deportation, and they’ll vote Republican.

        Bush and McCain lost the Hispanic vote because they were running for the Party of Deportation. Their own personal views on the issue didn’t matter, because most Hispanics weren’t even willing to listen to a member of the Party of Deportation.

        Until the GOP ceases to be the Party of Deportation, Hispanics will never hear us out.

        • Mark
        • Pure conjecture and besides..so what if they are the party of deportation? In deporting they will be enforcing the laws on the books.

          In a post below you bloviate about my coming here as a “Libertarian to a “conservative Constitutionalist website and causing trouble.”

          A conservative constitutionalist follows the nations laws and supports them ….no?

          • E.A.B.
          • In fining you for not buying health insurance (Obamacare), they will also be enforcing the laws on the books.

            Do you find that conservative and Constitutional too?

            • Mark
            • Strawman argument! It has no bearing on illegal immigration and it’s consequences.

              You’re playing both heads on the coin with strawman arguments. Forcing someone to purchase a product is not the same as allowing illegals to be granted amnesty now is it?

        • Randall
        • The Bush family is not pro-deportation. That’s simply untrue. Jeb is married to a Mexican woman, remember? Texas is practically Mexico; Mexico imitates Texas. To say the Bushes are anti-illegal immigration is to believe the rhetoric over record.

    • sartana
    • EAB-

      I just laid out the lawful solution. I linked you to a site with the official numbers. You’re ignoring that because you have no sane argument. Just up-thread you conceded that you didn’t think opposition to Amnesty was rooted in bigotry, yet in your replies to me you accuse me of hate-mongering and advocating genocide.

      You’re not scraping the bottom of the barrel, you are the bottom of the barrel.

      • Mark
      • Yes…E.A.B’s last post pretty much proves he’s a troll. He called me an anti semite, socialist, sabotuer for supporting Ron Paul so welcome to the club sartana you hatemongerer ethnic cleanser. LOL.

        • E.A.B.
        • And you promptly demostrated exactly the behavior I accused you of each time.

          If you want to be respected, it helps to be respectable. If you want to be trusted, it helps to be trustworthy.

          • Mark
          • Examples please…..provide examples of where I advocated anti semitism (shop worn smear word), socialism (for supporting Ron Paul who is the only guy who abides by the US Constitution). Pack a lunch..it will be an all day job.

            Please try and do better than last time in which you wrote “Scratch a Libertarian you’ll find an anti semite”

            • E.A.B.
            • Just calling anti-Semitism a “shop worn smear word” is evidence of anti-Semitism. Normal people recognize that anti-Semitism is still widespread. Only anti-Semites themselves go as far as almost denying the existence of anti-Semitism.

              It’s funny. I’ve never been called an anti-Semite. Neither have most conservatives I know. The anti-Semite label seems to have been stuck on only a very small circle of individuals. So much for it being a “shop worn smear word.”

              As for supporting socialism, you are a member of the party whose STATED GOAL was “to be the reason Romney lost.” The Libertarian Party is one of the reasons Obama won, and you went ahead and joined it immediately after the election.

              And claiming that Ron Paul abides by the Constitution is ridiculous. What Paul does is to ignore the explicitly and implicitly stated intents of the founders, and then impose his own farcical revisionist interpretation on the Constitution. Much like Ginsburg, Kagan, et al.

            • Randall
            • Ron Paul isn’t “the only guy who abides by the US Constitution.” Don’t become a parody of a Constitutionalist. Ron Paul had the gumption to present himself as the sole remaining vanguard of the Constitution, which should tell you everything you need to know. He left the party because of who but Ronald Reagan. He accused fellow Republicans of being traitors. RP is not even a quack (though at this point he may be senile); his associations with Lew Rockwell and Infowars, RT and the Mises Institue seem to put him in a different circle.

        • E.A.B.
        • Oh, and trolling? A registered Libertarian coming to a conservative Constitutionalist website and bashing everything Republican (aside from a handful of fools and weirdos like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Chuck Hagel) could be considered a troll.

          • Mark
          • Ans there we have it….not a single crumb provided to back up your assetion from your previous post….just more name calling. Ad hominem is the last refuge of scoudrels eh?

            • E.A.B.
            • Another thing…

              Wondering out loud (as you often do) as to whether our gracious host Ulsterman might be “censoring” your posts could also constitute trolling.

      • E.A.B.
      • The “solution” you laid out is indistinguishable from ethnic cleansing. Legal but wrong. It’s not a conscionable solution and you know it.

        At no point did I ever claim that you were advocating genocide. I did accuse you of lying, which appears to have been prescient given your false accusation. As for hate-mongering, I was referring to your hatred for those you label as advocates of “amnesty.”

    • sartana
    • There is nothing immoral about deporting illegal aliens. You can keep repeating that, but it doesn’t make it less silly. I linked you to official government numbers showing that in the last five years, ICE has deported roughly two million illegals. According to you, that is genocide. It’s beneath a sane person to have to argue with that.

      Your logic would dictate that the forced removal of any one person from one country in which they are residing illegally to their home country is equal to ethnic cleansing/genocide. Right? Surely, if deporting 10 milliion is ethnic cleansing than what is deporting a dozen . Or is there a cut-off there. What is the cut-off number, where it could be said that ICE ceases merely enforcing immigration law, and begins ethnic cleansing?

      500? 5000?

      “When the situation becomes such that enforcing a law becomes unconscionable, the law must be changed.”

      That’s just it isn’t it. It’s a tiny minority of Open Borders, Amnesty-advocating extremists like yourself who assert that enforcing our immigration laws, which are virtually the same as every other country on Earth, is unconscionable. Your side has been arguing this for two decades and losing, so you resort to yelling about Genocide! hate-mongering and slavery.

      Your side has put forward “solutions” that have been rejected by the voters every time it’s been put to them at the polls. And you ignore the lawful, sane and humane solution that would be if we just enforce our law.

      No citizen can pick and choose which laws to abide by without having his day in court. Neither can our elected leaders pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws ignore. That’s Anarchy.

      You take the position that you do not because you think it’s just, but because enforcing these laws would make you feel bad. And it’s much easier to turn away from what’s right, than it is to feel bad about yourself.

      You’re the very portrait of the modern liberal narcissist.

      • E.A.B.
      • When deportation reaches the magnitude of ethnic cleansing, it becomes immoral.

        You ask about the cutoff number between legitimate deportation and ethnic cleansing. By definition, ethnic cleansing would occur when the ethnic makeup of the region is significantly altered by the deportation. Deporting 10 million Hispanics would certainly do that.

        Immigration reform has never been put up for a referendum, so your claim that it’s been rejected is absurd and dishonest.

        Your “solution” is neither sane nor humane. In fact it’s been considered a crime against humanity for at least half a century.

        Current immigration laws are unjust. How is it just for my South Sudanese friend to spend 10 years in a refugee camp waiting for his immigration request to be approved?

        Immigration law must be reformed so that enforcing the laws does not constitute a fundamental injustice.

    • sartana
    • Mark-

      It’s like that old tootsie the owl commercial. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll. How many points do they have to lose before they scream Racist! Only now it’s risen to !Genocide!. That’s a new one in this debate.

      And yes EAB, according to the ICTY,which is the tribunal for the Balkan wars of the 1990′s, and the International Court of Justice, ethnic-cleansing is officially considered genocide. “The attempted destruction of a people in whole or part”. You are accusing your fellow law-abiding citizens of genocide.

      You’ve entered Ward Churchill territory.

      • E.A.B.
      • Nobody has brought up genocide here except for you. Misrepresenting the position of those who disagree with you is one of the most basic kinds of dishonesty.

        Perhaps you are ignorant of the meaning of the term “ethnic cleansing.” (Certainly, ignorance on your part would be unsurprising.) Ethnic cleansing is defined as “the creation of an ethnically homogenous geographic area through the elimination of unwanted ethnic groups by deportation, forcible displacement, or genocide.”

        As is clear from this definition, genocide is only one form of ethnic cleansing. Mass deportation, which you advocate, is another.

        BTW, I didn’t know the International Court of Justice was an authority in your book. Are there any other globalist tendencies of yours that we should know about?

      • Mark
      • Correct again sartana……they use smoke, mirrors, strawmen..everything in the kitchen sink to divert attention away from the argument. Now you’re a globalist in addition to the rest of accusations he/she threw out there earlier.

        E.A.B’s vociferousness about the ethnic cleansing angle gives his / her position up. A country maintaining their immigration levels is now considered to be ethnic cleansing in deporting illegals.

    • sartana
    • “When deportation reaches the magnitude of ethnic cleansing, it becomes immoral.”

      That’s just you pulling words out of your hat. If something seems mean, it must be bad. Deep stuff there. But not the kind of thinking you craft national policy around.

      “By definition, ethnic cleansing would occur when the ethnic makeup of the region is significantly altered by the deportation.”

      So according to, The United States push to the West, and annexation of Northern Mexico into the American Southwest is Genocide. Like I said, Ward Churchill territory here.

      According to you, if China invaded and occupied the American western states for twenty years, importing ten million Chinese, we would be guilty of genocide for kicking them out when we had the chance. That would be “unconscionable”? That’s just nutty.

      The Spanish Reconquista seriously altered the ethnic make-up of the Iberian Peninsula. Genocide? Should it not have happened? Should it be undone?

      And ethnic cleansing is Genocide. No one found guilty of engaging in ethnic cleansing at the ICTY was convicted of ethnic cleansing, they were prosecuted and convicted for Genocide. You are accusing your fellow citizens of Genocide under international law, for which they could be arrested abroad. There are men in prison at the Hague today for being found guilty merely of advocating mass deportations. They were convicted for incitement to Genocide. Your are attempting to criminalize your fellow citizens who merely want to see our just and sane laws enforced and our sovereignty defended.

      You are guilty of advocating treason.

      And look how you characterize our immigration law as unjust, merely because it denies something to someone who thinks they deserve it. And makes you feel bad for your Sudanese friend. Like a typical modern liberal Narcissist, you define a thing or person as evil, not because it is intrinsically evil, but it’s evil because it thwarts your desire. You think like an eight-year-old child. It’s all about you and what you want.

      No different than Nancy Pelosi calling Republicans evil for denying healthcare to forty million Americans. Your thinking is no different than that ad with Paul Ryan throwing Granny of the cliff.

      YOU SAY:

      “Immigration law must be reformed so that enforcing the laws does not constitute a fundamental injustice.”

      How is that different than saying:

      “Healthcare must be reformed so that the rising cost of hospital visits does not constitute a fundamental injustice.”

      You Amnesty extremists are no different than the Libs.

    • sartana
    • And Amnesty most certainly has been rejected by the voters. Every state that has put to vote the denial of services and employment for illegals, the voters have cast their votes against the illegals. Prop 187 passed here in California not just a decade ago. And this state was as blue then as it is now.

      Your side knows they don’t have support to pass Amnesty, that’s why they’ve embarked on this huge state propaganda campaign- to implant in the minds of the electorate that it’s a done deal and there’s no use resisting.

      Je resiste!

Leave A Response

* Required

-->