Topic: Marco Rubio says some conservatives ‘harsh and intolerable’ on immigration

[Pandora]

Marco Rubio condemned unnamed members of his own party Friday for using "inexcusable" rhetoric about illegal immigrants.

"For those of us who come from the conservative movement, we must admit that there are those among us who have used rhetoric that is harsh and intolerable, inexcusable," Rubio said at a conference for the conservative Hispanic Leadership Network. "We must admit, myself included, that sometimes we've been too slow in condemning that rhetoric."

The more I hear from this guy, the less I like him.  He's another RINO in "hispanic" clothing.  Reading the rest of the piece, I'm seeing he's a big factor in pulling the current candidates to the left as regards illegal aliens.

[Glock32]

Blood is thicker than water. And borders apparently.

[IronDioPriest]

Rubio has been extremely consistent with his position, which is not pro illegal immigrant. He couches it in "pro legal immigrant" language, but he is not an open borders/amnesty guy.

Of all conservatives in the GOP, he is uniquely positioned to address the issue of illegal immigration, if it is going to be addressed effectively. I say that because it is a given the the demagogic voices that hound the GOP will hound him at every opportunity, and unfortunately, those voices hold sway in the debate. His heritage offers him some inoculation against the demagogues, and his articulation is second to none.

There are some who, from the perspective of a Latino, would sound harsh or intolerant. People like a Michael Savage, just as an example. In my opinion, Rubio is using the classic debate/negotiation strategy of legitimizing the concerns of those he addresses in order to convince them that he is "of" them, and therefore to be trusted.

I have no qualms about Marco Rubio. I'm glad he's out there, and I'm glad there is an articulate conservative Republican of Latino descent there to counter the lies.

[Libertas]

This implied linking of anti-illegal immigrant to anti-immigration (legal immigration) pisses me off, they are not the same thing, and some people think as soon as they hear "anti-immigration" it automatically means all immigrants!  Lazy stupid JurnoTard and shameless politicians push this crap and it needs to stop!

[Pandora]

Rubio has been extremely consistent with his position, which is not pro illegal immigrant. He couches it in "pro legal immigrant" language, but he is not an open borders/amnesty guy.

Of all conservatives in the GOP, he is uniquely positioned to address the issue of illegal immigration, if it is going to be addressed effectively. I say that because it is a given the the demagogic voices that hound the GOP will hound him at every opportunity, and unfortunately, those voices hold sway in the debate. His heritage offers him some inoculation against the demagogues, and his articulation is second to none.

There are some who, from the perspective of a Latino, would sound harsh or intolerant. People like a Michael Savage, just as an example. In my opinion, Rubio is using the classic debate/negotiation strategy of legitimizing the concerns of those he addresses in order to convince them that he is "of" them, and therefore to be trusted.

I have no qualms about Marco Rubio. I'm glad he's out there, and I'm glad there is an articulate conservative Republican of Latino descent there to counter the lies.

Oh, well then, Heavens me.  Let us not get all language-harsh about the millions of illegals who are here breaking the law, sucking out of our wallets.  Wouldn't want to, er, alienate anybody.

[charlesoakwood]

Rubio has been extremely consistent with his position, which is not pro illegal immigrant. He couches it in "pro legal immigrant" language, but he is not an open borders/amnesty guy.

Of all conservatives in the GOP, he is uniquely positioned to address the issue of illegal immigration, if it is going to be addressed effectively. I say that because it is a given the the demagogic voices that hound the GOP will hound him at every opportunity, and unfortunately, those voices hold sway in the debate. His heritage offers him some inoculation against the demagogues, and his articulation is second to none.

There are some who, from the perspective of a Latino, would sound harsh or intolerant. People like a Michael Savage, just as an example. In my opinion, Rubio is using the classic debate/negotiation strategy of legitimizing the concerns of those he addresses in order to convince them that he is "of" them, and therefore to be trusted.

I have no qualms about Marco Rubio. I'm glad he's out there, and I'm glad there is an articulate conservative Republican of Latino descent there to counter the lies.

Oh, well then, Heavens me.  Let us not get all language-harsh about the millions of illegals who are here breaking the law, sucking out of our wallets.  Wouldn't want to, er, alienate anybody.

On one hand there is the ideal or what one wants on the other hand is the achievable. 
Today's tension and intense desire to "cut it off" comes from nothing accomplished and continued escalation
of failure.  Continuation of the same solutions and arguments will result in continued failure.

[IronDioPriest]

I'm just putting myself in Rubio's shoes Pan, trying to think about how I would work politically against illegal immigration if I was a Latino.

The Leftists are trying like hell to turn legal Latino/Hispanic immigrants against Republicans by demagoguing race. There is no reason for Republicans to carelessly alienate American citizens of Latino/Hispanic descent, thereby helping the Democrats drive a wedge between Latinos and the GOP.

Rubio is a Latino who is as red-blooded American as any of us, and he's saying, it's not about race, it's about the country controlling the country's illegal immigration problem. I think he's throwing a bone of affirmation to the legal Latino immigrants so they'll listen to the truth. He's using the few conservative voices that the Leftists have demagogued as an example of what he does not believe in, in order garner trust, so that he can demonstrate that the issue is not about race.

That's just how I see it. YMMV, AITID.

[Pandora]

Aw hell, IDP; I dunno, maybe you're right.  I just hate the racial/identity politics and I don't see the need for it; speak the truth, that's what reasonates, and the truth is if you're American, it doesn't matter what color or creed or sex one is, there are certain immutable principles and values.  Sugar-coating the truth in ethnic terms so as not to offend or target oneself is a schmuck's game.

[IronDioPriest]

Aw hell, IDP; I dunno, maybe you're right.  I just hate the racial/identity politics and I don't see the need for it; speak the truth, that's what reasonates, and the truth is if you're American, it doesn't matter what color or creed or sex one is, there are certain immutable principles and values.  Sugar-coating the truth in ethnic terms so as not to offend or target oneself is a schmuck's game.

I wasn't negating your point that race identity politics is unattractive. It shouldn't be necessary, if Democrats weren't willing to lie and distort in order to demagogue race, but they are, and they do. I was only offering my opinion of Rubio's motivation for his statement, and trying to, as I said, put myself in his shoes as a Latino trying to convince legal Latino citizens that he represents the true conservative position on illegal immigration.

And given the cynical ways in which race is used politically by the Left, and the need for the GOP to combat it somehow, AND the GOPs ineptitude in combating it without playing the Leftist game and ceding ground to the Leftist narrative, it also - more to your point, I think - shows how Marco Rubio might be the GOP's most effective political tool to appeal to legal citizens of Latino descent. It's a terrible reality that without people like Rubio, West, Haley, Jindal, etc, articulating a conservative message, the Left will continue to successfully demagogue race with no effective opposition. Every good conservative articulate voice that is not White undermines the Leftist lies of a racist GOP. It shouldn't be that way, and it sucks that it is. But given the political realities, as I said earlier, I'm glad for Marco Rubio, so long as he shows himself to be conservative when the rubber hits the road.

[John Florida]

  For me it's very simple,it's a question of what you want to be. It's either a Latino or and American.It's either Latino/American or American/Latino. I know because I get reminded on most days which choice is mine.

[Pandora]

Aw hell, IDP; I dunno, maybe you're right.  I just hate the racial/identity politics and I don't see the need for it; speak the truth, that's what reasonates, and the truth is if you're American, it doesn't matter what color or creed or sex one is, there are certain immutable principles and values.  Sugar-coating the truth in ethnic terms so as not to offend or target oneself is a schmuck's game.

I wasn't negating your point that race identity politics is unattractive. It shouldn't be necessary, if Democrats weren't willing to lie and distort in order to demagogue race, but they are, and they do. I was only offering my opinion of Rubio's motivation for his statement, and trying to, as I said, put myself in his shoes as a Latino trying to convince legal Latino citizens that he represents the true conservative position on illegal immigration.

And given the cynical ways in which race is used politically by the Left, and the need for the GOP to combat it somehow, AND the GOPs ineptitude in combating it without playing the Leftist game and ceding ground to the Leftist narrative, it also - more to your point, I think - shows how Marco Rubio might be the GOP's most effective political tool to appeal to legal citizens of Latino descent. It's a terrible reality that without people like Rubio, West, Haley, Jindal, etc, articulating a conservative message, the Left will continue to successfully demagogue race with no effective opposition. Every good conservative articulate voice that is not White undermines the Leftist lies of a racist GOP. It shouldn't be that way, and it sucks that it is. But given the political realities, as I said earlier, I'm glad for Marco Rubio, so long as he shows himself to be conservative when the rubber hits the road.

Well, he keeps talking, and as long as he does so ala the following he's looking less conservative and more "hispanic" to me.

CBS Miami notes that in his speech, Sen. Rubio spoke of the main problem in immigration being how to balance and honor “our legacy of immigrants“ with ”our legacy as a nation of laws.”

“It’s impossible to walk a block in Miami, in Los Angeles, San Antonio without running into someone who is being deeply impacted by a broken legal immigration system,” Sen. Rubio told the conference.

...

Sen. Rubio did not directly address the DREAM Act, but said that “there is broad support in America for the notion that for those children that were brought here at a very young age, by their parents through no fault of their own, who have grown up here their entire lives, and now want to serve in the military or are high academic achievers and want to go to school and contribute to America’s future, I think there is broad bipartisan support for the notion that we should somehow figure out a way to accommodate them.

“Figure out a way to accommodate them in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future.”

There is?  We should?  Why do we have to do the accommodating?  We count for less?  It's not my fault either that "those children that were brought here at a very young age by their parents through no fault of their own", but Rubio and people like him expect me -- us -- to take the hit for what their parents did?  Where's the primary concern for how their malfeasance and law-breaking have adversely affected YOUR American children?

See, here is the problem with your premise, IDP, that we need "Rubio, West, Haley, Jindal, etc, articulating a conservative message" otherwise "the Left will continue to successfully demagogue race with no effective opposition."  Any of those you've named, and others, who allow themselves to be utilized in this manner eventually evince an left-leaning identity politics agenda, not a strictly American one.

"We" want a woman to run to counter the left?  Then don't be surprised when what we get is a feminist first.  An African-American to counter the left?  Then don't be surprised when we get an African-American first.  Rinse and repeat with "hispanic", "gay" or one-legged, lesbian, Black Veterans.

Tsk.  Forgot the link:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-marco-rubio-speech-on-immigration-that-everyones-talking-about/

Again.

[IronDioPriest]

...See, here is the problem with your premise, IDP, that we need "Rubio, West, Haley, Jindal, etc, articulating a conservative message" otherwise "the Left will continue to successfully demagogue race with no effective opposition."  Any of those you've named, and others, who allow themselves to be utilized in this manner eventually evince an left-leaning identity politics agenda, not a strictly American one.

"We" want a woman to run to counter the left?  Then don't be surprised when what we get is a feminist first.  An African-American to counter the left?  Then don't be surprised when we get an African-American first.  Rinse and repeat with "hispanic", "gay" or one-legged, lesbian, Black Veterans.

That is a risk, but not a universal one. So far we don't see such rhetorical compromise of principle from someone like Allen West or Tim Scott.

But even in spite of the quote above, I don't think Rubio is a Latino-first, American second. He has eloquently expressed the opposite too many times in too many ways for me to think that based on one politically pandering statement, suddenly he's become a multi-cultist. However I think he realizes that citizens of Latino heritage have been effectively sold on the idea that they are hyphenated, and he sees himself as able to combat that.

But I don't know what's in the guys heart and mind. So I'll say what you said above; Idunno, maybe you're right.

[charlesoakwood]

America is not blameless.  America for years exercised virtually no control on the southern border.
Then California, primarily, encouraged illegals and as the problem escalated the Federal Courts
made decisions regarding illegal entrants that were virtual neon signs saying "come on over, it's
all free". 

The government is complicit, if not a provocateur, in this forty year problem. 
It is not a problem that can be resolved by edict.  Long term problems cannot
be resolved by edict.
 

[Pandora]

...See, here is the problem with your premise, IDP, that we need "Rubio, West, Haley, Jindal, etc, articulating a conservative message" otherwise "the Left will continue to successfully demagogue race with no effective opposition."  Any of those you've named, and others, who allow themselves to be utilized in this manner eventually evince an left-leaning identity politics agenda, not a strictly American one.

"We" want a woman to run to counter the left?  Then don't be surprised when what we get is a feminist first.  An African-American to counter the left?  Then don't be surprised when we get an African-American first.  Rinse and repeat with "hispanic", "gay" or one-legged, lesbian, Black Veterans.

That is a risk, but not a universal one. So far we don't see such rhetorical compromise of principle from someone like Allen West or Tim Scott.

But even in spite of the quote above, I don't think Rubio is a Latino-first, American second. He has eloquently expressed the opposite too many times in too many ways for me to think that based on one politically pandering statement, suddenly he's become a multi-cultist. However I think he realizes that citizens of Latino heritage have been effectively sold on the idea that they are hyphenated, and he sees himself as able to combat that.

But I don't know what's in the guys heart and mind. So I'll say what you said above; Idunno, maybe you're right.

And maybe I'm not.  But a good many of the comments at that link indicate I may be.