Rubio lied, border security died

[youtube]http://youtu.be/yBhoVQZW17s[/youtube]

Tony Lee from Breitbart reports, “On Thursday [June 13th], Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said one reason illegal immigrants must be legalized as soon as possible is so they can help fund border security measures by paying taxes and fines. ”

Lee notes, “Immigration experts, though, note that some illegal immigrants may be able to apply for fee waivers in order to avoid fines. In addition, the IRS may have difficulty figuring out how much back taxes illegal immigrants owe. And finally, some nonprofit agencies may even receive taxpayer dollars that presumably should be used to fund some border security programs in order to help illegal immigrants pay their fines to get legalized.”

WDW – FL reported:

On the June 12th evening edition of the Bill O’Reilly Show Senator Marco Rubio stated,“It depends on border security, and it depends on ensuring that it doesn’t cost the American taxpayer. I think the bottom line is we can secure the border and ensure that this never happens again, and if we can ensure that it doesn’t cost the American taxpayer by people going on welfare and things like that, then I think it will pass. If it doesn’t do those things, it won’t.”

Earlier on that same day an amendment from Senator Grassley to strengthen border security was stopped from coming to the US Senate floor for an up or down vote by Senator Harry Reid. Surely Senator Rubio knew this because he voted against the amendment.

This is a flip from Rubio’s repeated on the record statements that border security must come first. On June 11th Rubio stated, “We will have immigration reform if we can secure the border“:

Rubio said the same thing during an interview on Univision.

John Hall from Stand with Arizona reported, “In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision (video here, translation here) Sen. Rubio made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s tens of millions of illegal aliens must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.”

Rubio: “Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence. What we’re talking about here is the system of permanent residence. As for the legalization, the enormous majority of my colleagues have accepted that it has to happen and that it has to begin at the same time we begin the measures for [the border]. It is not conditional. The legalization is not conditional.”

Senator Rubio has not offered an amendment to strengthen border security. On June 17th Rubio was interviewed by the Washington Examiner and asked, “Are you going to offer your own border-security amendment?” Rubio replied, “We’re prepared to.”

It appears Senator Rubio lied to the American people and border security died.

RELATED COLUMNS: 

Benefits and borders: A Q&A with Marco Rubio

Jeb Bush: US Economy Needs Illegals’ “Fertility” (+video)

Senate to pass immigration bill with over ’70 votes’…

‘Disaster’…

Republicans in ‘demographic death spiral’…

Rubio Aide: Some American Workers ‘Can’t Cut It’…

REPORT: Obama runs immigration bill from White House, has control over Gang of 8…

Rubio: Gay couple amendment to immigration bill a poison pill

Yahoo News reports:

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a co-author and key proponent of the Senate immigration bill, said he will revoke his support if an amendment is added that allows gay Americans to petition for same-sex spouses living abroad to secure a green card.

If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I’m done,” Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea Tantaros Show. “I’m off it, and I’ve said that repeatedly. I don’t think that’s going to happen and it shouldn’t happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is.”

The amendment, introduced by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, would grant green cards to foreign partners of gay Americans. Leahy originally introduced the measure during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, but he withdrew it under pressure from Republican lawmakers who said it would reduce the chance of the bill passing. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

The Leahy amendment states in part:

Notwithstanding section 7 of title 1, United States 8 Code, an individual shall be considered a ‘spouse’ and a marriage shall be considered a ‘marriage’ for the purposes 10 of this Act if—

(1) the marriage of the individual is valid in the State in which the marriage was entered into; or
(2) in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, the marriage is valid in the place in which the marriage was entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State..

Are Rubio and Reid playing us for fools on immigration reform?

On the June 12th evening edition of the Bill O’Reilly Show Senator Marco Rubio stated,“It depends on border security, and it depends on ensuring that it doesn’t cost the American taxpayer. I think the bottom line is we can secure the border and ensure that this never happens again, and if we can ensure that it doesn’t cost the American taxpayer by people going on welfare and things like that, then I think it will pass. If it doesn’t do those things, it won’t.”

Earlier on that same day an amendment from Senator Grassley to strengthen border security was stopped from coming to the US Senate floor for an up or down vote by Senator Harry Reid. Surely Senator Rubio knew this because he voted against the amendment.

According to Breitbart.com, “On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on the border security amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill offered by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Grassley was pushing for an up-or-down vote by the Senate on his amendment, which would have required the border to be secured for six full months before any legalization of illegal immigrants in America began. Reid objected to Grassley’s motion, effectively implementing a 60-vote threshold that completely blocked any attempt at a fair vote on the amendment.”

Is Rubio being played by Reid or are Reid and Rubio playing all Americans for fools?

Eric Erickson from RedState.com in his column “No More Games” states, “… Marco Rubio is being played the fool or we are being played the fool by Senator Rubio. He has become the face of support for this legislation and much of the support of the legislation from those on the right has come because of the good will so many of us have for Senator Rubio.”

Erickson, who is a lawyer and has represented illegals, reports:

Contrary to the Americans for Conservative Reform advertisement in which he appears, the law does not prohibit illegals from getting benefits. Sure, some welfare benefits will be excluded as will, though it is debatable, Obamacare, but a sizable portion of entitlement benefits actually flow through tax credits in the tax code that these immigrants would get.

Contrary to the advertisement, the law does not secure the border in any meaningful way, in fact the “border security on steroids” as the ad claims does not begin until after the citizenship push starts, hence the pretend effort of John Cornyn now that this has been exposed.

Are Rubio and Reid a “Gang of Two” pushing a bill that is eerily similar to Obamacare through the US Senate for political gain? Is Rubio talking about border security but not willing to propose amendments himself to strengthen it? Time will tell.

Senator Rubio on the Bill O’Reilly Show:

UPDATE:

Erick Erickson reports:

Marco Rubio told Sean Hannity yesterday that he had wanted border security before amnesty, but now thinks we need amnesty first so, in paying the government for their amnesty, we can use the illegal aliens’ to pay for securing the border. After all, the border will take several years to secure, so we should encourage people to cross the border illegally and forge documents to prove they’ve met the deadline. Then they can pay the feds to secure the border in even higher numbers. Or something like that.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Double Agent: Marco Rubio Caught Making Different Amnesty Claims to Spanish, English Audiences
SENATE FIGHT: REID BLOCKS BORDER FIX…
FAST TRACK: Senators urge Obama to stay on sidelines…
COULTER: IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE…
Hispanic vote declined in 2012…

Rubio: ‘I should have been more artful’…
Rand Paul to Illegals: ‘We Will Find a Place for You’…
Nevada a ‘border state’…
Flake on Border Enforcement: This Time Is Different Because ‘They Have to Submit a Plan’…

Rubio on Univision: No immigration law unless border security measures are improved

Note: Excerpts of English and Spanish transcripts as published by Univision are below.

Excerpts of Interview on Univision’s “Al Punto” with Maria Elena Salinas. 

Senator Marco Rubio: “I am 100 percent committed to the immigration issue, immigration reform. Quite the opposite, I will continue to work to make sure that it doesn’t come to that. My point is that if we don’t have those—if we cannot secure the border, if we cannot take the necessary steps to earn our colleagues’ trust, this will never become law. We’re wasting our time. But I don’t think it will come to that. I simply think that if we can arrive at a reasonable measure— of course, it has to be something reasonable—to secure the border and prevent any sort of wave of illegal immigration in the future, that we’re going to have more than enough votes to be able to accomplish it.”

Maria Elena Salinas: “Let’s try to understand how to accomplish that. At this time, the border is more secure than ever. There are 21,000 border agents, a 651-mile wall, more than 300 watchtowers. And the bill that you helped to write has even more funds for border security. So, what are the measures that you consider key for the Senate to approve the reform? What else do the Republicans want?”

Rubio: “Well, the problem—, not just Republicans. There are four, five Democrats who are also asking for it in the Senate. And the point is the following: What they want are details on exactly where those resources are going to be used because, yes, there are sectors of the border that are much more secure, but there are others that aren’t. For example, the area of Tucson, Arizona. So what they’re asking is that it not be left to the discretion of the Administration or agencies, but that the law specifically says where and how those resources will be used so that there is no waste and that the—the errors of the past are not repeated.”

Senador Marco Rubio: “Yo estoy 100 por ciento comprometido al tema migratorio, la reforma migratoria. Al contrario, voy a seguir trabajando para asegurarnos que eso no sea el resultado. El punto mío es que si no tenemos esos–si no podemos asegurar la frontera, si no podemos tomar las medidas necesarias para ganar la confianza de nuestros colegas, esto nunca se va a convertir en ley. Estamos gastando el tiempo. Pero yo no creo que va llegar a eso. Yo simplemente pienso que si nosotros podemos llegar a una medida razonable, no, tiene que ser algo razonable. Pero una medida razonable para asegurar la frontera y prevenir cualquier tipo de otra ola de migración ilegal en el futuro que vamos a tener más de suficientes votos para poder lograrlo”.

Maria Elena Salinas: “Vamos a tratar de entender cómo lograr esto. En este momento, la frontera está más segura que nunca. Hay más de 21,000 agentes fronterizos, 651 millas de muro, más de 300 torres de vigilancia. Y el proyecto que usted ayudó a redactar tiene aún más fondos para seguridad en la frontera. Entonces, ¿cuáles son esas medidas que considera que son clave para que la reforma se apruebe en el Senado? ¿Qué más quieren los republicanos”?

Rubio: “Bueno, el problema–, no solamente son republicanos. Hay cuatro, cinco demócratas que lo están pidiendo también en el Senado. Y el punto es el siguiente: Ellos lo que quieren es detallar exactamente de dónde es que se van a utilizar esos recursos porque, sí, hay sectores de la frontera que están mucho más seguros pero quedan algunos sectores que no lo son. Por ejemplo, la área de Tucson en Arizona. Entonces ellos lo que están pidiendo es que no se le dejen a la discreción de la administración o de las agencias, sino que en la ley específicamente diga dónde y cómo se van a utilizar esos recursos para que no haya malgasto y no se repitan los–los errores del pasado”.

Four Words to Watch in the Immigration Debate

This column courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

The Senate will begin debate on the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal next week. Here are four words to watch out for as the Senators make their case—and warnings about what they might mean.

1. COST

“Cost” is one word that should come up in the immigration debate, because the Gang of Eight’s amnesty proposal has a cost that is simply too high for Americans to bear. Heritage analysis found that amnesty would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Amnesty means that illegal immigrants become legal—and become eligible for Obamacare benefits, Social Security, welfare, and Medicare. But they won’t pay enough into the system in taxes to cover the cost of all these benefits, meaning the rest of the taxpayers will have to bear the burden. This simply isn’t fair to hard-working Americans.

2. BORDER

Despite claims of security—and talk of amending the bill—the Gang of Eight immigration bill doesn’t secure the border. Instead, it “delivers nothing new—other than the promise of spending a lot more money and running up our debt.” As James Carafano, Heritage’s E. W. Richardson Fellow, explains: “Amnesty immediately creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the bill’s strategy would drive up the cost of securing the border.”

3. AMNESTY

Heritage President Jim DeMint has said that it’s a false choice for people to say that amnesty is necessary to immigration reform. Amnesty encourages more illegal immigration, and that is not what immigration reform is supposed to do.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese, Heritage’s Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus, reminds us that America has tried this before, and it didn’t work:

Today they call it a “ road-map to citizenship.” Ronald Reagan called it “amnesty.” And he was right. The 1986 reform did not solve our immigration problem—in fact, the population of illegal immigrants has nearly quadrupled since that “comprehensive” bill.

4. “COMPREHENSIVE”

Beware the word “comprehensive.” As Meese notes above, the amnesty of 1986 was also called a “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform. It doesn’t work, and it’s not what we need. We need a separate, step-by-step approach to immigration reform. An approach that works—that the American people can trust—would start with reforming the legal immigration system and enforcing the security measures that are supposed to be in place.

Read the Morning Bell and more en Español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Allen West on Immigration and Sexual Assaults in the military

Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) discusses immigration reform, sexual assault in the military, his work with Next Generation TV and his foundation. Video courtesy of C-SPAN:

No driver’s licenses for illegal aliens in Florida

Florida Governor Rick Scott vetoed HB 235, which would have given illegal aliens drivers licenses.

Governor Scott states in his letter vetoing the bill:

“Qualifying for deferred action status does not confer substantive rights or lawful status upon an individual; it does not create a pathway to a green card or citizenship; nor does it extend to any family members of the person granted the status either. Deferred action status is simply a policy of the Obama Administration, absent Congressional direction, designed to dictate removal action decisions using DHS agency discretion. It was never passed by Congress, nor is it a promulgated rule.”

Governor Scott is using his veto pen to send a clear message to President Obama that he is nullifying the President’s executive action.

Governor Scott goes on to note:

“Given that deferred action status does not confer substantive rights or lawful status upon an individual, Florida is best served by relying on current state law. Already, Florida law allows those with a federal employment authorization card, without regard to their deferred action status, to obtain a temporary Florida driver license.

Although the Legislature may have been well intentioned in seeking to expedite the process to obtain a temporary driver license, it should not have been done by relying on a federal government policy adopted without legal basis.”

Democrat Senator Darren Soto (S-14), who sponsored the legislation, stated, “The vast majority of my peers understand we need to encourage immigrants to become working members of our society. It makes no sense that the Scott administration would veto something it’s already doing.”

What Senator Soto does not explain is why give anyone a privilege who has broken the law.

21,000 deadly attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11

According to the website The Religion Of Peace another gruesome milestone has been reached. This milestone has been ignored by politicians and media the world over. It is important to understand that the war against Islamic extremism is not over, as much as President Obama would like to think so.

The recent Boston bombing, beheading in London and attempted murder of a soldier in Paris indicate attacks will continue and could escalate. Turmoil and terrorist attacks in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and across North Africa do not bode well for our national security.

The Periodical  Review: Summary of Information from Jihadi Forums – The Second Half of January 2013 published by ICT’s Jihadi Websites Monitoring Group summarizes notable events discussed on jihadist Web forums during the second half of January 2013. Following are the main points covered in the report:

  • The Taliban-Pakistan and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan announce the formation of a new group dedicated to liberating Islamists incarcerated in Pakistani prisons. They reiterate the obligation to wage jihad against the Pakistani regime, and promise to assassinate Pakistani security personnel tied to the imprisonment of Muslims.
  • Following demonstrations by the Sunni minority against the discriminatory policies of the Iraqi regime, the Islamic State of Iraq calls Sunnis to take up arms against the Shiite regime, to eliminate the growing threat to Iraq.
  • The French invasion of northern Mali and their war against jihadist forces ignites a wave of protests by Muslims worldwide and increasing threats of attack on French civilian and military targets.
  • Abu Yahya al-Humam, the Emir of the Sahara region for Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), reveals the intention to establish an Islamic emirate in the Sahara encompassing all local jihadist organizations, which France had forced to retreat.
  • The Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) publishes a new issue of Sada Al-Jihad. It is the first issue to appear since 2010.
  • Ahrar Al-Sham, a Salafi-jihadist group active in Syria, officially announced its establishment.
  • On January 21, 2013, a new jihadist web forum was launched: Al-Kitab wal-Saif.

Please click here to view the full Second Half of January 2013 report in PDF format.

Returning to a pre-9/11 policy of dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement issue (a.k.a. the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center) only leads to more violence.

TROP

may2013

RELATED COLUMNS:

Seven months ago: 20,000+ deadly terror attacks by the ‘Religion of Peace’ since 9/11

A year ago: 19,000+ deadly attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11

Two years ago: 18,000 deadly terror attacks committed by the ‘Religion of Peace’ since 9/11

Rubio: Immigration reform bill will not pass as is

Rubio: “There will have to be improvements. … If we can make sure we put in place enforcement mechanisms and a guest worker program that ensures this will never happen again in the future, we’re going to have responsible immigration reform.”

“And if we don’t have that then we won’t have immigration reform, and I think our country will suffer for it.”

Washington, D.C. – As the Senate prepares for a June floor debate on S.744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) continues to work with his colleagues to fix our immigration system, strengthen our borders, and end de facto amnesty. Rubio used this week’s second installment of Marco’s Constituent Mailbox video series to address questions from his constituents about how to fix America’s broken immigration system.

In a letter, Lynn from Wesley Chapel shared her concerns about the unintended consequences of a large immigration reform bill and called for pilot programs and smaller pieces of legislation instead. Watch Rubio’s video response above and read his response below:

Senator Marco Rubio: “Lynn, that’s an excellent question. That is exactly the issue we are grapplingwith. First, I say you make a very compelling argument for repealing ObamaCare because, in fact, ObamaCare is an impediment to hiring. And the fact that people are thinking the way you are proves it. The fact of the matter is that ObamaCare will keep people from being hired. The problem we are balancing that against is that these folks have violated the laws of the United States, our immigration laws, and it isn’t fair or right for them to benefit from a government subsidy like ObamaCare. It will drive up the cost of this bill tremendously, in essence be unsustainable. And it isn’t fair either. So we cannot allow them to have access to ObamaCare benefits while they are here on their probationary and provisional status. The other reason why is because we want to make sure people that are being legalized in this country can sustain themselves. The last thing we want to do is legalize 11 million people and have a significant percentage of them be dependent on government. It’s not that we are not compassionate. It’s that we cannot afford it, it isn’t responsible, and it isn’t fair to the people that did it the right way. As far as the complex piece of legislation, that’s always been my initial preference: to do it in separate pieces of legislation so we can keep them from being traded against each other. In essence, so we can avoid a deal where they say to us, ‘We agree to more border security if you water down the guest-worker program or vice versa’. I don’t want that to happen and so far it has not.

“The problem with immigration though is that it is complex because it is all interwoven. It’s all related to each other. It’s literally impossible to do one part without doing the other. Let me give you an example. You can do border security, you can build fences, and we should. You should hire more border patrol agents, and we should. You should improve technology, and we should. But that alone is not enough because the magnet of employment is still in place. If we don’t have an E-Verify system for workers in America, for every single employer in America, people are still going to try to come. They are going to try to come for those jobs. That’s why you have to do E-Verify and border security, but even those two things are not enough. You also need to relate it to a guest-worker program. Why? Because our economy does need temporary workers in certain sectors like agriculture.  And if you do not find a legal way for people to come here and be able to do that, then they will come illegally to do that, and so that’s why you also need a guest-worker program.

“Related to all of that, of course, are the other issues involved in immigration reform. For example, the 11 million that are here now. You can only imagine, if we implement universal E-Verify – meaning no one can work in America unless they have legal documentation, but you have 11 million people sitting there that one day we intend to get to but not now, who are not legalized – none of those 11 million will be able to work anymore. So now you’re going to have a very serious problem in our society – a bunch of people in America that want to work, can work, but cannot because of E-Verify. So it’s better to understand who they are and legalize them now so they can start paying their taxes, and start proving who they are and what they’re here for. In addition to all of that, we want to freeze the problem that we have in place right now. Right now it’s 11 million, we think it’s about 11 million people – not all of them are going to qualify for this, by the way – but we think we can get them to come forward, learn English, pay a fine, start paying taxes, undergo background checks for national security and criminality. We can understand who the problem is and freeze it in place. If we wait to do it in the future, that 11 million, that number could grow. And it will be harder and harder to sift out those who have been here long enough to qualify and those who do not.

“So what I have found is that all of these issues are inter-related. You can’t deal with one without dealing with the other, otherwise it doesn’t work. And that’s why it’s so complex because the issue is complex. But I give you my word, that if this issue becomes one of those old-fashioned Washington issues where they start horse trading, one part of it for another part of it. If each of these are not dealt with as separate issues even though they are dealt with in one bill, then I won’t be able to support that anymore. I made that very clear from the beginning, and I continue to make that clear now. And that’s why I continue to ask for an open, transparent and extensive process. So the American people can know exactly what it is we’re doing, so that all views can be considered and heard, and so improvements can be made to this legislation. And let me tell you, there will have to be improvements. Because the good thing is the American people, the vast majority of them throughout the political spectrum, have clearly said that they are prepared to responsibly deal with those that are here illegally, but they are only willing to do so if we can take measures that ensure that this problem will never happen again in the future. And so, if we can make sure we put in place enforcement mechanisms and a guest worker program that ensures this will never happen again in the future, we’re going to have responsible immigration reform. And if we don’t have that then we won’t have immigration reform, and I think our country will suffer for it.”

RELATED COLUMNS:

BLACK LEADERS: IMMIGRATION BILL WILL ‘HARM’ AFRICAN AMERICAN WORKERS

Immigration Reform in One Infographic

This column is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry:

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill on Tuesday. It will go to the Senate floor after the Memorial Day recess. Heritage has pointed out the problems with this “comprehensive” approach — including the staggering costs of amnesty and a failure to secure the border.

Puzzle_Immig_v2_450px

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Laura Ingraham: Marco Rubio has betrayed conservatives

Conservatives make a mistake when they put their hope in a person and not principles. That is the message from Laura Ingraham:

Before the election of Marco Rubio to the US Senate many saw him as the man to carry to Washington, D.C. the conservative principles that he spoke about so passionately during his campaign. He was seen as a man whose background, ideas and ideals were just what was needed to push back against the progressive agendas of more taxation, bigger government, immigration reform and a do nothing foreign policy. For many the hope was he would set things straight in the US Senate. For conservatives that hope has now become hype.

Conservative Floridians have now become disillusioned.

WDW has reported on how this happened. Some blame staff, some blame the influence on Rubio by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and others the go along to get along and get reelected siren call of lobbyists. Marco was a man of principle but then he decided to go on a different path than what he said during his campaign say many.

Marco Rubio is now viewed as the consummate politician. However, he can redeem himself, according to some. Will he go down with the immigration bill? That is the question.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Zuckerberg And Rubio: Amnesty’s Two Indistinguishable Amigos

Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio’s amnesty ad “deceptive” (Video)

Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio’s amnesty ad “deceptive” (Video)

Jon Feere, the Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, reviews an ad released by the “Gang of Eight” featuring Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). The ad is playing nationwide, including in Florida.

Feere states, “The minute-long advertisement calls the proposal ‘conservative immigration reform’ and attempts to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the amnesty ad is misleading on a number of counts…”

The ad was produced by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who created FWD.us, an advocacy group aimed at promoting amnesty. One of the group’s offshoots is “Americans for a Conservative Direction“, which is cited at the end of the ad.

Americans for a Conservative Direction’s board members include: Haley Barbour: former Governor Haley Barbour served as the 62nd governor of Mississippi from 2004 to 2012 and served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the mid ’90s; Sally Bradshaw: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Chief of Staff from 1999-2001, and served as a Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project; Joel Kaplan: currently Vice President of US Public Policy at Facebook, Joel also served as Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush; Dan Senor: former chief advisor to Representative Paul Ryan on the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign; Rob Jesmer: former Executive Director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2008 – 2012.

Below is the ad:

Here is Feere’s analysis of the ad phrase by phrase:

RUBIO: “Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty.”

Very few Americans believe that we don’t have a serious problem with illegal immigration. It is true that this country is experiencing a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, and it is largely the result of the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration laws on the books. The problem is that Rubio wants to turn this “de facto” amnesty into a formal amnesty, and grant millions of law-breakers work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, travel documents, and an unknown number of additional state-level benefits. Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president’s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs. Top-ranking ICE official Chris Crane explained the lawsuit to Fox News, here. Mr. Crane’s recent congressional testimony, available here, raises many troubling issues. ICE’s additional concern is that the amnesty bill would make permanent their inability to enforce the law by giving DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “virtually unlimited discretion” to waive all enforcement of immigration law. If an amnesty is passed, the Obama administration will likely continue to undermine any immigration enforcement provisions in the bill.

ANNOUNCER: “Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.”

The so-called “Gang of Eight” senators who wrote the bill aren’t all “conservative leaders”, unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to fit that description. True, the gang also includes Republican senators, but it is up for debate whether one considers Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to be conservative on immigration. Their immigration report card grades, from the pro-enforcement group NumbersUSA, are troubling: Graham has a “C”, McCain a “D”, and a Flake “C”. This is in contrast to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has an “A+” from NumbersUSA.

The voiceover in the ad also cites a newspaper article for the “toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” language. This commercial carefully avoided some of the language in the article’s full sentence, particularly the part noting that this bill would allow previously deported illegal aliens to return to the country. The article’s full sentence reads:

The controversial proposal would grant most of the 11 million people here illegally a path to citizenship and give thousands of deported individuals a chance to return, but would also adopt some of the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.

No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the “toughest” our country has ever seen. Of course, the article is really claiming that the bill would “adopt some” tough enforcement measures, not that the bill itself is tough.

On closer inspection, many of these measures (noted below) are not as tough as they seem to be.

RUBIO: “They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine.”

Within six months of the bill’s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status, and many of the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to jump through to get such status do not amount to much. It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they’re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama’s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven’t filled out an application form. The same situation will unfold under the large-scale amnesty bill. ICE will be virtually handcuffed and will not be able to carry out most enforcement.

To acquire the primary legal status offered under this bill, illegal immigrants would have to undergo a simple background check. But the bill would still grant legal status to illegal immigrants with a significant amount of criminality on their rap sheet. For example, crimes like ID theft and vandalism are not considered serious enough to deny a person status, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. Specifically, two misdemeanors will not result in legal status being denied and under the bill multiple misdemeanors could be counted as “one” misdemeanor, provided they occur on the same day. Additionally, any problematic history an illegal immigrant has in his home country is unlikely to be uncovered; in a sense, our public safety would depend on the bookkeeping of police departments in the alien’s homeland, and there are many things that Americans consider criminal that are not criminal overseas.

Finally, the government’s capacity to conduct background checks on millions of illegal immigrants is questionable. ICE Union head Chris Crane explained in a video interview with the Daily Caller that there is “no such thing as a background check on a foreign national.” The 1986 amnesty also had background checks, but hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applicants were rubber-stamped. The amnesty granted legal status to someone who used his new status to freely travel to the Middle East to pick up terrorist training and helped lead the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Had we enforced our immigration laws, he would have been removed from the country and the attack might never have occurred.

The recent Boston Marathon bombing should also illustrate the government’s inability to carefully vet backgrounds. The FBI interviewed at least one of the terrorists, his family members, and his neighbors, in addition to analyzing his Internet usage. They apparently found nothing that would have raised a red flag. Despite the fact that DHS estimates there are many problematic foreign-born people living in the United States, the millions of illegal aliens applying for the amnesty will not have nearly as vigorous of a background check as the Boston bombers had, suggesting that some bad people will receive legal status through the bill. As written, the bill would allow known gang members to become U.S. citizens if they simply “renounce” their gang affiliation.

Rubio also claims that illegal aliens applying for the amnesty would have to pay a fee, but there are waivers and no specificity. The bill simply notes that illegal aliens aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano]”. While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says it should be enough to cover processing the applications. (See here for David North’s estimate of the size of the fee needed to process applicants properly.) But in the next section, the bill gives Napolitano the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee would apply to most amnesty applicants.

It should also be noted that USCIS already offers waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees — in fact, the Obama administration created a form for such waivers in 2010 — and similar waivers may apply to any future amnesty. To obtain a fee waiver for some existing immigration benefits, an applicant simply must show that they are currently using a welfare program. Currently, 71 percent of illegal alien households with children make use of at least one form of welfare.

Rubio also claims that amnesty applicants would have to pay a fine. A fine is different from a fee and, by definition, a fine is meant to be a punishment for breaking a law. The bill puts the fine at $500 for the initial legal status — not much of a punishment considering the laws that have been broken. This initial status turns the illegal aliens into legal residents and grants them work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, and many other benefits. Applicants would have to pay another $500 over the next six years. If a person wants to upgrade from this provisional status to full green card status (and eventual U.S. citizenship), they would have to pay another $1,000 many years down the road. But there are many exceptions. For example, people of any age who claim to have entered before age 16 and have a high school degree or GED would not have to pay either of the $500 fines, nor would they have to pay the $1,000 fine for green card status. Also, all people under 21 years of age, regardless of when they entered and whether they have a high school degree, would be exempted from both of the $500 fines.

Furthermore, it is likely that some pro-amnesty groups will assist applicants in paying the fines — some of which will be using taxpayer-provided funds to do so. The bill would actually grant groups like La Raza $150 million of taxpayer dollars to help illegal aliens apply for the amnesty, and the bill grants them a lot of discretion to decide how to spend the money. In reality, the fine may not be much of a punishment at all — particularly if American taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

Absent from Rubio’s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill. For months Rubio and other amnesty advocates sold the bill on the notion of requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they have worked off the books. But it was simply part of an attempt to mislead the public into thinking this bill is tougher than it really is. Only “assessed” taxes have to be paid, and if the IRS doesn’t audit illegal immigrants working off the books — which is won’t — then there will be no “assessed” taxes to pay.

ANNOUNCER: “Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers.”

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits. Past amnesties show that these benefits are mostly what illegal aliens are looking for; green card status and U.S. citizenship are not priorities for most illegal immigrants. No border security has to be in place for these benefits to be handed out. A proposed amendment to the bill that would have made border security come before these benefits are handed out was rejected by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Flake and Sen. Lindsey Graham, two of the alleged “conservative leaders” who helped authored this bill, voted against the amendment along with all of the Democrats.

The “triggers” — border security, an entirely new electronic verification system (to replace E-Verify), and an operational exit-tracking system — are required to be in effect before illegal immigrants can upgrade to a green card. But even this isn’t exactly true.

The bill does provide a significant amount of funding for border security, but it remains unclear how that money would be spent and whether the border would ever actually be secured. The bill requires an “effectiveness rate” of 90 percent and defines such a rate as “the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn-backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.” This equation requires some estimate of the number of missed illegal entries, but the metrics of border security have been up for debate for many years and it’s unclear how such an estimate would be reached. Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council asks, “How are they going to measure effectiveness?” He fears the bills language “will put pressure on Border Patrol management to fudge the number in order to fit political purposes.”

Rubio has said that if effective control of these sections of the border is not met within five years, “it goes to a border commission made up of people that live and have to deal with the border and they will take care of that problem.” But in the bill, the “Southern Border Security Commission” would be made up of six Washington-appointed members (two by the president and four by congressional leaders), plus one from each southern border state (appointed by the governor), and it could do nothing but issue recommendations. But it gets worse. The bill also says that if “litigation or a force majeure” prevents the border from being secured then Secretary Napolitano has the authority to go ahead and issue illegal aliens U.S. citizenship anyhow.

One member of the Gang of Eight has asserted that citizenship for illegal immigrants will not be conditioned on actually having a secure border. Sen. Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) explained, “We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. This [the trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.”

In other words, there really aren’t any border security triggers at all.

RUBIO: “No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.”

Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.

We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family. Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state.

As for Obamacare, illegal immigrants who get green card status will have access to Obamacare, causing the aggregate annual deficit to soar to around $106 billion, finds the Heritage Foundation. Heritage also concludes that the amnesty applicants who receive green card status would also receive full eligibility for more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.

As to the “gainfully employed” requirement, Rubio is not being completely honest. The most important exemption comes toward the end of the bill, but it’s worth noting at the outset: All education and job requirements in the bill are waived if the immigrant is unable to work or go to school “due to circumstances outside the control of the alien”. The bill provides no explanation of what this might include, and one must ask whether high unemployment rates would count as something outside the control of the amnesty applicants.

Acquiring provisional status does not require evidence of employment. Renewing the status after six years does trigger an employment section of the bill. The section requires that the legalized immigrant fulfill one of two options. In the first option, the alien must prove that he “was regularly employed throughout the period of admission as a registered provisional immigrant, allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60 days” and “not likely to become a public charge”. But this means that the immigrant could be unemployed for a two-month period and still meet this requirement. Plus, the wording is such that it leaves some interpretation to the courts. What if the immigrant has two “brief periods” of unemployment “lasting not more than 60 days”? By some interpretations, the immigrant would still be able to meet this requirement. Can an immigrant have five such brief periods? Ten? If the bill were written to limit unemployment to 60 days, then it would read “allowing for brief periods of unemployment totaling not more than 60 days”. It is a simple wording change, but it leads to a significantly different outcome.

As an alternative, the alien can “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level” for the period he lived here as an alien legalized under the bill. If the alien is the only person in his household, this requirement means that he would have to be making at least $11,490 a year.

But standards are low here. Amnesty applicants can submit a number of different documents to prove they worked. This includes any paperwork from a day laborer hiring center or even sworn affidavits from an alien’s family member who is willing to claim that the alien was working.

On top of all this, the work requirements do not have to be met if an amnesty applicant is going to school. The bill defines the education requirement quite broadly.

Furthermore, the employment and educational requirements do not apply to anyone under age 21 at the time of applying for the amnesty’s provisional legal status, nor do they apply to people over age 60. Also exempted is anyone who is a “primary caretaker of a child or another person who requires supervision or is unable to care for himself or herself.”

ANNOUNCER: “Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.”

Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a “tough line” on immigration. The phrasing in this portion of the Rubio commercial is taken from quotes from pro-amnesty columnists in the media. The word “bold” was used by a Washington Post blogger who supports amnesty. The phrase “very conservative” is from the same writer; the full sentence is more illuminating:

In essence, if you accept that you have to start somewhere and we have no capability to uproot 11 million people, this is a very conservative-friendly plan.

So the writer called the bill “very conservative-friendly” and the ad shortened it to “very conservative.” One could certainly argue that these have different meanings. But the premise of the full quote is also worthy of debate. Does the United States have no capability to send 11 million people back home? Amnesty advocates constantly argue that the only alternative to mass amnesty is mass deportations. But in reality, both are unworkable. The only solution to the illegal immigration problem is the “attrition through enforcement” policy where we consistently enforce our immigration laws for a period of years and encourage illegal immigrants to go home in greater numbers than they already are. The Post blogger does not entertain this option and presents only a choice between amnesty and mass deportations, one embraced by Rubio.

The phrase “tough line on immigration” was taken from a pro-amnesty columnist from CNN. The same columnistcalled Arizona a “rogue state at war” for passing laws attempting to curb illegal immigration. That the pro-amnesty columnist opposed Jan Brewer’s efforts but embraces Rubio should raise flags about Rubio’s commitment to immigration enforcement.

RUBIO: “It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that’s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn’t unfair to the people that have done it the right way.”

Rubio claims that this comprehensive amnesty will fix the illegal immigration problem “once and for all”. But the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized. Today, about 7.5 million illegal aliens are holding jobs and their employers are not being held accountable. Why would anyone believe that the enforcement provisions in yet another amnesty would ever be enforced? In fact, only a few years after IRCA passed, the National Council of La Raza issued a report calling for the end to workplace enforcement. Interestingly, the author of that report was Cecilia Munoz, who today is President Obama’s chief immigration advisor. Odds are high that she will be working to undermine the enforcement in Rubio’s bill the moment it becomes law. Just last week President Obama told a roomful of amnesty advocate groups that if the bill becomes law, he will “revisit” the enforcement provisions. In other words, Obama has pledged to administratively narrow the scope of enforcement as soon as 11 million illegal immigrants and their family members acquire legal status through the bill. This is why enforcement must come before any type of legal status. Rubio’s bill is backwards, and it’s clear he hasn’t learned from the mistakes of IRCA.

Rubio also claims that the bill “does not encourage people to come illegally” but he apparently hasn’t been listening to border officials in the field who have come to Washington to testify before Congress. Rubio didn’t see thisWashington Times article:

“We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate committee.

He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.

This should not come as a surprise. Amnesties always encourage illegal immigration because they send the message that illegal entry is a feasible path to legal U.S. residence.

Rubio also claims that amnesty is not unfair to those who are attempting to come to the United States the legal way. The reality is that illegal aliens get to stay in the country the moment they apply for amnesty. If they pass the simple background check, they receive legal status and nearly all the benefits of citizenship, including a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, a driver’s license, and many additional state-level benefits. While green card status may be delayed for a period of years, it is undeniable that amnesty applicants are in a much better position compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the United States legally. The amnesty applicant is only in the “back of the line” in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country.

ANNOUNCER: “Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform.”

Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to “stand” with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as “conservative” in any sense of the word.

The cost of amnesty

A new study by the Heritage Foundation on the cost of amnesty will reveal the following:

The immigration debate is about to get a lot more concrete.

Lawmakers need to be honest about the cost of their proposed immigration plans—and a new study due out today from The Heritage Foundation calculates the cost to taxpayers of granting amnesty to unlawful immigrants.

Yesterday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Heritage President Jim DeMint said:

The study you’ll see from Heritage this week presents the staggering costs of another amnesty in our country and the detrimental effects, long-term, that that will have. There’s no reason we can’t begin to fix our immigration system so that we won’t make this problem worse. But the bill that’s being presented is unfair to those who came here legally; it’ll cost Americans trillions of dollars; it’ll make our unlawful immigration system worse.

Watch Jim DeMint talk about the cost of amnesty on “This Week”

DeMint previewed the study, conducted by Heritage senior research fellow in domestic policy Robert Rector, who studied the cost of amnesty under a similar proposal in 2007. DeMint said:

The way that we calculated the cost, and I read the study over the weekend, I don’t think anyone can argue with it. If you consider all the factors related to the amnesty—and believe me, this is comprehensive, that it will have a negative long-term impact on our gross domestic product. We just want Congress for once to count the cost of a bill. They are notorious for underestimating the cost and not understanding the consequences.

Heritage’s Jason Richwine, the senior policy analyst in empirical studies, says the new report will be a “resounding rebuttal to the claim from amnesty supporters that a long waiting period between the initial amnesty and citizenship will eliminate any major costs to taxpayers.”

This window of ineligibility for many government services has led supporters to argue that an amnesty will not be costly. There are two problems with this argument. First, households headed by illegal immigrants today consume some government services and pay far less in taxes….The second problem with the view that amnesty would not be costly because of the waiting period is rather obvious: After the waiting period is over, lifetime costs will be substantial.

To make sure that costs are counted accurately, Richwine says, “The estimates for the final period in our research will be calculated beginning 14 years after the initial amnesty, which is the point at which recipients could become naturalized citizens.”

Heritage’s cost analysis is unique. DeMint dismissed the idea that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could be trusted with calculating the bill’s costs, because it is bound by the way that Congress asks it to add the numbers. He said:

CBO said Obamacare wouldn’t cost us anything—they’re basically puppets of the Congress and the assumptions that they put in the bill. Heritage is the only organization that has done an analysis of the cost. Unlawful immigrants make up about 2 percent of our GDP, and they consume most of that. If you consider all the factors of amnesty and unlawful immigration, the cost will be in the trillions of dollars over the lifetime of these unlawful immigrants.

DeMint said that Members of Congress must read the Gang of Eight immigration proposal to make sure they know what is on the table.

“I think if people read the bill, that it will be blocked,” he said. “Because once you get into it, just like Obamacare, it is not the way it’s being advertised.”

To read the full study click here.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

The Gang of Eight Immigration Bill, Explained in One Info-graphic

The Heritage Foundation reports, “Senators return to Washington next week to debate the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration bill. Heritage President Jim DeMint has said the bill is ‘unfair, it costs too much, and it’s going to make the problem worse’.”

The below video is testimony before the US Senate by the ICE Union Chief, Chris Crane, in his testimony on the 884 page new Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). The ICE Union won an initial court victory in its lawsuit against the Obama Administration. Federal Judge Federal Judge Reed O’Connor told the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that they had no power to refuse to deport illegal aliens.

Crane testifies before the Senate expressing his concern that law enforcement was shut out of the negotiations on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Crane testified the Act is flawed as currently written because it:

(1) does not provide for tamper proof Federal ID cards to keep track of illegal aliens

(2) does not have any provision to arrest and remove 400,000 criminal Illegal Aliens who are fugitives from justice with felony warrants

(3) does not deal with the inability of the federal government’s bureaucracy to process 18+ million Illegal aliens when the federal government hasn’t even been able to process 900,000 Veterans disability claims over a 4 year period

(4) does nothing to make Universities report (which should be under threat of felony criminal charges) the names and locations of the hundreds of thousands foreign students like the terrorists who were involved in the Boston bombing who no longer attend college classes

(5) does nothing to provide a means to cover the $6 trillion cost of the flawed 884 page Act according to research by the Heritage Foundation (the Senate Bill intentionally misled the American people by saying it would cost $22.5 billion)

(6) doesn’t cover the cost because the Senate bill provides for charging each of the 18+ million illegal aliens $500.00 when the real cost per illegal is $335,000.00

(7) intentionally misleads the American people by saying the Act would not be enacted until the border was secured when there is no provision to guarantee the border is secure after 29 years of failed promise (THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT CAN BE TRUSTED TO VERIFY THE BORDER HAS BEEN CLOSED IS THE ICE UNION)

(8) flagrantly discriminates against nearly 4 million unemployed Veterans by giving employers a $3000 tax credit for employing illegal aliens and relieves them from having to cover illegal aliens under the Obama Health Care law without giving those same benefits to unemployed US citizens

(9) does absolutely nothing to locate the many terrorists in the US among the 18+ million illegal aliens like the Chechen terrorists, the Times Square bomber, the first World Trade Union bombers in 1993, and Major Hassan who had all been affected by the Islam jihadists outreach program underway in the US by remaining under the radar scope of CIA and the FBI’s Watch Lists (the requirement in the Act for a tamper proof Federal ID card requiring fingerprints would help locate those terrorist suspects)

(10) does not provide provisions to prevent 80 million unskilled relatives of the 18+ million illegal aliens form coming into the US which would destroy the fragile US Welfare system & bankrupt the Republic

(11) does not have a provision to deport anyone who fails in their application (Mohammed Salameh who applied for amnesty in 1984 but was turned down was a co-conspirator in the in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993)

(12) does not provide annual quotas to process applicants so the crush of applicants won’t bring the process to a full stop, and does not have provisions in it to do a thorough background investigation of applicant from high threat countries/regions.

Heritage put together an info-graphic that explains some of the major problems with a ‘comprehensive’ approach to immigration reform. Forward this to a friend to share these concerns.

What's Wrong withthe Gang of Eight's Bill?

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Georgia Billboard calls out Florida Senator Rubio

Elizabeth Llorente from Fox News Latino reports:

A billboard taking aim at U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is expected to be installed next week in Georgia, said the head of a conservative group that is behind the effort.

The group is unhappy with the Florida lawmaker because of his central role in a bipartisan Senate bill that seeks to reform U.S. immigration laws by, among other things, tightening enforcement, expanding the guest worker program and providing undocumented immigrants a path to legal status.

It is his support for giving undocumented immigrants an opportunity to legalize – while continuing to live and work in the United States – that most upsets them.

“There’s the betrayal factor,” said D.A. King, who helped draft several of Georgia’s anti-illegal immigration laws. “It’s a mystery to us why he’s still considered a conservative.”

“In his race for the Senate, Rubio said that he would never support any amnesty,” said King, head of the The Dustin Inman Society, described as a non-partisan coalition of citizens against illegal immigration. “If there was any real intention to secure the borders it would have been done after 1986, or after 2007 in preparation for what is happening now.”

Read more.

ABOUT THE DUSTIN INMAN SOCIETY:

With a focus on Georgia, The Dustin Inman Society is dedicated to educating the public and our elected officials on the consequences of illegal immigration, our unsecured borders and the breakdown of the rule of law in our Republic.

Named for one of the thousands of Americans who have paid the ultimate price for those unsecured borders, The Dustin Inman Society is a non-partisan coalition of citizens of all ethnicities and from all walks of life who recognize that illegal immigration and homeland security are the most critical issues in America today.

The obvious illegal immigration crisis is not a “federal problem” – it is a national problem – with Georgia having one of the largest populations of illegal aliens and criminal employers in the nation.