By Art Stevens
Meet the Press: Sunday, June 24th 2012: David Gregory interviews Marco Rubio.
DG: Can any illegal immigrant become legal in the United States without first going home?
MR: What we have to do first; is to win the confidence of the American people, and second; modernize our immigration system. The border security element, which has improved, needs to continue to improve. If we do these things, the problem of the nine to twelve million people becomes easier to deal with.
DG: Who can become legal? What is amnesty?
MR: We began to work on an approach, and will continue to work on an approach. We have to be compassionate to those nine to twelve million people.
DG: I’m not able to get a definitive answer from you; which is; ‘Can anyone become legal without first going home? This is going to be the brass tacks question.”
MR: The answer to that question depends on the environment on which it is being answered.
Gregory then plays a clip of Obama defending his recent decision affecting Latin children.
DG: You are not even comfortable saying what you would do about a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, even the children of illegal immigrants, because this is such a tough issue in the Republican Party over what is quote, unquote, amnesty.
MR: That’s not an accurate assessment. The Dream Act is too broad. It could lead to these kids bringing in multiple relatives. For many people, this issue is more valuable unresolved.
Rubio brings up the issue of our enforcing our immigration laws, and I don’t think ANYONE disagrees with that. Yet at the same time, he says that things have been getting better. If that is true, why not just some very slight praise for Obama? We know why. It’s because politics trumps country. He asserts that the Dream Act is too broad, and that he is working on an alternative that is better. Is it a secret? Is the reason for his not letting us know about it because even though he is Latin American, and has had years and years to contemplate it, he still doesn’t have the answer? I read his statement as saying two things. One: the main thing is, Obama is wrong. Two: I (or we) have a better answer, but if you want to know what it is, vote us in and find out. I want more than that before I vote.
MR: The reason I oppose tax increases, is because I think they hurt growth. It’s destructive to growth.
DG: Would you like to see insurance guarantees for people with pre-existing conditions?
MR: People that are difficult to insure, should be in high-risk pools. If the law is overturned, Republicans are going to have to come up with a way to replace what Obama Care does.
DG: Would you use ANY money from closing tax loopholes, or any new revenue that comes into the government, to pay down the debt?
MR: It’s a question of how you generate it.
DG: My question is: would you use ANY of it to pay down the debt?
MR: I think growth is the only way to solve this problem. I would use revenue from growth.
The initial question was very clear. “Can any illegal immigrant become legal in the United States without first going home?” What I would HOPE to get as an answer from any politician on either side of the isle would be: Yes, and then explain how; or no, and here is why. In all the times that the question was asked, we never, ever, got an answer. I really don’t expect him to go into minute detail, but I DO expect him to give us his answer, and then make all the qualifications he likes. The message I take from this is: This is not about ideas that we (the Republican Party) have that will make things better. It IS, first and foremost, that Obama is wrong. What would we do better? Vote us in; then wait and see. I want more than that before I vote.
“Who can become legal? What is amnesty?” “We will continue to work on an approach.”
Same problem. Agree or disagree with what Obama is doing or not doing, but if you are running against him, don’t you have to either agree with his handling of the issue, (OK, I’ll wait until you stop laughing,) or tell us how YOU would handle it? I want to know this before I vote, not after.
“The Dream Act could lead to these kids bringing in multiple relatives.” How ridiculous.
First of all, I think that both sides agree that border security must be made as airtight as possible. In fact, Rubio even states that it has been improved already. How do these relatives get into the country? The only thing that must be done to avoid anything like what Rubio is suggesting, is to write laws that address the situation, and then ENFORCE THEM. The enforcing part is what has eluded Presidents from Obama and on down for many, many years, and that must be changed.
“People that are difficult to insure should be in high risk pools?” Do YOU know what a high risk pool is? Again, we get a name, or a description of something, but with nothing spelled out. What is it? What does it do? How will these “difficult to insure: people” ACTUALLY be affected? No answers. Vote us in to find out. I want to know now, not after the election.
On taxes: I don’t have room here to go into detail, but I urge all of you to look back to our history. Look back to all the Presidents and their use of taxes. Reagan is a Republican idol. Bush One: “Read my Lips.” PLEASE look back to history. NO ONE ever WANTS to raise taxes. You raise them only if your country is in need of them. Your country should trump politics.