Sen. Marco Rubio says his immigration plan is 'humanitarian mission'

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio

Photo by Lynne Sladky, AP2010

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio

— Most Democrats are already on board with letting young people who came to this country illegally to stay in the U.S., if they are going college or the military, and if they meet other strict requirements.

So to sell skeptics in his own party, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio began rebranding his sales pitch this week, casting his version of the so-called DREAM Act less as immigration reform than as humanitarian relief for a specific group of young people facing deportation.

If he wants to see his version of such a plan succeed, he has to persuade Republican colleagues wary of immigration reform.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/10/2793694/sen-marco-rubio-says-his-immigration.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

© 2012 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Comments » 16

Ocram (Inactive) writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

"DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS"

If that does not work then try clicking here: http://cslacker.com/images/view/2495

panola60 writes:

Every classroom desk that DREAM act supporters give to an illegal alien (subsidized by American taxpayers) deprives an American kid the same opportunity to attend that college.

There are only so many desks available and it's already very difficult to be accepted in most colleges.

The preferential treatment of illegal alien kids over American kids is wrong and unfair.

Unlike democrats, if Sen. Rubio can find a way that does not favor illegal alien kids over American kids, then I suspect he would find much more support.

RayPray writes:

Given the choice, I always opt to hire illegals.

They are prompt & reasonably cheap, with more aptitude than attitude over the local red necks.

Best of all, I don't have to stand there while they give me the real estate report and tell me just what's wrong with the world.

Ocram (Inactive) writes:

Why in the world should we favor and or push illegals who come to this country to go into the military or college more than we do to those citizens already in this country to do so?

Have we given up on those who have for generations been on welfare. These are the people who have to educated, find jobs, or go into military service.

That would be a win-win for them and the rest of us who are paying nearly 1 Trillion dollars a year for many of those who could work, get educated or serve in the military.

Ocram (Inactive) writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

"DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS"

Donefortheday writes:

Why don't the two of you take some time off?

Neither of you will win on a blog board and have become extremely annoying to anyone else who wishes to contribute to the discussion.

As far as the Presidential Election is concerned if we do not get the right person into office we will all be losers, but nothing either of you say now makes the slightest difference in what the outcome will be.

I would like to be able to read responses from people without the whose is bigger contest.

Donefortheday writes:

Allinall.....You are correct. Time for a break!

Donefortheday writes:

I love the Democrats, they are my kind of people and they rock! Obama for the next 4 years and then Hilary. Yea!

Donefortheday writes:

President Obama knows what America needs. He will make sure to give us what we desire, but we must wait a bit longer.

RayPray writes:

in response to Donefortheday:

President Obama knows what America needs. He will make sure to give us what we desire, but we must wait a bit longer.

Romney has already been cleverly castrated by Chicago sharpies.

An avalanche of new taxes will bury the rich next January.

For most thinking islanders, isn't our glorious Obama just Jesus with a tan?

Donefortheday writes:

We will get our way in 2012. Tax the rich, share the wealth, free the illegals and p-a-r-t-y!!!!!!

panola60 writes:

in response to Donefortheday:

We will get our way in 2012. Tax the rich, share the wealth, free the illegals and p-a-r-t-y!!!!!!

Conservatives want to make poor people rich instead of making rich people poor.

Liberals want to make rich people poor instead of making poor people rich.

Conservatives say: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Liberals say: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you lose a Democrat voter."

Some of the most important lessons our parents taught us were work hard to get ahead, there are no free hand outs and life’s not fair.

One of the most important speeches ever given by a political leader was given by John F. Kennedy: “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country."

All of the above are anti-socialist (i.e. anti-contemporary liberal/progressive) ideals. Today John F. Kennedy would literally be rejected from the Democrat party for just that one speech.

Socialism is supposed to level the playing field but it attempts to do so by knocking people down as opposed to lifting other people up.

The only thing that can level the playing field and maintain a truly free society is education, hard work and the avoidance of career ending choices in life both at and away from work.

jwputnam writes:

Excellent comment Panola60. All you missed was the liberals hatred of freedom.

Mayor_McCheese writes:

Why are all of you so obsessed with socialism? Obama is not a socialist and is in fact fairly moderate which is why he is concerned about the liberal base not being on board because he has been disappointing to them.

Romney is far from a conservative which is why he is constantly pandering to the conservative base in hopes they will actually believe he is conservative which he is not - by comparison to the bible-thumping national Republican party.

In truth, Romney and Obama are not that far apart on most policies. The only difference is that Romney is constantly pandering to a constituency (the hard right) that he feels he desperately needs and in the process is alienating most Americans who are actually moderates.

To say that JFK would not be embraced by Democrats is similar to the view that 2012 Republicans would have never embraced Reagan who by comparison would be seen today as a left leaning moderate.

The Republican party has moved so far right since Bush 1 that most of the Republican presidents before them would not be nominated today.

And to the malcontent who believe that liberals hate freedom, I guess it has more to do with how you define freedom. I define it as being able to do what I want without interference from the government. Unfortunately, 2012 conservatives believe that they can tell me what I can and can't do in my private life. Ron Paul is the only real conservative of the lot. I don't support him, but if you are a true conservative, you would have to agree with most of what he is selling. Not Romney who is running for Panderer in Chief. If he gets elected, you can be sure that the comments on this site will reflect conservatives making all sorts of excuses for why he has turned so moderate.

RayPray writes:

"Why are all of you so obsessed with socialism? Obama is not a socialist...."

True.

What the modern advanced welfare state represents is feudalism redivivus.

Here is how the ladder works:

Most intelligent white people either work in Hollywood, or as Wall Street investment bankers, or as trial lawyers.

Most dumb white people are consigned to government unions or the military, for which pointless wars are, at appropriate intervals, ginned up to attract their attention.

Most intelligent minorities either join the military too or spend their lives commuting in and out of prison to keep the 'War on Drugs' awake.

While most dumb minorities get onto welfare or disability, enabling them to boost the revenues for daytime TV shows.

Floating high over this hierarchy of busy distraction & energetic inertia, whatever lucky Kennedy, Clinton, or Barack, who can radiate 'cool' and get the 'Dick & Jane' quasi-religious patter right -- ever invoking foggy 'fairness' -- can rule as our benevolent philosopher King.

jwputnam writes:

Wikipedia:

"In Marxist theory, socialism, lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the criterion for economic production is use-value, and is based on direct production for use coordinated through conscious economic planning, where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor no longer operate.[1] Income would be distributed according to individual contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus would accrue to the working class or society as a whole."

So....what I am missing here?

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features