Rubio Fronts for Schumer, Durbin

June 6, 2013 - 9:47 AM

Marco Rubio, Chuck Schumer

Sen. Marco Rubio (R.-Fla.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) at an April 18, 2013 press conference discussing their immigration proposal. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Screened from view by the dust-up over IRS and other recent scandals, an amazing left-wing power grab is being guided through the U.S. Senate.

This remarkable measure is the mirror-image of the IRS affair, the evident goal of which was to suppress Republican/tea party votes in the 2012 election.  The current power grab would conversely give political backing to the Democrats, potentially adding millions of new-found voters in support of liberal causes.

The bill in question is the "gang of eight" proposal (S.744), which would grant legal status to an estimated 11 million Hispanics now illegally in the country (probably an understatement of the numbers), allegedly subject to safeguards and restrictions.  It's in effect an instant amnesty, though its backers say it isn't, with the safeguards (maybe) to be added later.

Making this projected coup even more astounding, it's being sold to the Senate and the public as a "conservative" measure, heavily advertised that way in a multi-million dollar PR campaign.  Supposedly proving its conservatism is the fact that Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, an early favorite of tea party forces, is one of its main backers, and by far the most vocal advocate for its passage.

Rubio's name and voice are being constantly featured in radio/tv spots on a national basis, with emphasis on conservative outlets and markets where he would presumably be most effective (with back-up in a cameo role from Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan). The ads are sponsored by a Mark Zuckerberg-Silicon Valley group calling itself "Americans for a Conservative Direction."  Oddly, before these ads appeared, no one had ever thought to describe the Obama-loving Silicon Valley moguls as "Republican," much less "conservative," in outlook.

A half-dozen or so GOPers have been identified with this "conservative" group, but the most recognizable names among them are Bush/RINO types whose usual statements on such issues are to the effect that the party needs to be less conservative, not more so. The whole thing looks like a stealth operation, hijacking the conservative cause, and label, to promote a liberal-left agenda.

This strategy becomes still more apparent when we note that among Rubio's chief allies in the immigration battle are Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), two of the most hard-core liberals in the Senate.  In other cases, neither of these has ever been bashful about seeking the limelight, but in this instance they're staying modestly in the background, while tea-partier Rubio goes front and center.

The reason Schumer and Durbin like the bill is plain enough when we boil it down to essentials.  Though everything else under the sun was debated during Senate mark-up, there is from a liberal standpoint one central, overriding purpose to the legislation: Enfranchising 11 million-plus new voters, the vast majority of whom will cast reliably Democratic ballots (70 per cent or so, based on election data from the past three decades).

Moreover, since the intricate, 867 page bill has numerous features strengthening "chain immigration" - bringing in family members of the legalized immigrant population-the true expansion won't be 11 million, but many times that number.

Likewise, gliding along beneath the radar, the "gang of eight" proposal further includes the so-called DREAM Act, which would fast track to citizenship illegals who came here before they were 16 years of age (proved how?), even though they may now be 30, 40 or even older. Other parts of the bill are just as bad, or worse.

Rubio in his media pitch mentions none of this, instead focusing on aspects of the bill that can be described as "toughness" (the main theme of the bogus "conservative" commercials): Stronger border security that might be achieved in five years, or not, long waits for citizenship, preventing a further influx of illegals.

Unfortunately, we have heard all this before, in 1986, when the GOP was inveigled into supporting amnesty, in exchange for tougher immigration standards.  We got the amnesty, all right, but the rest of it never happened.  Now we have perhaps four times as many illegals as we had back then, while the Republican Party actually managed to lose Hispanic voters in the process (its share dropping from 37 per cent in 1984 to 30 per cent in 1988).

As for "tough" enforcement, does anyone believe the Obama regime will do anything whatever of that nature, given its track record of gutting the immigration laws already on the books? (In which respect, see the recent embittered statements of immigration agents who say they have been prevented from doing their jobs by this administration.)

Finally, there is the 10 year waiting period that according to Rubio will be required before the amnestied illegals will have full citizenship status (including the right to vote). It doesn't take a crystal ball to foresee what will happen if this legislation is adopted.  As soon as the Democratic lawyers can draft a complaint (which they have probably done already), they will be in Federal court arguing that we must have no "second class" citizens in the United States, and that people who are here on a legal basis should be allowed to vote forthwith, no 10 years about it.

Any bets as to how some liberal jurist will rule on that?

See more "Right Views, Right Now."