Immigration

Little Marco Disses DREAMers

He says he won't support the DREAM Act

|

One has to dig pretty deep into the right-wing swamp (to use President Donald Trump's favorite word for D.C.) to find people heartless enough to oppose

Marco Rubio
Donkey Hoter via Foter.com

legal status for DREAMers, individuals who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents when they were minors and have lived here ever since. But Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), a son of immigrants, has decided to wade into the swamp.

He is opposing the DREAM Act that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill) have dusted off to protect DREAMers from this administration's harsh deportation machinery.

Not even arch-restrictionists are opposed to offering these people legal status—so long as it is done through proper legislative means rather than via executive action as was the case with President Obama's DACA (Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals). Not Rush Limbaugh. Not Newt Gingrich. Not Pat Robertson. The only folks who are opposed are Breitbart and the various organizations associated with FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) whose founder, John Tanton, is the worst combo of zero-population-growth lunacy and racism.

But Sen. Rubio, once the proud author of the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill, has now effectively capitulated to their pressure tactics and declared that he is worried about the "unintended consequences" of the DREAM Act. What are his objections and are they legit?

Go here to find out.

NEXT: Peak Oil: What Ever Happened to Hubbert's Peak?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rubio – another Event Horizon of Self-Awareness.

  2. Has Trump’s deportation machine matched Obama’s yet?

  3. Dick Durbin is from IL.

  4. His objection is that he wants to run for president and he can’t win the primary without getting a majority of the votes of racist cretins.

    1. >>>he can’t win the primary

      full stop.

    2. It’s unfortunate that pretty much everyone on both sides of this issue has to be an unmitigated retard.

    3. Rubio will take whatever position he thinks will gain a few votes. He is a shorter, younger, browner Charlie Crist.

  5. Why did the illustrator draw a picture of a guy who’s known for awkwardly gulping water and losing a presidential nomination… drinking sweet tea in the Oval Office? How is that possibly a statement? I can’t get my mind around it.

    Also, i’m focusing on the picture because the article is so poorly worded that it’s almost unreadable. Everyone at Reason magazine has “editor” in their job title but no one wants to look over Shikha’s word salad? Sad!

  6. Shitka,

    Wouldn’t it be tad easier if the US just annexed India and ran under western colonial rule rather moving everyone from there here, 1.3 billion at last count.

  7. But Sen. Rubio, once the proud author of the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill, has now effectively capitulated to their pressure tactics and declared that he is worried about the “unintended consequences” of the DREAM Act. What are his objections and are they legit?

    How about this ? people who push for any form of amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for enforcement have proven themselves to be about as trustworthy as Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Rubio got burned when he worked with the Gang of Eight in good faith and learned from his mistake. I haven’t read the details of the DREAM ACT but I have little to no doubt that the people pushing that are probably no different than everyone else who has pushed for a “one time amnesty, no we really mean it this time.”

    1. Amnesty for what? If they were brought he by their parents as children, what crime did they commit?

      1. Yes, you’re reading that correctly, this fucking retard just asked what crime illegal aliens committed.

        Yes, he’s that fucking stupid.

        1. Does the concept of age of consent mean anything to you?

          1. Does the concept of age of consent mean anything to you?

            Hint: If somebody breaks into a house and brings their kids there…the kids aren’t entitled to live there.

            1. Well then, it’s a good thing a whole country (Not private property) isn’t analogous to a fucking house (Private property).

              1. America is a house that is collectively owned by the white race. Allowing non-white people to live in it violates the rights of all white people.

                Even if there happen to be some what people who want non-white people to live in their personal homes. That can’t be right because white people have right to not live near other white people, even if that means controlling who you are allowed to invite into your house.

              2. Agreed. I’m so tired of that stupid half baked attempt at an analogy of the country as someone’s HOUSE.

                1. The United State has sovereign jurisdiction over all US territory including all waters and includes the supervision of the states.

                  US Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3:
                  The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

                  1. So it’s illegal because it’s illegal. But with the DREAMact, it’s not illegal anymore. So no need to further beg the question.

                  2. So it’s illegal because it’s illegal. But with the DREAMact, it’s not illegal anymore. So no need to further beg the question.

                  3. So it’s illegal because it’s illegal. But with the DREAMact, it’s not illegal anymore. So no need to further beg the question.

                  4. I get it, the constitution negates property rights. What I do in my home is your business, because my home is part of the collectively owned property of America. So if 51% of the country votes that I shouldn’t be allowed to invite black people into my house, that’s totally OK with you.

          2. “Does the concept of age of consent mean anything to you?”

            What does the age at which you can fuck without endangering your partner legally have to do with your culpability for being in the country illegally.

            You asked what crime they committed. I told you.

            And honestly, your objection is stupid.

            1. Age of consent applies to all sorts of things not just sex.
              If a parent takes their five year old along on a bank robbery in the getaway car, the five year old is not guilty of bank robbery.

              1. I think if you force someone to come to a bank robbery with you, regardless of age, you’re not guilty of bank robbery.

  8. Calling him “Little Marco” just makes this sound unprofessional. Come on Shikha. You can have whatever opinion, but have some decorum.

    1. She’s openly in favor of physically assaulting random people and committing arson because a right-wing speaker came to campus. Decorum? She’s scum.

  9. What has been the deportation statistics since Trump came into office anyway?

  10. There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal, a.k.a a DREAMER) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

    So a $15 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters about 120,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

    1. Is 15 billion the number now?

      1. It could be a trillion and the math would still support it. And he hasn’t even gotten to medicaid, WIC, food stamps, etc

        1. No, real question. I’m asking about what the current forcast is for the price of a wall.

        2. Who cares if a US-Mexico walls costs 100M dollars.

          Its worth it to have more lefties commit suicide because Trump accomplished yet another campaign promise.

          1. Does no one have any estimates now?

          2. $100M is 1.5% of 15 billion.

            1. I just went and found a number:
              http://www.reuters.com/article…..SKBN15O2ZN

              21.6 billion. Which seems a bit much, but whatever. The thing I’m most confused by that article is they put scare quotes around “Wall”. As if it’s not actually a wall, which would be pretty sad if it didn’t meet the minimum requirements of being a wall.

            2. That is estimated to be expensive.

    2. Last time I checked we didn’t impose numerical limits on the number of children American citizens were allowed to have, and nobody seems to be concerned about US citizens having too many babies either. What difference does it make if the baby is born to an illegal alien or an American citizen?
      Is the problem that you are worried about overall population growth?

      1. Hazel, you’ve heard it a hundred times: you’re stuck with American citizens. You can’t do anything about it.

        You can avoid having to pay for illegals.

        Stop being aggressively stupid.

        1. Yeah, my highest priority isn’t “how can I avoid paying taxes to support welfare programs”, my highest priority is “how can I increase the liberty of my fellow human beings”.

          1. Apparently, your solution seems to be “by allowing them to come here illegally”.

            I thought Libertarians disdained the idea of America trying to solve all of the world’s problems.

            You know, George Bush sought to bring democracy to Iraq. I doubt many give him kudos for that.

            1. How retarded do you have to be to equate refraining from arresting people for crossing an imaginary line with invading a country?

            2. My solution is to make it legal for them to come here. There are things such as unjust laws.

    3. And we have, according to people like Dalmia here, at least 10M illegals here. It’s likely higher than that. If 120,000 fewer saves $15B, then 10M saves over $1.5T.

      The wall would pay for itself.

      And we could just attach heavy fees for transferring money from the US to Mexico.

      1. And who the fuck is “we”? Am I personally going to see any of the money for these fees? Why should I care if the money I spend in taxes goes to pay for a Mexican kid or one of your dumb kids.

    4. And of course, those “illegals” don’t pay any taxes either. The $132,000 just “becomes available” because nobody has actually paid it in the first place.

  11. I try to give authors the benefit of the doubt, but this is a poorly written and unprofessional article by an author whose writing outside Reason is completely antithetical to libertarian principles.
    At this point, I’m more interested in the comments of her articles than anything she might write herself.

    1. What’s antithetical to libertarian principles is the idea that people should have to get government permission to hold a job, or that the geographical location of your birth, or your parent’s birth, has anything to do with your rights as a human.

      1. If only Shikha was better at articulating that.

      2. or that the geographical location of your birth, or your parent’s birth, has anything to do with your rights as a human.

        Right. In that light, Hazel, I’m coming over to live at your place.

        1. This may not have occurred to you before, but the entire country and everyone’s house in it is not the property of you or the US government. If I want to invite someone to come live in my house and work for me, that is not a violation of YOUR property rights.

      3. What’s antithetical to libertarian principles is the idea that people should have to get government permission to hold a job, or that the geographical location of your birth, or your parent’s birth, has anything to do with your rights as a human.

        What “rights” do you have as a human?

        Hint: Many governments don’t give a shit about any of them.

        And it could not be less of our job to fix that.

        1. And it could not be less of our job to fix that.

          So you don’t give a shit about other people’s rights. Check. Explain to me what the fuck you’re doing on a libertarian message board.

          1. A lot of “libertarians” are really just narcissists.

            1. Yes, it’s like they’re intent on proving the point of progressives, who think all libertarians are just selfish assholes.
              At what point does not giving a shit about other people’s rights bleed over into voting yourself more free shit at other people’s expense? If you’re going to think like that, why not just vote your self-interest and vote for more welfare, for yourself, or your identity group?

        2. So people from Massachusetts should not be able to move to California? That is MUCH more analogous to crossing from one country to another than moving into someone’s house. The idea that “the government is us” is a mushy progressive concept, fit for statists.

  12. One has to dig pretty deep into the right-wing swamp (to use President Donald Trump’s favorite word for D.C.) to find people heartless enough to oppose legal status for DREAMers, individuals who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents when they were minors and have lived here ever since.

    So, if a man embezzles millions and leaves them to his children after his death — the kids have total rights to the money and nobody can “take it away” from them, even though it was gotten illegally?

    “It’s not their fault”. Grand. When somebody embezzles money and have to repay it, it deeply impacts a family of people who had nothing to do with it.

    1. Who is the victim when somebody crosses an imaginary line?

      1. I just hope that the parade of conservatives and other nonlibertarians that post here eventually catch on and start to learn a thing or two.

    2. How is engaging in voluntary commerce with American employers and landlords equivalent to embezzlement?

      Did they steal the jobs that rightfully belong to working class white people in America?

  13. “One has to dig pretty deep into the right-wing swamp (to use President Donald Trump’s favorite word for D.C.) to find people heartless enough to oppose legal status for DREAMers.”

    I guess that am one of your “heartless”, for saying NO! There are people who waited in line for legal status and these kids are not those people.

    Shikha, what you say is exactly the opposite of what most Americans want and you act like your position is the majority position.

    1. These kids can’t even get in line for legal status, according to current US law. If they were allowed to get in line without leaving the country they would be doing so. Any of them would be willing to wait 10 years for a visa if they were allowed to live and work here in a temporary status while doing so.
      The law currently requires them to go back to their home country, where they may not even know anyone or have any living relatives for years before they are even allowed to apply for a visa. And even then they might not be granted one.

      1. So they CAN get in line- by going back to the country of their BIRTH and applying.

        Why do you want so many non-Americans to come to America?

        1. Why should they have to return to the country of their birth, considering they may not even remember living there, have no friends or relatives there, no job prospects, and might not even speak the language?
          They haven’t done anything wrong and in most cases are completely assimilated. There is no reason why they, as human beings, effectively American’s culturally, and lacking only the piece of paper, shouldn’t be allowed to pursue their dreams like anyone else.

  14. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.