Marco Rubio’s immigration plan fails basic scrutiny, defies logic

On the Republican side of the 2016 presidential race, Marco Rubio is the establishment’s “plan B”, with Jeb Bush being their first choice. However, as shown below, Rubio’s record is problematic and makes him unelectable.

The pro-establishment Wall Street Journal recently had to acknowledge that Marco Rubio’s multiple flip-flops on immigration in fact damage his prospects of becoming president of the United States. Rubio ran on “securing the border” in his 2010 Senate campaign, but then abandoned that position in 2013 in favor of what he called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”.  Rubio was one of the authors of that particular piece of misguided legislation, put together by the so-called “Gang of Eight”.

rubio_wall_editedIn May 2015, Rubio “still believed” that we need immigration reform, but that “the votes aren’t there” in Congress. In that same interview, Rubio said four (4) times that the reason to take a different path is because of insufficient votes in Congress. Marco Rubio did not say one word about the well-founded lack of trust the American people have in government at all levels, and the mistrust of career politicians like Marco Rubio and their true motives.

Now (December 2015) Rubio’s campaign website  is singing a different tune than before. Marco Rubio now says this about the “comprehensive immigration reform” he worked so hard for in 2013:

“Achieving comprehensive reform of anything in a single bill is simply not realistic. Having tried that approach, I know this to be true firsthand. The fear that such massive pieces of legislation include some clever loophole or unintended consequence makes it even harder to achieve.”

In other words: if Rubio could only neutralize this crazy “fear”, then he could really “achieve” things. In trying to move back to his original 2010 position, Rubio insults the voters by characterizing their well-founded views as “fears”. Good luck with that as a campaign message.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 contained many promises that were never kept. These are the same promises that are being made now. Even the leftist liberal New York Times called it “the failed amnesty legislation of 1986.” Here is how the Times describes it:

“President Ronald Reagan signed that [1986] bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged.”

That is the undisputed history of the last “effort” at immigration reform. Mr. Rubio’s use of inaccurate and insulting terms like “fears” to describe well-founded concerns serves a purpose: to signal to Rubio’s establishment “open borders” supporters that he will one day return to their position.  It is the Way of the Weasel.

As an immigrant myself (from Sweden, at age 18), there is nothing I “fear” about immigration per se. However, I do not have much patience for spineless windvanes like Mr. Rubio who seek to paint reasoned opposition as “fears”. Had he said “well-founded fears”, I would not have called him out as a weasel.

rubioThanks to modern technology, Mr. Rubio’s record on core issues is being spread far and wide. Analysis of data from the 2014 election shows that the establishment is losing its grip on power. That trend keeps getting stronger every day thanks to social media. The moral bankruptcy of the so-called establishment and their mouthpieces like Marco Rubio explains the popularity of non-establishment candidates in the Republican primary race in 2016. Mr. Rubio may be likeable on a personal level, but he is not a leader – he has already demonstrated that.

It’s too bad for Marco Rubio that he was so out of touch with his own constituents when he sponsored “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR) in 2013. It’s too bad because it is what will doom Marco Rubio as a candidate, especially after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. Rubio flipped, then flopped back, and looks like a wet waffle on the related issues of immigration and national security.

Furthermore, Marco Rubio’s current immigration plan naive and shallow. On his campaign website, Mr Rubio says:

“Those here illegally must come forward and be registered. If they have committed serious crimes or have not been here long enough, they will have to leave.”

Hey, Marco! Those who know they will be deported will not “come forward.” They can read the rules as well as anybody else. You have to either be very naive or a brazen liar to hold the views that Mr. Rubio holds.

Below: yes, idiots like this do exist…and they vote.

no-borders700Rubio’s amnesty plan also says that those who stay must “learn English”. But no clear thinking person believes that the federal government is going to force a Mexican grandmother unlawfully residing in the US to “learn English”. Nor do people believe that if she fails to learn English to a certain level, the federal government will deport her….or deport anybody else for that matter.

Not only is Mr. Rubio’s intellectually dishonest in making this proposal, it flies in the face of the history of how “immigration reform” played out after the 1986 law was passed. The “language requirement” in the 1986 law was that unlawful residents “demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language”. Through the bureaucratic magic of the “rule-making process”, this instead became monetary grants so that states could give unlawful resident free English courses… the taxpayer’s expense. And not even one person was asked to leave the country for failing to meet the language “requirement”. That’s quite the toothless “requirement” they have there, wouldn’t you say?

The main concern for most taxpayers is that immigrants will demand that tax dollars be used to provide information or services in other languages.  Recent history shows us that this is an exceedingly valid concern.


In summary: Mr. Rubio’s immigration plan is not worth the paper it is written on. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are at least willing to fight for the middle class, whereas Marco Rubio can’t wait to sell the middle class even further down the river in order to please his elitist sponsors.

As stated at the outset: Marco Rubio is an establishment candidate. This means that he represents entrenched wealthy and powerful groups who like things the way they are. It is not hard to understand why such “Republican” politicians surrender to Democrats because they are two sides of the same elitist coin. And neither side of that coin is your side.

Heads they win, tails you lose. That is the Establishment Way.


The Obamacare marriage penalty

On December 2, 2015, the public radio station (WUSF) here in the Tampa Bay area ran a story about what they called the “family glitch” in Obamacare.  As you will see in this article, this alleged “glitch” is misnamed and should instead be called what it is: the Obamacare marriage penalty. Furthermore, the evidence shows that this is not a “glitch”, but rather a feature of yet another ill-conceived federal program.

First, the terminology: what some people call “Obamacare” is the nickname for the federal law called the “Affordable Care Act”. Often abbreviated the ACA, some critics call it “ZeroCare” because it doesn’t actually provide care. Instead, the ACA requires you to buy health insurance. If you can’t afford to buy the kind of health insurance the government says you need, you don’t necessarily get care or subsidized health insurance. Instead, you get a fine from the IRS. Below is the story of one such “fined” young person.

sherry_poulinThe public radio “news report” told the story of  a  Fort Myers woman named Sherry Poulin (pictured on right) who has a chronic medical condition. Ms. Poulin actually had subsidized (=taxpayer funded) health insurance for herself and her child through the ACA, and this insurance only cost her $50 per month.  But Ms. Poulin made a big mistake in 2014: she got married. You see, her husband Louis works for an employer who offers “affordable health insurance” (as that term is defined under the ACA). As a result of getting married, Ms. Poulin lost her subsidy, and the plan her husband’s employer offered Ms. Poulin and her child cost “about $500 per month” according to Ms. Poulin.

The outcome of all this? Ms. Poulin now has no health insurance.

It’s fairly easy to understand how Ms. Poulin uninsured herself. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more employees must offer “affordable” health insurance options to employees in order to avoid federal tax penalties for themselves. An affordable plan for the employee can’t cost more than 9.5 percent of the household income. But the plan for the rest of the family does not have to be “affordable”.

The bottom line is this: the entire family becomes ineligible for subsidies if the coverage offered for just the employee is “affordable”…regardless of whether the family coverage is “affordable”.


You can read the rest of Ms. Poulin’s story yourself, including the part where Ms. Poulin’s mother says that the fact that her daughter now has no health insurance “breaks her heart”. But Ms. Poulin’s mother, Laura Brennaman, isn’t just anybody. She is the policy director for Florida CHAIN, a group that “advocates for affordable health”.

Florida CHAIN and Ms. Brennaman have been major supporters of the ACA . It wasn’t even six months ago that Ms. Brennaman said in a Tampa Bay Times article that the ACA “is doing what is it supposed to do.”  Yet when her daughter now is negatively impacted, Ms. Brennaman uses her media contacts to run a tearjerker story without first looking at some the solutions available to her daughter and granddaughter.

The simplest solution would have been for Ms. Poulin to not get married in the first place. In fact, all the alleged “ACA Marketplace Success Stories” that Florida CHAIN publicizes appear to involve unmarried mothers (or perhaps women married to men whose employers offer no health insurance). The strategy is simple: live with your partner, but don’t marry that partner. Or marry a partner whose employer offers no health insurance. Then the government will reward you using other people’s money.

Before we go on, let’s pause and reflect on the irony here. Ms. Poulin’s mother is a healthcare “policy director” for a pro-ACA organization….yet the mother failed to save her daughter from a pitfall that her organization has “saved” many other women from.

Divorce cartoonEnough about what Ms. Poulin shouldn’t have done. The situation at hand is that Ms. Poulin did get married, so what is she to do now? One simple solution is for Ms. Poulin to separate or get divorced from her husband Louis, but continue living together. Ms. Poulin and her daughter will then once again qualify for subsidies (or Medicaid). The taxpayers, including those who cannot afford health insurance, will surely understand that they must subsidize Ms. Poulin. No?

You might think that divorce is a cruel suggestion, but why should Ms. Poulin be exempted from the hard decisions other Americans are being forced in to by ZeroCare? One impoverished couple in Tennessee had been married for 33 years, but have now separated so that the epileptic wife with spinal stenosis and rods in her back can receive taxpayer-funded healthcare.  Meanwhile, the 62 year old husband lives without health insurance and hopes that this hernia won’t cause a bowel obstruction. Read the full story here if you wish.

HowTheGlitchStoleHealthcare_editedTo be clear: I am not saying “punish Ms. Poulin for the actions of her mother”. What I am saying is that the IRS, as administrators of the ACA, has ruled that the language of section 36B of the ACA was clear. The IRS’s decision was published in the Federal Register three years ago and no one has successfully challenged their interpretation in court since. All the facts thus tell us that the IRS interpreted the law correctly. Therefore, I say to Ms. Poulin: live with the outcome. Embrace the outcome and the great wisdom of ZeroCare! The tax code does not exist in order to satisfy your desire for a white wedding and your desire to be a married woman.

Florida CHAIN, the group behind this fake tearjerker story, has repeatedly used and promoted the term “family glitch” (here, here and here as just a few examples) to describe the outcome discussed in this article. But this negative outcome that they call “the family glitch” ONLY occurs when people get married. Therefore, it is a consequence of getting married and has nothing to do with being a family.

Let me use the language of the left for a paragraph: Florida CHAIN demeans single moms and all unmarried couples by saying they are not a family until they are married. Their non-inclusive (and therefore hateful) use of the term “family” must stop. That is why I have written to Florida CHAIN and demanded that they stop their use of the hateful and non-inclusive term “family glitch”. Gotta stop haters from hating.

Having established that single moms and their brood are also families, let’s note that Sherry Poulin can still call herself and her daughter a family after she divorces her husband. Cruel? No, I am just using the alleged “logic” of the left.

efficiency_expert_welfare_770705Organizations like the Brooking Institution and others have repeatedly told us to “celebrate single mothers”. CNN tells  single mothers to “stand proud”.  However, 37% of single moms lack financial self-sufficiency, whereas that number is 7% for married-parent families.  Also, children from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime, twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school. These children face a much bleaker future, and this is nothing to celebrate. Read more on the downsides of single-parent families here.

Without denigrating any single parent, let’s acknowledge that the data shows that having two parents in a household is preferable to having one.  It’s better for the children, it’s better for the parents and it’s better for the taxpayers who otherwise have to pay. The misguided “celebrate single moms” ideology of the self-named so-called progressives (a.k.a. regressives) ignores economic realities, is contrary to what history has repeatedly demonstrated,  and also flies in the face of human nature.

obamacare glitch edited

Finally, we must address the claim that Obamacare’s penalty on marriage is just a “glitch”. No, it isn’t. Like most other federal policies and laws, Obamacare discourages marriage, discourages work, discourages self-reliance and will lead to economic collapse.  Policies like Obamacare always do, and history tells us so.

Let’s call the misnamed “family glitch” what it is: a marriage penalty. It isn’t the first marriage penalty in federal law, and it won’t be the last.

When the collapse of all social safety nets arrives, you’ll know who to hold responsible. Elected officials and “leaders” who embrace statism and/or give in to pressure from groups like Florida CHAIN deserve whatever outcomes and “glitches” come their way.


UPDATE – after publishing, I asked a single mother to review my article. I wanted to make sure that nothing appeared angry, hateful or gratuitous, because that was and is not in my heart.  I did want the article to be a bit caustic, a bit strident…but most of all: effective.

My friend wrote and said: “Excellent article. In my opinion you hit all the main points. My situation was that I was divorced when my children were both under 5 and remarried when my youngest went to college. We were not rich, and I could not afford a car for the longest time. I had to get around with my young kids on our local transit buses.

It’s a source of pride with me that during my almost 20 years of raising my kids alone, and deadbeat dad contributing NOTHING, I took not one penny from the government.

I am sick of society praising, actually encouraging, single motherhood, many women choosing that path, and then whining about being a single mother. That just ticks me off.”

Those are the opinions of one single mom, and I am sure there are others.