RedState managing editor Erick Erickson wrote Tuesday that he did not like Sen. Marco Rubio‘s plan on immigration reform. Calling it “warmed over McCain-Kennedy,” he says he does not believe it will solve the problem of our broken immigration system.
Looking at it from a free market perspective, Erickson referred to Rubio’s approach as “a plan based on faith in government.”
“Immigration is an issue that keeps Hispanic voters from trusting the GOP,” Erickson wrote. “Many call it a “gateway” issue. I get that. But pandering in the name of a solution does not actually fix the problem.”
In a press release Wednesday, Rubio responded, “To leave things the way they are now is de facto amnesty and a barrier to accomplishing important government reforms in other areas. It is no way to run a nation of immigrants.”
Given the opportunity to respond to Erickson’s critique on RedState, Rubio wrote:
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Erick’s post last night regarding the principles for immigration reform I have recently developed. Before diving into the details of the plan, I want to take a moment to point out how the debate about immigration reflects positively on the conservative movement in general. Unlike the left, whose default tactic is to attack and destroy the personal character of those who disagree with their views, the conservative movement is capable of accommodating a vibrant internal debate on important issues solely on the merits. RedState has always been a welcoming forum for that sort of debate.
First, let me identify the problem we face. We have a legal immigration system that doesn’t work, we don’t have an effective system to enforce our immigration laws, and we have by some estimates as many as 11 million human beings living in the United States without the proper immigration documents in a state of de facto amnesty. It’s a problem that has both political and economic ramifications on our nation.
On the political front, a growing number of voters of Asian and Hispanic descent have been convinced by the left that conservative opposition to immigration reform equates to being anti-immigrant. This is unfair, and it is untrue. But they have pulled it off and, as a result, our ability to convince these fast-growing communities that the principles of limited government and free enterprise are better for them than big government and collectivism has been impaired.
The economic ramifications, however, are even more serious. For example, our technology sector creates roughly 120,000 computer engineering jobs a year, but our universities only graduate about 40,000 students a year in that field. The long term answer, of course, is to get more American students to graduate in this field. But the immediate problem is that, in the absence of an immigration system where these workers can be brought here, these jobs are sent overseas to them.
Another example is in agriculture, where a stable and affordable domestic supply of food is critical to our national security and our quality of life. Agriculture has always required a significant work force from abroad, but we do not have a system through which growers and dairies can bring a workforce legally into the U.S.
This broken system of immigration, combined with lax enforcement, has resulted in our illegal immigration problem.
In an ideal world, we could go back to 1986 and rewrite the immigration reform efforts implemented then to account for these issues and to ensure that real enforcement measures would be implemented. But in the real world, we cannot do that. We have to deal with what we have in the best way possible and make sure that this never ever happens again.
The principles I have proposed to deal with this issue are not perfect, but I believe they create a framework for dealing with this reality in a responsible and reasonable way. And I think conservatives have already won important concessions from Democrats that we can build on to shape the actual legislation.
First, we would modernize our legal immigration system. In essence, we create one that meets the needs this country has in this new century. For example, while I support our family-based system of immigration, we can no longer afford to have less than ten percent of our immigration based on skill and talent. We need a functional guest worker program so that, in times of low unemployment and rapid economic growth, our industries have the labor they need to continue growing. And we need an agricultural worker program that allows our growers to contract the seasonal and year round labor they need legally.
Second, we need real enforcement mechanisms. An employment verification system is the key to this. We have the technology to implement such a system, so we just need to do it. Over 40 percent of our illegal immigrants entered legally and overstayed their visas. That’s why we need to have a complete system of tracking the entry and exit of visitors, using the technologies available to us today. And we need to achieve control of our borders. This is not just an immigration issue; this is a national security and sovereignty issue. And it can be done. The southern border is actually divided into nine separate sectors. There has been progress made in some sectors and not enough on others. We need to establish the high probability of intercepting illegal crossings in each of these sectors in a timely and effective manner.
And third, we have to deal with those who are here now without documents. I am not happy about the fact that we face this problem. But we do. Most of these are people who will be here for the rest of their lives with or without documents, so it is in our best interest to deal with them and to make sure this never happens again.
Read Rubio’s full post here.
Latest posts by Tom Tillison (see all)
- Shameless Dem lets Twitter poll decide whether or not she’ll attend Trump’s Inauguration - January 17, 2017
- Bob Beckel takes ‘The Five’ viewers on a fun (and messy) trip down memory lane - January 17, 2017
- Sheriff Clarke slams CNN’s Hill for ‘mediocre negroes’ jab, then gives him a glimpse of his ‘irrelevant’ future - January 17, 2017