Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Holding Rubio to his promises

Holding Rubio to his promises

Last updated on: January 18, 2016 at 10:47 am by Jane the Actuary

Holding Rubio to his promises 2016-01-18T10:47:14-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That’s the trouble, isn’t it?

Marco Rubio wants amnesty. There’s no mistaking this.

He also wants high levels of immigration, in general. There are certainly plenty of well-meaning people who take the position that open immigration is good for a country in the long term, just as globalization is; if incoming workers underbid existing workers for the job, it simply makes the company more profitable and/or lowers prices, so everyone wins on average, and if some individuals find themselves displaced by others willing to do the job for less, they should just suck it up and quit whining in the interest of the prosperity of their neighbors. And Rubio seems to be in this camp.

For the sake of his marketability as a presidential candidate, he’s claiming that he’s seen the light on amnesty, that he always intended to have a parallel enforcement track, and now understands that the American people need to have enforcement happen first to know with certainty that it will actually happen. And at the debate on Wednesday, he claimed that he was all for H1-B visas, only where employers had to advertise the opening for a half-year first for Americans, and had to pay above-market wages, to prevent abuses, and any abusing employer should be banned from participation. (Neither of which provisions his actual legislative proposal contained.)

He’s saying all the right things, now. But nothing would stop him from reverting back to a full-on, amnesty + guest worker + green card increase program supported by Democrats, Chamber-of-Commerce Republicans, and anyone who thought they could sell the deal with a straight face. I suppose if he wished to get re-elected, it might give him pause, but other than that, what I’m trying to figure out is this:

Is there any way enforcement-first-ers and others supporting limits to immigration, can make his promise more binding?

Now, to begin with, Rubio could start with The Big Policy Speech, the one that’s marketed as a game changer, in which he says that he has always believed in the power of immigration due to his family’s story, but has listened to the stories of people hurt by job loss, or because their jobs pay less than they otherwise would, and stories of people whose children’s schools don’t have the resources to help them because they’re stretched by bilingual instruction and other services for immigrants, and he’s read the statistics that large scale arrivals of uneducated immigrants strain social services for the benefit of the wealthy who enjoy cheap nannies, and the H1-B program produces job loss and lowered wages for tech workers. And he says that the reports out of Europe have been a wake-up call.

He says he still believes we should have compassion for those individuals who have arrived here long ago and have been told by countless politicians, in their words and in their (lack of) actions, that they were welcome here. But he recognizes that many of those with whom he would have made common cause, for this sake of this compassion, desire not just compassion for those already here, but an opening of the borders for more waves to come, whether as so-called “guest workers,” under increased immigrant quotas, or simply by repeating the past practice of amnesties with claims of heightened enforcement, in which the enforcement never actually happens. He has studied the issue extensively and now knows that only when we have a well-functioning system in place to prevent people from working illegally with false identification and from working under the table can we even begin to think about next steps.

He then outlines a series of pledges.

First, he will not propose, and will not sign any form of legalization program during his first term in office, regardless of how it’s labelled — not an amnesty, not a path-to-citizenship, not an issuing of work visas, not an official declaration of non-enforcement with provisional worth authorization, not an implementation or renewal of Obama’s “deferred action” programs. Nothing — with small exceptions: individuals who would otherwise be eligible for residence because they’ve married an American citizen will have penalties waived, as well as for an individual who is now eligible to be hired under an H1-B or similar program; likewise, eligible students may apply for a student visa.

Second, he will not just sign but will advocate for new enforcement mechanisms, aimed at preventing unauthorized individuals from working in the United States: this means a full implementation of e-verify (with due attention paid to clearing up such flaws as arise from time to time), as well as greater federal attention to prosecution of identity theft, and, lastly, actions against day laborers, “off the books” nannies, and other under-the-table work which is part-and-parcel of illegal immigrant life; and once these are passed, he will direct his administration to enforce these measures in good faith. (ADDED: actually, in principle, going after employers would work just as well, and probably be the better approach, with the same net effect.)

Third, he will reiterate his pledges at the CNBC debate, that any H1-B visas will come with tight restrictions that require the employer to make genuine attempts to fill the job with an American first, and that any such job must be filled at an above-market pay rate (or, alternatively, that the payscale must be a market rate and the cost per employer for each such visa, in terms of fees paid to the government would be set at such a high level as to strongly discourage all but the most desperate employers); in addition, he will pledge that any H1-B bill will levy extensive fines on any employer who has had a substantiated accusation by an employee that tech workers have been fired roughly coincident with employment of H1-B visa-holders.

If, as a consequence of the second pledge, it indeed happens that large numbers of immigrant families return to their countries of origin and that, as a result, there is a labor shortage in some fields, not remedied even by substantial pay increases, and there is consensus on this point among all parties, even groups skeptical of mass immigration, such as Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies, he will work with all parties to work out alternatives. And very low numbers of individuals now living in the United States, based on community attachment, education level, and existing English-language skill (rather than pledges to learn in the future), may be offered the opportunity to apply for slots for work authorization.

So far so good.

But:

Obama told that half of his voter base which was against same-sex marriage that he believed marriage was between one man and one woman. Then he “evolved” on the subject — and the other half of his voter base, which believed all along that he was making this claim with a wink, and with his fingers crossed behind his back, were vindicated in their conviction that he never really opposed SSM in the first place.

Having watched this play out, can Rubio really be trusted? What could he say that would really prove he means what he says when he claims he’s now seen the light?

If this were a different time and place, or maybe a fairy tale, he could promise his firstborn. Not so much in 2015.

Could he promise something else that would create personal hardship if he reneged on his pledges? After all, what do presidents do after they leave the presidency? They become multimillionaires by giving speeches. Could he promise that he’d relinquish his post-presidency riches? — say by signing a contract, countersigned by, say, Mark Krikorian, that, should he fail to live up to his pledge, all income earned beyond a modest living (by D.C. standards, say, $100k per year), up to a maximum of, say, $20 million, will be relinquished to a fund administered by the Numbers and/or CIS staff to support displaced workers. Would such a contract be legally enforceable? Would Mark Zuckerberg step in and cover the $20 million, and, if so, would this be a bribe (“f***ing golden”) and prosecuteable as such?

I don’t know. And ultimately it’s fantasy to think, that outside the concept of a coalition agreement, there’s a way to ensure that a candidate is genuinely bound to his promises. But I can dream, can’t I?

Previous Post

October 31, 2015

Happy Halloween 2015!

Next Post

November 1, 2015 Capital Campaign update

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Where was Jesus' first miracle performed?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Capernaum Nazareth Cana Jerusalem