October 25, 2015

"But the question people keep asking... is why that consolidation [behind Rubio] isn’t happening already."

"If Rubio is actually the front-runner" — once you look beyond the not-really-real Trump and Carson — "shouldn’t a few more big donors be drifting from Jeb’s camp into his? Shouldn’t a few more debate-watching voters be saying to themselves, and then to pollsters: The Donald is fun and I admire Carson, but let’s get real: I’m going to vote Rubio? I think they will. I predict they will."

Writes Ross Douthat, saying something close to what I've been blogging (here and here) and then ending his column with something I haven't blogged but have been saying around the house: "But in the event they don’t, I’m guessing that Mitt Romney is still ready to serve."

93 comments:

Hagar said...

And so is Joe Biden.

But an outside event could still turn everything upside down to an extent not imagined.

chickelit said...

People may or may not coalesce behind Rubio but for heaven's sake stop telling people what they should do. That alone puts people off. Politics is not yet a science with predictive powers.

Anonymous said...

The people do not want amnesty. THAT is why Rubio will not win

Robert Cook said...

"Mitt Romney is still ready to serve."

How quaint, that one can refer to the single-minded fight among men and women funded by big money to win the most powerful position in the world as being "willing to serve."

I guess in that sense one can credit Jack the Ripper as having been willing to provide free surgical services to the prostitutes of London.

Jane the Actuary said...

Much as I dislike Rubio's immigration play, and distrust him when he says he's seen the light and now will require enforcement first, I agree that he's the only real choice. Well, I like Christie, but I know he's a non-starter.

With Fiorina, of course, as the VP pick.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2015/09/so-rubiofiorina-eh.html

Not to say that I'm excited about that path, but I don't see another one.

chickelit said...

The people do not want amnesty. THAT is why Rubio will not win

It is probably just that simple, but most businesses want amnesty. Monied interests of both political flavors (R) and (D) are banking on amnesty. Not only that, they both want unfettered immigration. The reasons why are not hard to understand.

Tom from Virginia said...

The Republican race has a 1980's feel to it. The establishment Republican Party wanted no part of Ronald Reagan and his voodoo economics. It wanted Ford or GHWB. This year's establishment wants a Rubio or a Romney. It is every bit as appalled by Sen. Cruz as it was by Gov. Reagan. Here's to hoping it is a very bad year for the Republican establishment.

Ann Althouse said...

(Link fixed. Thanks for the heads-up (which I've deleted).)

Ann Althouse said...

Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back? He's going to end up with the same kind of immigration reform as everyone else. Why wouldn't you just process the people in place and get them documentation? There's Trump's idea that some of them are bad and some are good, by why would you do something as inefficient as sending everyone back and then sorting them out. Sort them in place and give documentation to the "good" and deport the bad. It's nutty to do anything else. He's just conning voters now.

campy said...

"Here's to hoping it is a very bad year for the Republican establishment."

Oh, you can count on it. It's going to be a very bad year for republicans of all sorts.

SteveR said...

The nit picking against Rubio, Christie, etc is just confirmation that Hillary will win. Nothing was learned in 08 and 12.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Why that consolidation [behind Rubio] isn’t happening already:

People aren't thinking that far ahead yet.

cacimbo said...

The Republican base threw Cantor out over illegal immigration. Trump is leading in the polls because of his stance on illegal immigration. The party elites response, we get pro-amnesty Ryan as a replacement for Boehner. This incredible tone deafness may have ensured a Trump victory. The DC crowd refuse to even acknowledge illegal immigration is an issue. The base is learning they need to hit the establishment with a sledgehammer named Trump before they will even acknowledge the issue.

Sebastian said...

"He's just conning voters now."

But in your book, as with Hillary, that's a good thing, right?

Laslo Spatula said...

"I’m guessing that Mitt Romney is still ready to serve."

The Romney that would run now would be different than the 2012 Romney.

He will REALLY need to suck up to the LIVs to make up for the 47% statement, complete with new amazing programs for the poor to show HE CARES.

He will be the Non-Corrupt Hillary. Basically.

I am Laslo.

bleh said...

Rubio has been mostly playing it safe by stating his views and not addressing or criticizing the other candidates. His strategy seems to be waiting out the bloodbath between Trump and Bush, which is smart for a guy who probably likes Bush but does not want to appear to be a lapdog running for VP. Let Jeb fight for his candidacy. If Trump injures Bush, then Rubio is that much stronger, particularly if Jeb spends a good amount of money in the process tearing down Trump.

If Rubio wanted to be VP, he would have fought this battle for Jeb. Rubio is playing the long game for the top slot.

Jane the Actuary said...

If this was a European-style parliamentary system, we'd have a minor party whose platform was limited immigration, and its supporters would aim for turnout that would put them in a good position to be a junior coalition partner, and make the demands against amnesty then. As it is, how do we have any leverage to ensure that any of them keep promises of enforcement, rather than opening the gates wide to ever-growing numbers? (And Trump talks a good talk, but he'd do just the same.)

Sammy Finkelman said...

why would you do something as inefficient as sending everyone back and then sorting them out

That way he can say he's doing enforcement first.

Except that it wouldn't be understood that way.

If somebody gains an advantage by virtue of having been already in the United States, that's what all the people calling for enforcement don't want.

And if they don't gain an advantage, because there will be virtually open immigration from Mexico (Trump may be pretending that they all from Mexico) that's not what the restrctionists want.

Look, all of this is just a way of trying to square the circle.

chickelit said...

Althouse asks Why wouldn't you just process the people in place and get them documentation?

This is naive but understandable because it comes from someone distanced from the problem and not immersed in it. There are tens (hundreds?) of thousands who do not want to be "processed" and that's the whole point. You can dangle "free healthcare" in front of them and they still are not going to come out of the shadows. Living tax free and outside the law is just too possible and too worth it, especially with an endless supply behind them. At this point, it's more of a physical problem than a political one.

rcocean said...

"The people do not want amnesty. THAT is why Rubio will not win"

Oh, he'll win the Republican nomination or Yeb! will. Republicans are stupid. And then they'll lose to Hillary, because they will run a typically Republican wishy-washy campaign.

Rubio is just Yeb! without the bad Tex-Mex accent.

bleh said...

But is Trump's con well defended?

chickelit said...

Ann Althouse said...Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back?

Also, I think you're underestimating the power of self-deportation.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Yes, clearly the Republicans have no understanding of how to win a modern Presidential election. Their cluelessness has been manifest since at least '96 (Bush got lucky). Except for Trump and Cruz, they seem to be living in some kind is alternative JebBushian reality. Presidential elections have reverted to the partisan knife fights of the 1800's.

chickelit said...

It is really not that hard to accept (rather than to deny) that businesses want the cheapest labor possible. This includes beloved high tech companies like Apple and Facebook who push and press for importing high skilled labor as well.

Anonymous said...

Rubio's speaking skills are about as advanced as Paul Ryan's. Also, he comes across as too young & awkward. People were looking for him to use a commonsense approach to immigration. Leaving it as is or methodical deportation. However; he burned that bridge a while back. Pandering to the ethnicity to which he belongs. Selling out, not understanding what America really is, despite high & mighty words.

rcocean said...

From Ross Donuts article:

"His past support for comprehensive immigration reform is a major liability, but Rubio has shown a lot more finesse on that issue than has Jeb, and one liability isn’t usually enough to doom a candidate who otherwise looks like a winner."

Leaving the dishonesty of calling Amnesty "comprehensive immigration reform" I think this is right. The Republican's nominated McCain - even though he was Ted Kennedy's punk on Amnesty, and Romney while always an open borders guy, got nominated by mumbling a few insincere lies on the subject. Everyone knows Rubio will flop back to being Mr. Amnesty once nominated, but I don't think the Republicans voters care.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"But in the event they don’t, I’m guessing that Mitt Romney is still ready to serve."

Not Mitt Romney: Paul Ryan.

He'll hardly have been able to anything as Speaker of the House.

His rise could be almost as fast as that of Robert Morse in the 1967 movie "How To Succeed in Business Without Really trying."

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Jane the Actuary said

If this was a European-style parliamentary system, and you had an anti-immigration party, you'd get a grand coalition of the two major parties.

cacimbo said...

I doubt people believe Trump will deport 11 million. But at least he is addressing the issue. Under current policy the flow keeps increasing!! The media laughed at Romney's self deportation comment, but it was accurate. Send inspectors to job sites, hold employers accountable. Stop freebies for illegals. There is plenty we can do to make it less comfortable and desirable for people to remain in the country illegally.

Wisconsin has a very small population of illegal immigrants compared to other areas of the country. In NJ they are destroying entire towns. Cramming several families into single family dwellings the result is property taxes can not support the increased school population. In NYC the parents work off the books while receiving food stamps, free health care, free education and two free meals a day for their children at school. We are told that illegals are a net positive for the economy, those of us who actually live among them find that not believable. I am friendly with many of my illegal neighbors and sympathetic to their desire for a better life, that does not mean I support their violation of our laws.

Big Mike said...

Mitt Romney had his chance. He muffed it.

Michael K said...

" He's going to end up with the same kind of immigration reform as everyone else."

Oh no it's not.

There may not be 11 million deported but that is not necessary. All it would take is to implement the California Prop 187 which would remove the benefits from illegals. Many of them plan to go home anyway after they earn enough money here. My cleaning lady, who was legalized by the 1986 amnesty, planned to retire to Tijuana because housing was cheaper.

What is most important is to get rid of the benefits, using E-Verify and stopping the health care gravy train. Years ago when I was more involved with the LA County Hospital, there was an express bus from the border to the well baby clinic for mothers who had anchor babies but still lived in Mexico.

I would vote for Romney in an nanosecond because he would follow the law and Congress makes the law.

Achilles said...

SteveR said...
"The nit picking against Rubio, Christie, etc is just confirmation that Hillary will win. Nothing was learned in 08 and 12."

We learned. We watched the GOPe do more than nit pick against Gingrich and Cain. The GOPe destroyed them personally and viciously because they knew the base wouldn't support them on the issues.

We learned the GOPe works for the cronies who want bigger government and amnesty to the detriment of this country and benefit of the donor class. The GOPe is just as much an enemy as the democrats.

Birkel said...

Possible: taking 300+ million guns away from gun owners who do not wish to yield them and have the protections of the U.S. Constitution

Not possible: forcing 15+ million illegal immigrants who stand outside the law to return to their respective countries of origin

Also not possible: understanding Althousian "logic"

Achilles said...

Michael K said...

"Oh no it's not.

There may not be 11 million deported but that is not necessary. All it would take is to implement the California Prop 187 which would remove the benefits from illegals."

I just got done playing a soccer game in a 40+ league. It was my old Hispanic league team that I played on for 6 or 7 years in my 20's during college days. They did full 45 minute halves. I am still sore.

What people aren't getting is that Hispanic immigrants are not monolithic. Some have been here for a long time. I have known a lot of them for decades. There are avid trump supporters in this group. They are the ones getting hit most with the crime that is coming up from the cartels. They are nasty. The cartels have their women come up and get benefits and the men do their thing. A lot of it doesn't get reported because it hits one community.

If you poll Hispanics you will get an 80/20 split dems. If you poll legal Hispanic voters it is more like 50/50. Amnesty is not the key to this demographic. The GOPe just pretends it is because they serve the chamber of commerce. Hispanic VOTERS want the crime that plagues their community dealt with and that means illegal immigration.

Achilles said...

Birkel said...

"Also not possible: understanding Althousian "logic""

Althouse lives in a bubble that is completely removed from most of the country. She has a tenured position that pays her 5 times what the average american makes. She lives in a wealthy neighborhood. She also lives and works with people in this bubble and they all think they are smart enough to understand what goes on outside the bubble without actually going there. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...

"I would vote for Romney in an nanosecond because he would follow the law and Congress makes the law."

And he knows how to superbly manage Obamacare amrite?

Lauderdale Vet said...

"Why wouldn't you just process the people in place and get them documentation?"

Because you are rewarding people who broke the law and punishing the people who are following it.

You get more of the behavior you reward and less of the behavior that you punish.

Mike Sylwester said...

I was all for Walker, but when Trump published his immigration position, I jumped to Trump immediately.

Rubio needs to give a big speech promising convincingly that he finally is getting serious about stopping illegal immigration. He also better promise to fix birthright citizenship, even if that means advocating a Constitutional amendment.

If Rubio ever does that, then I and many others will jump from Trump to Rubio.

Until then, though, I'm sticking to Trump. In the 2016 election, I am determined to be a one-issue voter about immigration. This election is our country's last chance to prevent the deluge.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
It is really not that hard to accept (rather than to deny) that businesses want the cheapest labor possible. This includes beloved high tech companies like Apple and Facebook who push and press for importing high skilled labor as well.


And, the candidate willing to clearly spell this out will win the election. Unfortunately no one is willing to cross their corporate masters, other than Trump.

Achilles said...

Mike Sylwester said...

"Rubio needs to give a big speech promising convincingly that he finally is getting serious about stopping illegal immigration. He also better promise to fix birthright citizenship, even if that means advocating a Constitutional amendment."

Rubio has already done that. Just look at his 2010 campaign speeches. It took him less than 2 years to forget it then. How long do you think it would take him to go back on his promises a second time when he would get 10 times as much money from the Chamber of Commerce.

Mike Sylwester said...

Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back?

Mike Stopa at American Thinker suggested a good approach.

[quote]

The policy would begin by President Trump ... announcing that the time has come for those who are illegally in the U.S. to begin preparing to return to their home countries. At the same time the President would announce to businessmen who employ illegal aliens -- even in small businesses -- that they need to take a pencil and piece of paper, sit down with their spouse at the kitchen table and say: “Honey, we have to figure out how to run our business when we can’t hire illegal aliens anymore.”

Implementation of the policy would begin with a temporary grace period during which illegal aliens could apply for and immediately receive a temporary work certificate (a “yellow card”). Such a card would shield the illegal alien from deportation in exchange for their personal information (names, addresses, names of dependent family members, fingerprints), information about their employers’ names and addresses and a pledge to leave the country after a certain period of time -- perhaps six months or even longer.

Simultaneously, employers could shield themselves from prosecution by enrolling in E-Verify and running their worker rolls through the Social Security databases. The employers would need to provide names and addresses of employees who were flagged as “no matches” and could temporarily keep those employees so long as they had independently applied for a yellow card.

The penalty for an illegal alien being caught without a yellow card would be immediate deportation. The penalty for a manager employing illegal aliens (who might have already obtained yellow cards) without divulging it to the federal government would be incarceration.

Thus two crucial points about enforcing a long dormant immigration law are: (1) the key is to obtain complete information on who is in the country illegally and who is employing them, and (2) a transition period is essential during which those in violation of the law can adjust their behavior as they come to recognize that the law, henceforth, will be fully enforced. It is also worth mentioning that a transition period is also a reasonable display of compassion. If America has been complicit in the crimes of illegal aliens by failing for so long to enforce our immigration laws, then the price of a grace period in exchange for information and an ultimate end to this national disgrace is a small price to pay for getting our laws back.

One could imagine other ways to structure incentives so that employers and illegal aliens are more inclined to get with the law. One might even provide travel assistance for those here illegally back to their home countries (particularly if they agree to bring all dependents, even those born in America, back with them). A thousand dollar travel grant to every illegal alien in America would amount to a paltry $11B -- miniscule on the scale of the cost of illegal immigrants to the country every year.

It is crucial to note that the specific strategy and tactics of enforcing the law are not nearly so important as the mere commitment to enforce the law, no matter how long it might take. Further, from a practical point of view it is crucial that the policies for enforcing the law be encompassed entirely within the Executive Branch of government and require no new legislation (although clearly certain new laws -- such as explicitly permitting local law enforcement agencies to participate in the enforcement process, as an unpassed House Bill in 2006 proposed -- would be quite helpful).

....

He has said he can get all the illegal aliens back home in two years. That seems to me about right.

[unquote]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/illegal_immigration_and_the_broken_windows_policy_of_policing.html#ixzz3pbZSOUQF

campy said...

"Possible: taking 300+ million guns away from gun owners who do not wish to yield them and have the protections of the U.S. Constitution"

They only want the guns of law-abiding people.

Achilles said...

Mike Sylwester said...

"More regulations for small businesses to deal with."

I have better ideas. Most involve actually deporting people they catch breaking the law. Build real border security so they can't get in so easy. Stop giving them government benefits.

Small businesses are already being driven out of business. This isn't their job.





rcocean said...

"Rubio needs to give a big speech promising convincingly that he finally is getting serious about stopping illegal immigration. He also better promise to fix birthright citizenship, even if that means advocating a Constitutional amendment."

LoL. He did that when he ran for Senate. Then once he got elected he became Mr. Amnesty. So don't worry - he'll tell you what you want to hear, as long as the Republican primary lasts.

Achilles said...

campy said...
"Possible: taking 300+ million guns away from gun owners who do not wish to yield them and have the protections of the U.S. Constitution"

"They only want the guns of law-abiding people."

There wont be any law abiding gun owners in this hypothetical, but there will be just as many gun owners as there were before.

chuck said...

Mitt Romney continues to shoot himself in the foot with the base. I expect he would do even worse than before because he neither understands, nor likes, a large fraction of the Republican party. He would make a good Democrat if the Demcrats were not so far left.

eric said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back? He's going to end up with the same kind of immigration reform as everyone else. Why wouldn't you just process the people in place and get them documentation? There's Trump's idea that some of them are bad and some are good, by why would you do something as inefficient as sending everyone back and then sorting them out. Sort them in place and give documentation to the "good" and deport the bad. It's nutty to do anything else. He's just conning voters now.


It's so sweet that you care that Trump is conning voters. When the Clintons do it, it's good defense.

I don't think he's conning voters though. I think he doesn't realize just how massive a bureaucracy we have concerning immigration. So, after he deports all of those people, he'll wake up one morning and explain to the media, "I had no idea we couldn't bring all those people back in. No idea at all. Ah well, they're gone now, nothing we can do about it."

And I'll feel conned, but I'll still smile.

Mike Sylwester said...

Rubio has already done that [give a big speech]. Just look at his 2010 campaign speeches.

Rubio's big speech about enforcing immigration laws has to be convincing.

I think lots of people would like to jump from Trump to Rubio, as soon as they are convinced that Rubio really will try to stop massive illegal immigration.

It's not enough for Rubio to take Bush's supporters.

It's much more important that Rubio take Trump's supporters.

Michael K said...

"Hispanic immigrants are not monolithic. Some have been here for a long time."

Oh, I agree. The problem is with the newer illegals. I have no problem with those over 40 who are well integrated by now. Most of them are legal because they were here in 1986.

"And he knows how to superbly manage Obamacare am rite?"

This just perpetuates the myth that the Massachusetts plan that Romney signed was what eventually became law there after he left and Deval Patrick signed the changes made by the 80% D Mass legislature. The Democrats use your mythology as talking points.

I do agree that Romney showed poor communication skills by not disavowing what happened.

Achilles said...

Mike Sylwester said...
Rubio has already done that [give a big speech]. Just look at his 2010 campaign speeches.

"Rubio's big speech about enforcing immigration laws has to be convincing."

Rubio is getting GOPe support and is the establishment candidate. Look for his recent interviews on Univision to get the good stuff. There is nothing he can say that would convince anyone but a fool wanting to be convinced.

eric said...

Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
Rubio has already done that [give a big speech]. Just look at his 2010 campaign speeches.

Rubio's big speech about enforcing immigration laws has to be convincing.

I think lots of people would like to jump from Trump to Rubio, as soon as they are convinced that Rubio really will try to stop massive illegal immigration.

It's not enough for Rubio to take Bush's supporters.

It's much more important that Rubio take Trump's supporters.


The reason I wouldn't make the jump from Trump to Rubio is because I don't think Rubio gets it.

He thinks Washington is about compromise. It's about reaching across the aisle and working with the other party. He thinks about Washington in the same way that Lindsey Graham and John McCain think about it. He wants to compromise.

He doesn't understand that the Democrats are the enemy. That they have no intention of compromise. That they are playing by the exact same rule book that they've been playing by for years. That they will give Rubio half of what he wants (Amnesty, for example) and the promised other half, enforcement, will never appear.

He made it clear he doesn't understand this Washington game during the comprehensive immigration reform debate. I don't think Rubio is a bad guy. I think he has a lot of the same belief's about government that I have. I just think he's a sucker, and we don't need a sucker in the White House.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

Michael K said...

"This just perpetuates the myth that the Massachusetts plan that Romney signed was what eventually became law there after he left and Deval Patrick signed the changes made by the 80% D Mass legislature. The Democrats use your mythology as talking points.

I do agree that Romney showed poor communication skills by not disavowing what happened."

Seriously? After the GOPe spent millions to destroy 4 other candidates to get to this guy?

Birkel said...

Achilles,
There are some days I really thank God that I grew up poor, went to public school, got government cheese and learned early that my successes depended on my own efforts. I did not have to be a Liberal mugged by reality because I saw it early.

Some day Professor Althouse (or somebody so similar as to be indistinguishable) will be mugged by reality. Her bubble is smaller every day. But a fish doesn't understand the size of its bowl.

And they may even need a bicycle, eventually.

David Begley said...

Mark my words. The ticket will be Ted and Carly.

Lydia said...

...no one is willing to cross their corporate masters [on cheapest possible labor], other than Trump"

But Trump is himself a corporate master who uses cheap foreign labor -- e.g., the Trump Collection clothing line is made in Mexico and China. What does Trump say about that -- "It's true." But he really, truly wants it to be made here. Pathetic.

Will anyone tell the rubes? And, if so, will they care?

Bob Ellison said...

Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back?

No, nobody with a firing neuron thinks and asserts that.

Jon said...

Althouse said:

Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back? He's going to end up with the same kind of immigration reform as everyone else.

Maybe not, but even if he only deports 4 million, that's 4 million more than Rubio will. Anyway, the more important immigration issue isn't what do do with the illegals already here, it's the size of the future immigration flow, both illegal and legal. I believe that Trump will build the wall. Rubio won't. And the worst thing about Rubio's Gang of 8 bill wasn't the amnesty, it was the doubling of legal immigration, from 1 million to 2 million a year (70% of Americans don't want any increase at all).

Then again, since Rubio is also an insane neocon superhawk who wants to shoot down Russian planes over Syria, President Rubio might inadvertantly solve the immigration problem, since no one will want to immigrate to a post-WWIII radioactive wasteland.

Michael K said...

"Seriously? After the GOPe spent millions to destroy 4 other candidates to get to this guy?"

The destroying was by Gingrich who was living out of a suitcase and gave the Democrats their talking points for the campaign.

I can't figure out where you are coming from. Did you prefer Obama ?

D.E. Cloutier said...

"The fire filled the rooms and corridors with thick black smoke and people started panicking and running helter-skelter in the dark."

That sentence comes from a Voice of America article about a fire at a karaoke bar in Indonesia early today.

You could use the sentence to describe the Republican opposition to Donald Trump.

- DEC (Jungle Trader)

sinz52 said...

The reason why all these other candidates like Rubio are having trouble is that Trump has managed to get the entire GOP base to declare immigration their number one issue. Even those base Republicans who prefer Carson still want immigration as the number one issue.

They're weighing every candidate by how hawkish he or she is on immigration. And Trump, with his promises of a mass ethnic cleansing of 12 million Hispanic immigrants, has them all beat on that issue.

sinz52 said...

Althouse: "Why wouldn't you just process the people in place and get them documentation?"

Because Trump's promise of bringing them back is worth about as much as Obama's promise that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

Everybody but you seems to know that what Trump wants (and the base wants) is to kick them out and have them never come back.

sinz52 said...

Michael K: "
I do agree that Romney showed poor communication skills by not disavowing what happened."

Poor communication skills?

Romney was proud of signing Romneycare into law. He didn't veto it and force the Dem legislature to pass it over his veto. From then on, he touted it as a major achievement--until he found out how many Republicans are opposed to any and all government entitlements.

Anonymous said...

Michael K: What is most important is to get rid of the benefits, using E-Verify and stopping the health care gravy train.

It's gonna be an uphill battle to do any of those things, because every effort thus far has been scuttled by either officials simply refusing to do their jobs, or judges ruling that any disincentivizing of illegal immigration is somehow a violation of "human rights". But it has to start with forcing the issue into the debate space and not allowing the usual suspects to ignore it, which is exactly what they want to do.

That people like Althouse seem to think it's a minor issue that only "rubes" care about, and repeat the codswallop ("comprehensive immigration reform", "we can't deport 11 million people") that's been issued and re-issued decade after decade by both parties, in the apparent belief that it represents the only pragmatic and informed view, shows just how successful the open borders backers have been in getting their way.

They're having a little more trouble recently keeping the lid on, leading to a great deal of puzzlement among certain kinds of "sophisticated" voters, who instinctively settle on the "ignorant excited rube" viewpoint to explain away the fact that an issue they don't care about and don't know much about could end up mattering in this election. A lot.

traditionalguy said...

Poor Mitt Romney must be bored again. He wants something important to do.

Why can't Mitt be the guy chosen to go to one way to Mars? That is probably the planet where the Romney Mormon patriarchy rules eternally anyway.

Mark said...

Following the death of Thomas Stemberg, cofounder of Staples, Romney offered this praise in the Boston Globe --

“Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”

He praises Stemberg, he praises Romneycare, and he praises Obamacare because without it, "a lot of people wouldn't have health insurance."

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Mitt Romney is still ready to serve.

Bob Dole a verifiable Republican with a distinguished war record, will be only 93 years old in November 2016; AND HE HAS SENIORITY IN THE PARTY.

Now we all can agree that Democrats, as a group, are inveterate cheats and liars that no one in his/her/xiz/their right mind would allow near the controls of Government.

But - and let's be honest about this - so are the Republicans.

If you want to reduce graft, waste, and corruption in Government there is ONLY ONE LOGICAL WAY TO DO IT. That is to reduce the power available to Government.

The downside, of course, is that you be willing to assume responsibility for your own life.

Anonymous said...

Lydia: But Trump is himself a corporate master who uses cheap foreign labor -- e.g., the Trump Collection clothing line is made in Mexico and China. What does Trump say about that -- "It's true." But he really, truly wants it to be made here. Pathetic.

Will anyone tell the rubes? And, if so, will they care?


Rube, noun: Someone who prefers the con-man who might not actively work against his interests to the con-man Lydia prefers, who most definitely will.

Lydia, you sound like an idiot when you plop in here breathlessly announcing your latest "find" about Trump's chicaneries and hypocrisies. What was it last time? Oh yeah, you were totally blowing everyone's mind with your huge scoop on that yuuuuuge eminent domain scandal. If only the rest of us had the crack investigative skills necessary to fire up a browser and read news sites, then we would have to rely on you to get information about the candidates. Thanks, Lyd!

Anonymous said...

Cacimbo Cacimbo: Trump is leading in the polls because of his stance on illegal immigration. The party elites response, we get pro-amnesty Ryan as a replacement for Boehner. This incredible tone deafness may have ensured a Trump victory...

Oh, I don't think it was tone deafness at play here. I think it was a deliberate "fuck you".

motorrad said...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

Operation Wetback. All it takes is the will to act.

Michael K said...

"force the Dem legislature to pass it over his veto."

In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.[19] He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[20] He vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[21] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[22]

rcocean said...

"But Trump is himself a corporate master who uses cheap foreign labor -- e.g., the Trump Collection clothing line is made in Mexico and China.

This is nice example of propaganda. "Cheap foreign labor" means foreigners coming to the USA and working on the cheap NOT buying good from Overseas that is made by people who make less then USA workers.

rcocean said...

I'm glad that very bit on Althouse's propaganda point about "you can't deport 11 million people". This is way most conversations on illegal immigration go:

Anti-illegal: We must control the border and enforce the immigration laws
Open borders type: (Diverts topic) You can't deport 11 million people!
AI: (allows himself to be derailed) yes, you can, blah, blah

Look, if you have a leak in your boat and water in the hold, you don't argue about how to get the water out of the boat. You talk about how to stop the leak, because if you don't do that, everything else is irrelevant.

narciso said...

that was of course, the principle behind 'self deportation' which Romney never spelled out, like Sessions has,

chickelit said...

You talk about how to stop the leak, because if you don't do that, everything else is irrelevant.

Again, with a few outliers like Jeff Sessions, most of the GOP is for ramping up H-1B visas. The canard is that American science students aren't as good as the foreign talent. It's not true. I've worked with both -- first as a chemistry grad student and then as a high school chemistry tutor. What is true is that with limitless supply, you can depress wages. I don't see why this isn't a bipartisan common ground issue.

Phil 314 said...

"Wisconsin has a very small population of illegal immigrants compared to other areas of the country. In NJ they are destroying entire towns."

Well that's a quant opinion. Did you happen to have any facts or citations to back it up?

Phil 314 said...

My God, you all are still fighting over the 2012 election! Are you happy with the result? Sad, sad sad.

The Republican party is the Democratic Party of the 60's and 70's

Who will be our Gene McCarthy, our Frank Church, our Jerry Brown?

rcocean said...

"Well that's a quant opinion. Did you happen to have any facts or citations to back it up?"

IOW, you don't agree, but have no facts to back it up. So you ask for "proof".

Unknown said...

Mitt is a loser and everyone knows it

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back? He's going to end up with the same kind of immigration reform as everyone else.

That's not to imply that the type of reform we get is independent of the President and Congress we have when it's passed, is it Prof? I hope savvy voters understand that all the candidates are lying--or at least what they're giving us is puffery. A Dem who starts from "amnesty for all the immigrants" and a Repub who starts from "send them all home first" are both going to end up with something less extreme than that, but I doubt they'll end up in the same place. The same is true for differences within the Repub race.
Positional questions are important even when you understand that the ending position won't match the starting position.

Michael K said...

The first priority is to close the border. Build the fence. The GOP Congress passed a fence bill in 2006 which was immediately dropped by the Democrats when they got the majority that fall.

The Border Patrol agents' union is actually in favor of this.

Next enforce E Verify. That will be harder but it can be done. The illegals will start flooding back to Mexico if they see that coming.

Birth right citizenship will be harder but the mess in Europe will help get the attention of the public. I expect Europe to be in near civil war by 2017.

Legal immigration and H1B visas will be next. Probably something about not replacing highly paid workers with H1B holders should do it. Google's support will evaporate.

cacimbo said...

@Phil 3:14

Since your Google button seems to be broke -

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/02/map_illegal_immigrant_population_by_state.html

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=freehold+nj+going+bankrupt&start=10


I would argue that illegal immigrants in NY are heavily undercounted. Our illegal Chinese population has boomed, but really does live in the shadows. Some are actually reduced to renting a bed for eight hours, the next wave waits on the stoop for the beds to open up. When their eight hours is up, they scramble into vans and are driven to illegal factories in private homes. People outside of these neighborhoods seem to be truly oblivious to the extent an underground economy has formed around large population of illegal immigrants.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
"Seriously? After the GOPe spent millions to destroy 4 other candidates to get to this guy?"

"The destroying was by Gingrich who was living out of a suitcase and gave the Democrats their talking points for the campaign.

I can't figure out where you are coming from. Did you prefer Obama ?"

I didn't want the republican nominee to be the guy who wrote, signed and implemented Obamacare. I didn't want the nominee to be a weak decline manager. And we got Romney anyway.

After he spent the entire primary attacking his fellow republicans viciously and personally in ways he refused to attack Obama. Romney supporters went after Gingrich, Cain, Santorum supporters. They snubbed Paul at the convention. The same way they are going after Trump supporters now. The same way they go after Cruz when he actually tries to repeal obamacare.

You are trying to whitewash that time. The attack ads run in Florida against Newt were beyond the pale. The GOPe did everything to make the base stay home last election.

Joe said...

It's simple; the candidates this year on both sides suck even more than ever.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...

"In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers."

Romney wanted a mandate to force people to purchase health insurance. The rest are details. No free market reforms. A mandate. Democrat lite if you want a term for it.

Phil 314 said...

CC,
Well thanks for the links. The first gave me a map of estimated illegal immigrants by state. So yes it appears there a lot of illegal immigrants in NJ ( as well as Texas, Cal, NV and AZ). Nothing about bankrupsy.

Your second link was a Google search result. So now I know about Club Metro gyms in Freehold, NJ, frequently asked questions about personal bankruptcy in Freehold NJ etc.

So I'm still not finding the strong evidence of illegal immigrants leading to city bankruptcy in NJ.

And to rcocean, I didn't make the claim so I assume I didn't have to prove it wrong.

Ted Cruz is a homosexual; now prove me wrong.

Michael K said...

"Romney wanted a mandate to force people to purchase health insurance. The rest are details. "

Well, if you are not serious, that's not a problem. Only serious people are interested in details.

There was a school of thought that "free riders" were a serious cost problem in American health care. The Heritage Foundation, for a time, considered that enough of a problem to consider and "individual mandate." That was a mandate to buy catastrophic insurance if you were an individual. There was NEVER a mandate to replace the employer provided group health plans. Those people were insured.

Romney, when governor of Massachusetts, the most left wing state in the USA, supported the concept of free rider. The legislature passed a bill, which way beyond his recommendation, to replace employer health care with a state mandated plan,. He vetoed those provisions. The legislature passed them over his veto and later Deval Patrick the Obama-wannabe governor signed additional mandates.

Romney, unwisely in my opinion, has refused to disavow the Mass plan that he had nothing to do with .

Heritage no longer supports the individual mandate. possible because of the abuse of the concept.

Stupid people do not differentiate in details.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Some people are adamant that were Romney elected he would have been great, the right man for the right time.

Other people are adamant that were McCain elected we Americans, and our formal relations with China and Russia and the rest of the world, would be worse than currently.

I have considered both points of view and give credence to both, much like my declaiming Gay Marriage and Global Warming State Mandated Abdication of Rights Formerly Inalienable advocates are both making many assumptions about the unknown.

In poker, you use the information you have to make the most informed decision, and I suspect there is intersectionality of understood-as-proper poker strategy and nonspiritual political analysis.

BN said...

"Well, if you are not serious, that's not a problem."

Thank God!

...So, you've kinda hit on the key to life then.

You know, the rest of the country got here way before you, which explains... you know... where we are, I guess.

Rusty said...


Althouse said:

Does anyone really think Trump would deport 11 million people, then process them through getting documentation and bring them back? He's going to end up with the same kind of immigration reform as everyone else.

Most, who are illegal, know the game. They come here with the expectation they'll be deported. They'll leave with every expectation they'll be back again. So. Yes. I think he'll give it a damn good try.



Look, if you have a leak in your boat and water in the hold, you don't argue about how to get the water out of the boat. You talk about how to stop the leak, because if you don't do that, everything else is irrelevant.

Absolutely. Can't do one without the other.


Brando said...

"Oh, you can count on it. It's going to be a very bad year for republicans of all sorts."

I've come to accept it. It'll make it that much easier when President Hillary starts testing the limits of the Constitution.

Brando said...

I think the "Romney" comment was made in jest. Not only is it too late for new entrants, but there is really no constituency for a Romney candidacy now. Plus, he blew his chance in 2012. If he couldn't make it work then, he's not going to now.

Rubio might be best suited to defeat Hillary, but if he hasn't had a surge yet I'm not sure he ever will. Maybe if Jeb and Christie and Kasich drop out, but who knows. It's sort of moot though--the Dems are circling the wagons, and despite Hillary's own weaknesses as a candidate they seem poised to reassemble the Obama coalition in total fright of the GOP. By default, I think she's got a better than even chance at becoming the next president.

Which makes holding the Senate more important--if the Dems take it back, the fillibuster is gone, and I'm guessing Kennedy and Scalia will be retired in the next four years. The GOP often picks a Souter or Stevens, but the Dems have had pretty reliable selections. And don't forget the rest of the judiciary--slots up and down the line to be filled by a rubber stamp Senate.

Races to watch now--PA, WI, FL, NH. Though if you'd like to see some more war, you'll be happy with President Hillary.

Anonymous said...

For a law prof Althouse sure is free and easy with applying, you know, laws. Is there something the law profs know that the rest of us don't know?

Althouse also mentions that 11 million figure like it is gospel. The correct number is: Nobody friggin' knows how many are here at any one time.

Take the benefits away, especially food stamps and housing, and the illegals are gone in the morning. They got here they can go back.

Hillary delenda est.