Many Republicans seem to have settled on Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) as the shrewdest vice presidential nominee. He has his attributes that are noted elsewhere. But he is also an unapologetic immigration enthusiast. For whatever reason, he believes there are too few immigrants in the country. This is an impossible position to take in economic terms in a time of persistently high unemployment. Legally, immigrants fall into one of two main categories: skilled and employer-sponsored, like H-1B visa holders. Skilled immigrants who compete against skilled Americans for higher-paid jobs. Family-sponsored immigrants, who need not possess any skill level or prospects for employment, compete with lower-educated Americans for low-wage employment. We do not need more of either type of immigrants with unemployment at its current level. More immigrants mean more unemployment (simple supply and demand). If Sen. Rubio has a contrary view of the economics of mass immigration, he has not made it known.
I think Sen. Rubio's enthusiasm for extremely high levels of immigration reflects the culture of his home town, Miami. In other words, he wants the rest of America to look, feel and sound like Little Havana. I very much doubt many Republicans outside Miami and Los Angeles share his narrow-mindedness. Nor do Republicans want the country to look like the inner cities of or the depressed former steel towns of the Midwest either. Republicans believe assimilation, not diversity, has made the country great. We feel as comfortable in Little Havana as its residents do in English- speaking prosperous suburbs and small towns that attract few immigrants. Until 1965 there was a consensus in this country that immigrants needed to speak English and assimilate into the majority culture. Today the immigrant lobby demands the exact opposite: bilingual education, multiculturalism and a steady flow of new immigrants to satisfy the cheap labor lobby.
Sen. Rubio is not really a Republican. You cannot be a Republican today without understanding there is now a consensus for strict border control and against amnesty for illegal immigrants already here. It is true that these positions deal with illegal immigration. But talk to Republicans and they will tell you we've overdone it with immigration in general. Republicans don't want the country to look, feel and sound like Miami. We have had limits on legal immigration since 1952. If Sen. Rubio thinks there should be no caps, he has a lot of explaining to do.
Follow Howard Foster on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Foster PC
A leader needs to stand up for our law, to signal an expectation of accountability to it. In a recent speech, Rubio did the opposite by rationalizing illegal entry on the grounds that it's merely trying to provide a better life for your children. If HE would enter the U.S. illegally, heck, why should potential illegal aliens not do the same? That is the message sent:
"What if you were them? What if you lived in a country where your children had no hope and no future? Where your wife stayed up all night crying because she was afraid your son would join a drug gang. Where your children wept each night because you didn’t have enough food to feed them. What if you were there? Let me tell you—if I was there, there are very few things I would not do. There is no fence high enough; there is no ocean wide enough that most of us would not cross to provide for them what they do not have."
http://rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=b96ff565-08a5-4206-b1eb-57127c5d57c8