When Marco Rubio was pictured smiling with Senator Chuck Schumer in 2013 along with the rest of the “Gang of Eight” after devising their ill-fated “comprehensive immigration plan,” you could hear the collective sigh from conservatives across the country as their hearts sank.Since then, the articulate Florida senator has been very clear about his stance on immigration – depending on which way the breeze is blowing on that particular day.
But the problem is the sands are shifting as well, and it appears the senator and presidential hopeful is having some trouble finding firm footing.As we get ever closer to the Iowa caucuses and first primaries, and his poll numbers continue to dip, Rubio is trying to find a stronger stance. The problem is, will it find favor with conservatives?
You tell me.
As Politico reports, Sen. Marco Rubio says people who immigrated to the U.S. illegally but haven’t committed any major crimes could be allowed to stay.Allowed to stay as what?
In an interview airing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Florida Republican contender for the presidency said felons shouldn’t be allowed to stay, but those who commit lesser crimes could still qualify. He didn’t specify if the people allowed to stay would ever be able to become citizens.
“If you’re a criminal alien, no, you can’t stay. If you’re someone that hasn’t been here for a very long time, you can’t stay,” he said. “I don’t think you’re gonna round up and deport 12 million people.”
So Senator, how do you define “for a very long time?” Six months? Six months and one day? A year? A year and one day? If it’s 10 years, why not five? How do you determine what “established” is? Would you include the ability to speak English? An income threshold? Will it ever be possible to come up with criteria liberals and immigration activists will accept? And it sure seems to be “selective acceptance” is more racist or xenophobic than just saying legal or illegal.
Rubio said, “If circumstances change or you learn something along the way, it’s reasonable to say, ‘Maybe a different approach will work better,'” Rubio said. “So for example, on immigration it is clear no comprehensive solution to immigration is going to pass.”
But what do you think? Does Rubio still have a shot after this comment?
[Note: This article was written by Michele Hickford]