Default
Rubio/Zuckerberg`s Lying Ad: Definitive If Verbose CIS Refutation
Thumb patrick cleburne
May 15, 2013, 05:55 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Rubio

H/T One Old Vet

At 5-01 AM this morning – several hours after we posted A Talk Radio Listener Provides An Update On Rubio/Zuckerberg/Gang Of Weasels Propaganda; We Dissect It CIS emailed out Rubio’s Deceptive Amnesty Ad By John Feere.

Like all CIS work it is very thorough. Below are my extracts of their responses to Rubio/Zuckerberg’s lies.

  • RUBIO: "Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty."

"Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president`s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs."

  • ANNOUNCER: "Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States."

"The so-called "Gang of Eight" senators who wrote the bill aren`t all "conservative leaders", unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (R-Ill.) to fit that description.... No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the "toughest" our country has ever seen."

  • RUBIO: "They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine."

"Within six months of the bill`s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status...It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they`re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama`s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven`t filled out an application form. ..

Absent from Rubio`s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill."

  • ANNOUNCER: "Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers."

"DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver`s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits... In other words, there really aren`t any border security triggers at all."

  • RUBIO: "No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they`re gainfully employed."

"Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.

We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family.

Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state."

  • ANNOUNCER: "Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration."

"Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a "tough line" on immigration."

CIS points out these descriptions come from Treason Lobby fanatic Jennifer Rubin and Professional Hispanic Ruben Navarrete whom the ad neglects to name.

  • RUBIO: "It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that`s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn`t unfair to the people that have done it the right way."

"....the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized...

The amnesty applicant is only in the "back of the line" in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country."

  • ANNOUNCER: "Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform."

"Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we`re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to "stand" with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as "conservative" in any sense of the word."

The CIS response at over 4,000 words is of course far too long to be effective polemically. Couldn’t they have got some able tabloid writer to make succinct summaries? As it is others will have to do it. And why did it take so long?

VDARE.com was trying to put up our own response a day earlier than we did and would have done if we had had the resources to free up James Fulford.

But CIS and NumbersUSA are working hard. I see hardly anything from FAIR.

That is no surprise.