Marco Rubio's Shifting & Crazy Stance
1:27 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
What a load of horse manure from The Shark Tank blog this week regarding Marco Rubio’s stance on counting (or not counting) illegal immigrants in the 2010 Census. Even a passing glance at Javier Manjarres’s posts reveal a clear bias “in the tank” for Rubio’s candidacy. This blog, always quick to come to Rubio’s defense, claims that Rubio’s stance on immigrants on the census is “eminently defensible and responsible.” My question to The Tank and Rubio: “Which stance is that?”
Here’s the dish: Illegal immigrants have always counted in census figures since 1790. Even when slaves counted as only a fraction of a person, immigrants without papers counted as whole. Even today, most respondents to the census aren’t asked about their immigration status whatsoever. Only long-form respondents have a chance to clarify their status. Everybody else counts just the same as their neighbor, period. Federal law and federal agency policy say so. Marco Rubio doesn’t decide who counts and who doesn’t -- even if he does become a US Senator... (continued)
Blogger "Lone Shark" states, “For my money, it’s refreshing to hear a politician take a stand against the prevailing business-as-usual mentality that refuses to close off the federal government’s money spigot based on unconscionable deficit spending.” Well "Lone Shark" should understand that undercounting Floridians doesn’t turn off the spigot and doesn’t reduce federal spending by one dime. It just takes money that should be coming to Florida and sends it instead to Kansas, Iowa, Vermont, etc.
Whatever your position on illegal immigration, the census is not to be used as a political tool. An honest count does not as The Shark Tank puts it, “dilute the interests, concerns, and representation of legitimate citizens.” How would it do so? Illegal immigrants don’t have voting rights in any case, but they do use services that we all share.
Take this perspective: I am a “legitimate citizen” in Florida.
If my local hospital is denied extra funding because its needs are not adequately met, that dilutes my care. The nurse can’t refuse to treat a patient’s wound until he proves his citizenship. If he cannot pay his bill, taxpayers and residents like me still get stuck with the tab. What good does it do me to deny my area adequate funding?
If my local highway is denied the money needed for upgrades and repairs necessitated in part by “non-citizens,” I suffer. But we don’t check someone’s immigration status when they take the onramp, do we?
Nor do we inquire about visa status when someone dials 911 and needs police assistance. Nor fire nor ambulance. We do not require someone to be a “citizen” to enroll their children in our local schools or to ride a city bus. I’ve never shown my birth certificate to access a public beach, public park, use a public restroom, or the public library. Yet all of these examples are subsidized at least in part with tax dollars. So if I share these services with illegal immigrants and permanent resident non-citizens already, why shouldn't my area receive more money to help pay for the space and services we share? Isn’t Rubio’s policy a dilution of service to “legitimate citizens” like me?
Mr Rubio’s position on census representation is unclear at best. It appears after changing his mind that he has decided to only count “citizens.” This is simply not responsible in the way that The Shark Tank states. Rather, it is political grandstanding at its worst for the sake of gaining a few votes.
Illegal immigration is an affront to natural born citizens and legal immigrants alike. There are plenty of legitimate forums to make that case and wage that war, but the census is not one of them. Politicization of our headcount is a terrible election year stunt and is exactly the typical political move that turns off independent and swing voters.
It is bad policy from the Rubio camp.
There's ALWAYS something new happening at Drawnlines Politics.
For videos and archives visit our homepage
Check out our new Election Center!
What a load of horse manure from The Shark Tank blog this week regarding Marco Rubio’s stance on counting (or not counting) illegal immigrants in the 2010 Census. Even a passing glance at Javier Manjarres’s posts reveal a clear bias “in the tank” for Rubio’s candidacy. This blog, always quick to come to Rubio’s defense, claims that Rubio’s stance on immigrants on the census is “eminently defensible and responsible.” My question to The Tank and Rubio: “Which stance is that?”
Here’s the dish: Illegal immigrants have always counted in census figures since 1790. Even when slaves counted as only a fraction of a person, immigrants without papers counted as whole. Even today, most respondents to the census aren’t asked about their immigration status whatsoever. Only long-form respondents have a chance to clarify their status. Everybody else counts just the same as their neighbor, period. Federal law and federal agency policy say so. Marco Rubio doesn’t decide who counts and who doesn’t -- even if he does become a US Senator... (continued)
Blogger "Lone Shark" states, “For my money, it’s refreshing to hear a politician take a stand against the prevailing business-as-usual mentality that refuses to close off the federal government’s money spigot based on unconscionable deficit spending.” Well "Lone Shark" should understand that undercounting Floridians doesn’t turn off the spigot and doesn’t reduce federal spending by one dime. It just takes money that should be coming to Florida and sends it instead to Kansas, Iowa, Vermont, etc.
Whatever your position on illegal immigration, the census is not to be used as a political tool. An honest count does not as The Shark Tank puts it, “dilute the interests, concerns, and representation of legitimate citizens.” How would it do so? Illegal immigrants don’t have voting rights in any case, but they do use services that we all share.
Take this perspective: I am a “legitimate citizen” in Florida.
If my local hospital is denied extra funding because its needs are not adequately met, that dilutes my care. The nurse can’t refuse to treat a patient’s wound until he proves his citizenship. If he cannot pay his bill, taxpayers and residents like me still get stuck with the tab. What good does it do me to deny my area adequate funding?
If my local highway is denied the money needed for upgrades and repairs necessitated in part by “non-citizens,” I suffer. But we don’t check someone’s immigration status when they take the onramp, do we?
Nor do we inquire about visa status when someone dials 911 and needs police assistance. Nor fire nor ambulance. We do not require someone to be a “citizen” to enroll their children in our local schools or to ride a city bus. I’ve never shown my birth certificate to access a public beach, public park, use a public restroom, or the public library. Yet all of these examples are subsidized at least in part with tax dollars. So if I share these services with illegal immigrants and permanent resident non-citizens already, why shouldn't my area receive more money to help pay for the space and services we share? Isn’t Rubio’s policy a dilution of service to “legitimate citizens” like me?
Mr Rubio’s position on census representation is unclear at best. It appears after changing his mind that he has decided to only count “citizens.” This is simply not responsible in the way that The Shark Tank states. Rather, it is political grandstanding at its worst for the sake of gaining a few votes.
Illegal immigration is an affront to natural born citizens and legal immigrants alike. There are plenty of legitimate forums to make that case and wage that war, but the census is not one of them. Politicization of our headcount is a terrible election year stunt and is exactly the typical political move that turns off independent and swing voters.
It is bad policy from the Rubio camp.
There's ALWAYS something new happening at Drawnlines Politics.
For videos and archives visit our homepage
Check out our new Election Center!
Posted by Nick Stone
on 1:27 AM.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
Vote for a highly better candidate than Rubio...
Alex Snitker US Senate 2010 Libertarian
http://snitker2010.com/