Hidalgo County judge launches investigation into conflict of interest

The Monitor
January 10, 2015
by Jacob Fischler

EDINBURG — After a year of battling with the county’s drainage director on various fronts, Hidalgo County Judge Ramon Garcia launched an investigation this week into drainage district subcontracts that went to a company owned by the wife of district Manager Godfrey Garza.

After learning late last year that drainage district contractors in 2007 hired Valley Data Collection Specialists, Inc., a company owned by Garza’s wife, Garcia sent a letter Monday to Garza’s company, Integ Corp., requesting an accounting of all contracts and subcontracts that went to the company since then.

“You, as the Drainage District Manager, are responsible to negotiate with the contractors we hire,” Garcia wrote. “On December 16, 2014, we learned that your wife is the owner of a company (Valley Data Collection Specialists, Inc.) that does subcontracting work for contractors you negotiate with… Therefore I believe there exists a serious conflict of interest in your part.”

In an interview, Garza said he would provide the judge with a response that answered his questions, but added that his wife did not own the company at the time it was subcontracted for county projects.

“We're going to respond back to him on the letter that he submitted to Integ,” Garza said. “And in response to the letter, we should be able to answer the questions that he has. Specifically, the question on Valley Data going back to 2007 — my wife was not the owner then.”

Garza declined to say when his wife did become the owner, saying he preferred to withhold that information until he wrote it in the letter.

But he added: “I never contracted with myself or my interests.”

The issue became public in a commissioners court meeting Dec. 16 when Garcia questioned Garza’s stewardship of public money — as has become routine at the drainage district portions of commissioners court.

“See, my concern is here you are representing us, entering into contracts with the contractors and then the contractors entering into contracts with your company — well, your family’s company,” Garcia said to Garza. “Don’t you really seriously believe that constitutes a conflict of interest?”

Garza said he needed to research the issue and could not answer at the time.

The two have butted heads continually since at least last January, when Garcia learned that an earlier contract with the county had paid Integ — Garcia believed erroneously — a 1.5 percent commission for work on the hybrid border wall-levee system.

Garcia and other commissioners soon thereafter sought to begin a transition to a new drainage district manager who could be ready to take over by the time Garza’s contract expires in February 2015. But commissioners have yet to settle on a job description for the new manager or an assistant manager who could one day replace Garza.

http://m.themonitor.com/news/local/hidalgo-county-judge-launches-investigation-into-conflict-of-interest/article_af2aa6f0-9932-11e4-a7b5-cba304796e84.html?mode=jqm

Senate immigration plan includes border crackdown

The Washington Post
April 10, 2013
by David Nakamura

Federal authorities would be required to establish vast new border fences and surveillance as part of a bipartisan Senate plan aimed at allowing the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants to earn permanent residency and, potentially, citizenship, aides familiar with the proposal said Wednesday.

The provisions would call on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to increase surveillance to cover 100 percent of the Southwestern border and to apprehend 90 percent of the people who attempt to enter the United States illegally, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose private negotiations.

An eight-member Senate group is nearing agreement on a comprehensive proposal that would represent the most sweeping overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws in nearly three decades. Aides said the legislation will be unveiled ahead of a hearing on the bill scheduled Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who is expected to testify, recently expressed skepticism about the idea of using new border-control metrics as a “trigger” that would make or break a path to citizenship for undocumented migrants.

Advocates also have voiced concerns about tying border security to the path to citizenship, saying they feared that disputes over the effectiveness of the new measures could delay the process for undocumented residents. President Obama has said a comprehensive immigration bill must offer a “clear path” to citizenship.

Democrats emphasized that the new border-control metrics represent “goals” but are not intended as specific “triggers” that would potentially delay the path to citizenship.

“The legislation spells out goals,” one Democratic aide said. “These are resource-based measures, not outcome-based.”

The Obama administration has said the border is already more secure than it has been in decades. But the Government Accountability Office found that the Border Patrol had only 44 percent of the Southwestern border under “operational control” in 2010.

Nestor Rodriguez, a professor at the University of Texas who has studied the Southwestern border, said that although it is possible to surveil the entire border, it might not be necessary, especially considering the enormous financial investment required.

The four Republicans in the working group, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), pushed hard for beefed-up security measures, which are viewed as critical to garnering GOP support in the Senate and House for a comprehensive reform bill.

Asked if the provisions were strong enough to convince his GOP colleagues to support the bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the working group, said Wednesday: “Damned if I know.”

Rubio has been cautious in his public statements about the legislation. He was expected to brief the GOP caucus at its Wednesday luncheon, but did not because senators were focused on an emerging bipartisan agreement on background checks for private gun sales, aides said.

GOP aides said the border-control measures were meant to assure immigration skeptics that significant new security provisions would be in place before illegal immigrants are rewarded with green cards, which signify permanent-resident status, or citizenship.

Under the terms of the proposal, DHS would submit a plan to reach the new milestones within nine months of the immigration legislation becoming law. The bill authorizes $3 billion to help the agency deploy new surveillance technology, including aerial drones for treacherous border regions, and build new fencing.

Another $4 billion would go toward expanding a workplace screening system known as E-Verify and setting up a border entry-exit tracking system to identify foreigners who have overstayed their visas, Senate aides said.

If DHS is unable to meet the benchmarks within five years, a border commission composed of governors and attorneys general in Southwestern states would receive federal funds to pursue additional measures for five more years.

“The takeaway here is that this will easily be the toughest border-enforcement system this country has ever had,” a Republican aide said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-immigration-plan-includes-border-crackdown/2013/04/10/6eba7dca-a1ef-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

McCain, other senators to tour U.S.-Mexico border with immigration reform on their minds

Associated Press
March 27, 2013

A group of U.S. senators who will be influential in shaping and negotiating details of an immigration reform package is traveling to the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona to get a firsthand look at issues affecting the region.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona were expected to tour the border today with Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado. They are all members of the so-called Gang of Eight — a bipartisan group that has spent recent weeks trying to craft proposed immigration legislation.

The trip comes as Congress is in recess and as the lawmakers wrap up a bill designed to secure the border and put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to pass immigration reform this year, and border security is critical to McCain and other Republicans who contend that some areas along the border are far from secure.

"I wish every member of the United States Senate and Congress could see the border," McCain told reporters in Phoenix on Monday. "Only when you can see the expanse, the difficulties and the challenges of the border, can you really appreciate the need for our border security."

With top Republicans and Democrats focused on the issue, immigration reform faces its best odds in years. The proposed legislation will likely put illegal immigrants on a 13-year path to citizenship and would install new criteria for border security, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. and hold businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally.

McCain sought to lower expectations for the bill Monday during a town hall in Phoenix. He told immigration activists they wouldn't be completely happy with the measure and warned that the group must overcome difficult disagreements.

"We've made progress in a number of areas that I am encouraged by, but there are still areas that we are not in agreement," he said.

McCain said the lawmakers had reached an agreement on protections for young illegal immigrants brought to the country as children and on visas for workers, but declined to provide specifics.

Reports indicate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, negotiating through the Gang of Eight senators, had reached significant agreement Friday on a new visa program to bring up to 200,000 lower-skilled workers a year to the country. The groups did not reach consensus on how much the workers would be paid.

The bill is expected to be lengthy and cover numerous issues, including limiting family-based immigration to put a greater emphasis on skills and employment ties instead.

The legislation was initially promised in March, but the lawmakers have since said they won't be done until at least April. Immigration proponents have said the group needs to introduce legislation soon, while some Republican lawmakers complain the process has moved too quickly.

If passed, the legislation could usher in the most sweeping changes in immigration law in nearly 30 years.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/mccain_other_senators_to_tour.html

Key question in immigration debate: Is U.S. border secure?

Washington Post
January 30, 2013
by David Nakamura

The debate over a national immigration overhaul has quickly begun to focus on a key question: Are the U.S. borders secure enough?

Leading Republicans say much more needs to be done to control the illegal flow of migrants from Mexico, and they have vowed not to authorize a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented residents until stricter enforcement provisions are in place.

But the Obama administration contends that it has invested more heavily in enforcement efforts than ever before. Several high-profile studies have found that the federal response has helped reduce the flow of illegal immigrants, bringing net migration between the United States and Mexico to a virtual standstill.

Last year, the government spent $18 billion on immigration control, 24 percent more than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined, according to a study released this month by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. The Obama administration deported nearly 410,000 people in 2012 — a record, and 25 percent more than in 2007.

At the same time, the number of people apprehended at the Mexican border trying to enter the United States dropped to 340,000, a 40-year low, in 2011. Immigration advocates say the decline shows that the heavy investment in border agents and surveillance technology has effectively deterred foreign nationals from attempting to cross.

Obama administration officials also say the government has largely met, and in some cases surpassed, enforcement benchmarks set in 2007, when a comprehensive immigration reform bill failed in the Senate in part because of concerns about border control.

“I certainly feel very comfortable saying that never before has the border been as protected as it is now,” said Nestor Rodriguez, a sociology professor at the University of Texas who has studied immigration from Mexico and Central America. “The large undocumented population is partly a result of that success: People are afraid to go back home because it’s hard to get back in.”

That progress, advocates say, largely renders moot the demand from leading Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), that a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants be contingent on stricter border-control measures that remain largely undefined.

“Incredible resources have been spent on the interior and border enforcement, and we need to make sure the road to citizenship is not subject to that,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. The GOP position “raises the question of whether the border can ever be completely secured and is that road to citizenship even achievable or not?”

The issue is quickly emerging as a key obstacle in the latest round of immigration reform negotiations. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh pressed Rubio on Tuesday to vow he would not support a path to citizenship without tying it to stricter border control.

“If there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it,” Rubio responded.

Obama has also emphasized that he supports increased enforcement at the border as a key element of any immigration plan. But he did not endorse a proposal this week from Rubio and seven other senators that would establish a border commission to monitor security and make recommendations that would be used as a “trigger” to allow undocumented migrants to pursue citizenship.

Administration officials and advocates fear such a mechanism could create long delays and create a class of legal residents without full benefits.

With border apprehensions plummeting in recent years, most experts agree that the number of migrants attempting to enter the United States illegally has probably dropped sharply. They attribute the trend to several factors, including reduced labor demand in the United States as the result of a sluggish economy.

Still, the experts agree that federal enforcement is also a likely reason for the reduced flow. Increased federal funding has paid for more than 21,000 federal agents at the border with Mexico, 651 miles of fencing, 300 camera towers and nine surveillance drones to monitor remote areas.

Last April, the Pew Hispanic Center found that the net migration between the United States and Mexico had fallen to zero, reversing four decades of “the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”

Marc Rosenblum, an immigration policy specialist for the Congressional Research Service, wrote in a report last year that Congress “may consider the possibility that certain additional investments at the border may be met with diminishing returns.”

Republicans argue that as the U.S. economy improves, the flow of undocumented workers is likely to pick up again. And they cite a report last month from the Government Accountability Office that determined that the U.S. Border Patrol was intercepting just 61 percent of migrants who attempted to cross illegally into the country from Mexico.

That study found that the agency was unable to apprehend nearly 209,000 migrants at the border, of which about 86,000 successfully escaped into the United States. Both numbers, however, were down significantly from 2006.

“There has been some progress,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.). “But the bottom line is that we are far from having operational control of our borders.”

Rubio and other GOP leaders also include improved workplace verification of immigration status as part of the broad conversation over enforcement. Democrats, including Obama, agree that new safeguards must be established to help employers identify undocumented workers.

Some conservatives view worker identification as a more vital issue. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which promotes stricter immigration control, said the border commission proposed by the Senate working group is “a gimmick” that has little value but is designed to appeal to conservatives who would otherwise reject comprehensive reform efforts.

“It’s easier to talk about fences and border-control agents than it is to deal with the more difficult issues of work-site enforcement,” Krikorian said.

The National Association of Retired Border Patrol Officials has opposed allowing illegal immigrants to become legal residents, saying it rewards lawbreakers. But many retired agents agree that the number of illegal migrants has fallen dramatically.

“We have never seen the level of control we have now,” said David B. Ham, a retired Border Patrol officer and president of the National Border Patrol Museum in El Paso. “The numbers are way down — there’s no doubt.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/key-question-in-immigration-debate-is-us-border-secure/2013/01/30/0c20b168-6afc-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story_1.html

Senators reinforce call for tightened borders as part of immigration reform

The Guardian
January 30, 2013
by Karen McVeigh

The citizenship ambitions of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US could rest on a fight over the definition of what constitutes a secure border, experts predict.

Barack Obama, in a milestone speech on immigration reform on Tuesday, echoed Republicans' tough language on border enforcement. But he did not go as far as a demand by a bipartisan group of senators that the US border be declared secure before people who are in the US illegally be given a "path to citizenship".

Those senators argue that a commission be set up to rule on whether the border is secure before a single undocumented immigrant is given a chance to move towards a fully legal status. Obama's failure to endorse explicitly that demand has already raised suspicions among Republicans.

Marco Rubio, a prominent Latino senator and one of the eight who set out their own proposals a day earlier, warned the president not to ignore his party's concerns about border security. "I think that would be a terrible mistake," Rubio told Fox News. "We have a bipartisan group of senators that have agreed to that. For the president to try to move the goalposts on that specific requirement, as an example, does not bode well in terms of what his role's going to be in this or the outcome." He added: "If that's not in the bill, I won't support it." 

Senator Jeff Flake, a newly elected Republican senator for the border state of Arizona, echoed Rubio's demand for a clear statement from an independent commission on border security. "This provision is key to ensuring that border security is achieved, and is also necessary to ensure that a reform package can actually move through Congress," he said in remarks quoted by Reuters.

The question of what constitutes a secure border is likely to be be crucial in determining the success of the latest plans to reform what is widely accepted to be a "broken" immigration system.

A framework set out by the bipartisan "gang of eight" senators on Monday talks about the need to "prevent, detect and apprehend every entry". But Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, said it would be impossible to meet that demand literally. "If it has to reach a point where there are zero illegal entrants – that is just not achievable," she said. "No police force could guarantee on an annual basis that there would be zero homicides or zero crimes of violence."

The demands for "enforcement first" stem from previous attempts at immigration reform. But despite the implicit suggestion that border security is lax, the opposite is true.

The number of border control agents has doubled in six years, and there has been a massive increase in federal spending on enforcement. Last month, a report by the Migration Policy Institute, Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The rise of a Formidable Machinery, found that the Obama administration spent $18bn on immigration enforcement last year, significantly more than its spending on all the other major federal law enforcement agencies combined.

"We've sketched a dramatic transformation of the immigration enforcement system since 1986," said Mittelstadt. She said it had reached a "level unparalleled in this country's history".

Obama noted in his speech on Tuesday that the "tide of illegal immigrants" from Mexico had been stemmed by increased border security. "We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80% from their peak in 2000," he said. Obama also noted that deportations of criminals "is at its highest level ever".

But Thad Bingel, who was chief of staff, US Customs and Border Protection from 2005 to 2009, said the legacy of the last overhaul over the immigration laws, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, had created a generation sceptical of reform without border control.

"Even although we've seen significant progress, there's a recognition from the senators that the public need to be convinced that we have not done enough. I agree with that. You need to assure people." He agreed with the senators' proposal on how to define border security. "They want to have a commission made up of attorney generals, governors and leaders of the border states, and that makes sense. The sticking part will be the membership of that commission and what its powers are."

Bingel cited a doubling of border patrol agents, from 10,000 in 2004 to 21,000 today as one of many recent improvements. There had also been a drop in the number of people apprehended for attempting to cross the border illegally, from about one million a year in 2000 to 327,000 in 2011. "That is significant progress. But the debate now is what will be an acceptable number," he said.

He said that border security has a different meaning today, pointing out that 50% of those who are in the US illegally had entered the country legally, but overstayed their visas. That posed different challenges: "You need a mix of things, including technology on the border itself, employment verification and an exit control system on land, looking at documents that can be scanned when someone leaves the country."

Bingel also said border security had become more dangerous. "It's a different battle now. Because the border had become more difficult to cross, we have seen an increase in criminal organisations using more violent tactics to defeat border security. Organisations that used to smuggle narcotics have diversified into people smuggling. You need a different set of tools."

Mittelstadt, of the Migration Policy Institute, said that the answer to the question of border security was not more enforcement but to look at where the gaps were. "More enforcement of the existing system will not yield results. There continue to be gaps and one is in employment enforcement. What is needed is to address those gaps."

Mittelstadt welcomed the framework set out by the bipartisan group of eight senators as a "significant breakthrough". But she added: "It is, however, just a framework. There remains the filling in of details between the document and the legislative text."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/30/republicans-border-control-immigration-plan

Quotes of the Day

Hot Air
January 20, 2013

Immigration, [Condoleezza] Rice added, was the “big issue.”

“Frankly, we sent some pretty bad signals around immigration. George W. Bush, John McCain, Jon Kyl, and Ted Kennedy had an immigration bill in 2007 and it failed. And I felt at that moment that that was the real missed opportunity. We’ve got to get comprehensive immigration reform back on the agenda.”

Praising Republicans, like Marco Rubio, who have been speaking out about immigration, Rice also made it clear that she felt certain components of the GOP platform, such as fiscal values, defense, federalism, and individual responsibility, were “widely popular among the American people.”

“But if you send messages that there are whole segments of the population that are not welcome, not only is it bad politics, but it’s bad policy because without immigration, robust immigration, we have the same sclerotic demographics of Japan and Europe,” Rice remarked. “The Republican party has both a political and a policy problem.”
*** Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, who mainly reside on the left, are surprised that Rubio, a Republican from Florida, has generated so much positive buzz from conservatives…

“He’s doing an awesome job of bringing along conservatives and bringing along conservatives in the media,” said Frank Sharry, the founder of America’s Voice, which advocates for comprehensive reform. “He’s making enormous progress in making reform palatable to people on the right in a way that no one has before.”…

Critics of proposals granting legal status to illegal immigrants say Rubio’s blueprint is unacceptable, based on what they know. So far Rubio has only sketched out his vision in interviews and has yet to introduce legislation.

“We have some major issues with what it looks like he’s doing in some areas. This is not something we would endorse,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government affairs at NumbersUSA, a group that opposed past efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

*** “The party is hungry for a leader who can unite us. The party and the country is hungry for that,” said Republican strategist Henry Barbour, who is co-chairing a review of the national party’s 2012 campaign and coming up with a blueprint for future elections. “Addition not subtraction wins elections. I’m focused on 2013 and 2014, but the more Rubio shows he can unite our party, the more interesting he will be to people thinking about 2016.”…

“Mending course on immigration is a requirement for Republicans to be able to successfully engage Latino voters,” said Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro, director of immigration and national campaigns at the National Council of La Raza, a leading Hispanic advocacy group. “If they stay on the path they are on, they are on their way to political irrelevance.”…

“He has the potential to be a force for building the space in which Republicans are meaningfully considering resolutions to this problem,” said Martinez-De-Castro. “The expectations are high for his leadership on this.”

*** Mr. Rubio laid out three [principles]: aside from fair treatment for foreigners who play by the rules, he said, any legislation should also recognize that legal immigration has been a boon to the United States in the past and is “critical to our future.” He would also insist on new measures to ensure strict enforcement at the border and within the country…

Mr. Rubio said he would seek to reorient the visa system to bring in more educated immigrants with skills in technology and science. As for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, Mr. Rubio said, “We have to understand these folks are here to stay.” He added that most of them had not committed serious or violent crimes.

“The right way to deal with them is not amnesty,” Mr. Rubio said, “and it is not a special pathway to citizenship.” Instead, he said, he would offer a provisional legal status to immigrants who passed criminal background checks, paid fines and passed English and civics tests.

But, he said, “ultimately it’s not good for our country to have people permanently trapped in that status where they can’t become citizens.” After a certain period, he said, immigrants would be allowed to apply through the existing system to become legal permanent residents, a status that would eventually allow them to become citizens.
*** Immigration reform legislation must include a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s illegal immigrants, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday…

“There will be nothing done in my Senate [on immigration reform] without a pathway to citizenship,” Reid said in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun…

“We have spent a huge amount of money on border security, and both our northern and southern borders are more secure,” Reid said. “Frankly, Mexico is doing much better economically, and that has helped the issue a lot. We can’t build a fence of 3,000 miles because no matter how high we build it, they can build a ladder taller than that fence. So I think we have about expended our energy on border security.”

*** He acknowledged that major pieces of his plan remain to be worked out. According to current federal visa rosters, most Mexican-born immigrants applying to become permanent residents now face a wait of at least 17 years to receive their document — known as a green card — even if they followed the rules and were approved. Mr. Rubio’s proposal could add seven million more Mexican immigrants to those backlogs. The path to citizenship he proposes for illegal immigrants could be several decades long.

“I don’t have a solution for that question right now,” Mr. Rubio said. He said he would seek to relieve backlogs by speeding up green cards for immigrants already in the legal line, not by creating special pathways for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Rubio’s principles did not sound very different from outlines for an overhaul that President Obama has offered. And the senator, whose star is rising rapidly in his party, chose not to hammer on his differences with the White House.
*** Unfortunately, the few specifics Rubio has named are almost identical to the failed amnesty plans of Presidents Bush and Obama. Don’t take my word for it — just ask Miami Herald political reporter Marc Caputo, or pro-amnesty Mother Jones reporter Adam Serwer, or anti-amnesty Center for Immigration Studies chief Mark Krikorian. All of them have compared the Obama and Rubio immigration plans, and all of them have concluded the two plans are almost identical…

Both Obama and Rubio swear up and down that their “path to citizenship,” as they call it, is not amnesty because those here illegally today would have to jump through a series of hoops before they obtained legal status. Both Obama and Rubio would require illegal immigrants to: prove they were in the United States for a lengthy period of time, undergo a background check, pay a fine, pay back taxes and prove they have learned English.

But even these minimal requirements would obviously never be enforced. Just imagine if a grandmother came forward, passed a background check, paid her taxes and fines but failed her English test. Would Rubio deport her? Of course not. As Rubio admitted above, no one is going to vote for you if you threaten to deport their grandmother.
*** “If the president really wants to make a difference,” Santorum said on This Week, “he’ll lead with immigration. because there’s not a single Republican up on Capitol Hill who believes he wants to get it done. They all believe … he will put a measure that the Republicans can’t accept and blame Republicans and then continue to drive a wedge between Republicans and Hispanics and if he changes that and if he changes that and he says, ‘No, I’m willing to actually work together and get something that we can all agree on,’ he will change the tone on Capitol Hill.”

Santorum also stressed that Republicans were ready to act on immigration.

“I think the Republicans are ready to do something on immigration,” he said. “You saw Marco Rubio’s plan which is pretty far down the road. It looks a lot like what President Bush put forward four years ago.”

*** So, in considering what can now accurately be referred to as the Obama-Rubio-Ryan amnesty plan of 2013, there’s one central question that Rubio and Ryan need to be asked: Do they trust President Obama to enforce the immigration laws in the future, after today’s illegals have been legalized?…

And if the answer is “no,” i.e., that Rubio and Ryan don’t trust Obama to enforce whatever deal they manage to push through Congress, then why won’t we just end up with another 11 million illegal aliens a few years down the road?

This isn’t some nit I’m picking — it’s central to the whole concept of “comprehensive immigration reform.” If you trust Obama to do the right thing, then, by all means, endorse his plan for amnesty, as Rubio and Ryan have done. But if you don’t trust him to keep his word, if you think all his statements come with an expiration date, then there’s no honest way you can back his approach.

***

 http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/20/quotes-of-the-day-1265/