VOTERS DELIVER SUBTLE MESSAGE: DIE DONOR SCUM

By Ann Coulter

http://www.anncoulter.com/

March 16, 2016

Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz

To the extent it's still standing after yesterday, the Stop Trump movement is comforting itself with the world's biggest lie: that John Kasich is the embodiment of the Republican Party, while Donald Trump is the bastard stepchild.

It's exactly the opposite.

It is no longer a question of what the party wants. The voters -- remember them? -- keep showering Trump and Cruz with Ceausescu-like percentages. The combined vote for Trump and Cruz is a ringing chorus of what this party wants: a wall, deportation, less immigration and no job-killing trade deals.

In other words, what the party wants is the diametric opposite of what the donor and consultant class wants. One would have to search the history books to find a party establishment so emphatically rejected by the voters as today's Republican Party has been.

Trump and Cruz don't agree on everything -- Cruz is more interventionist on foreign policy, and Trump is more aggressive on bringing manufacturing home. But there's not much daylight between them on the crucial issue of whether to dissolve America's borders. By now, they both say build a wall, reduce immigration and protect American jobs.

In other words, Trump and Cruz have totally rejected the Bush/Ryan/Rubio/Fox News/WSJ/RNC establishment position on immigration.

After Mitt Romney lost an election he should have won in 2012, the Republican National Committee convened a group of experts to determine what went wrong, producing what it called an "autopsy." It was an autopsy because, you see, the party was dead. And the people who did the autopsy were the ones who killed it.

Have you ever heard of an autopsy being performed by the murderers?

The murderers' main recommendation was that Republicans "embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform" -- i.e., amnesty. "If we do not," the autopsy continued, "our party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only."

God forbid the party respond to its core constituencies! Instead, the report bristled with advice on winning the Hispanic vote. The GOP was supposed to run Hispanic candidates, hire Hispanic spokesmen, demand yet more Hispanic immigration and correct its "tone."

It looked like our report got mixed up with the Democratic National Committee's report in the copier room. At least it was printed in English.

They put all this in their computer and out spit the perfect solution: MARCO RUBIO! Like all ideas developed by focus groups ("New Coke"), how could it possibly fail?

"On issues like immigration," the report instructed, "the RNC needs to carefully craft a tone that takes into consideration the unique perspective of the Hispanic community." How'd they like the front-runner's announcement speech about Mexican rapists and drug dealers? Off-message?

But Trump immediately leapt to the top of the polls and never stopped soaring.

Only Ted Cruz was smart enough -- or hated the Republican establishment enough -- to adopt Trump's pro-American immigration policies. Now the only question for voters is, which one is more electable: a Holy Roller preacher, or a brash alpha male billionaire?

They've crushed the rest of the field -- winning large majorities of Hispanics along the way, incidentally. Between them, Trump and Cruz have won 77 percent of the delegates (1,067). The donor-approved, mass immigration advocates, John Kasich and the (late, lamented) Marco Rubio, have 23 percent (313).

Rubio was the apotheosis of the Republican leadership's proposal for national suicide -- or the "Growth and Opportunity Project," as the autopsy was officially titled. He was handpicked for the presidency six years ago.

He got to Washington and promptly set about pushing an amnesty bill faster than you could say, "My dad was a bartender." In the darkest days of the nation's history, Rubio's bill actually passed the U.S. Senate. (One of the many hints that voters don't want amnesty was that the bill was blocked in the House, not by any major media opposition -- despite media cheerleading, in fact -- but by the people, rising up in a blind rage.)

But still, Rubio was the golden boy among GOP consultants, donors and their hired help, elected Republicans. He had unlimited money, resources, establishment support, conservative media cheerleaders and his own cable news channel.

His presidential bid was supported by 14 Republican governors, 22 Republican senators and more than two dozen Republican representatives, Washington think tanks, lobbyists, the Chamber of Commerce, Chipotle and Taco Bell. Time magazine put him on its cover as "Republican Savior."

And on Tuesday, he lost his own state in a landslide. Rubio lost every single county in Florida to Trump but one. He went 1 for 66 in a state where he is not only a U.S. senator, but also a former house speaker. He outspent Trump by about 500 percent and still lost his home state by 20 points.

Never was there a more perfectly kicked field goal -- with Rubio as the pigskin. He was hiked and kicked right through the goalposts.

Gov. John Kasich is as awful on immigration as Rubio, but he's so boring, no one can ever remember anything he says. He opposes deporting illegal aliens because that's not "the kind of values that we believe in." ("We" being "the Democratic Party.") He bleats that illegals are "made in the image of the Lord," which would require America to admit everyone in the world -- provided they can pass the rigorous background check of being human.

On Tuesday night, Kasich barely won his own state, making him 1 for 29 in GOP primaries. The one and only primary he's won is in the state where he's the sitting governor. He was endorsed by his opponent, Marco Rubio. He's campaigned almost nowhere else.

And yet Kasich came in less than 10 points ahead of a New York real estate developer -- half of Trump's margin of victory over Rubio in Rubio's home state. Adjusting for the home state advantage, that's a humiliating defeat.

How many more GOP stars will die for mass immigration? So far, there's Eric Cantor, Nikki Haley, Trey Gowdy, Ben Sasse, Paul Ryan, Fox News -- 14 governors, 22 senators and two dozen representatives.

With increasing desperation, the media claim that 63 percent of voters don't want Trump based on votes cast for any other candidate in a 12-man race. What the delegate count shows is a resounding rejection of the immigration policies being pushed by the party leadership.

The establishment laughed at us. They wanted our votes, but then ignored us. They lied to us about opposing amnesty while repeatedly conspiring to pass it.

Now we're going into the presidential election with our 80 percent thunderous will of the people against immigration. I'm not sure someone who is more preacher than president is the most electable expression of that will, but whether Trump or Cruz, make no mistake about what the will is.

RUBIO DENOUNCES OBAMA DEAL WITH CASTRO

By: John Hayward

http://humanevents.com/

December 17, 2014

Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the son of Cuban immigrants, expresses his disappointment in President Obama's initiative to normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

On Wednesday, President Obama struck another one of those brilliant deals for which he is so widely known, trading five Cuban terrorists for one American who has been imprisoned in Cuba for the past five years for the crime of “bringing telecommunications devices into Cuba while working as a subcontractor for the United States Agency for International Development,” as ABC News puts it.  Obama also handed the Castro regime the glittering prize it has craved for years: normalized relations with the United States and an end to the Kennedy-era embargo.  Obama announced this at a press conference where recording devices were forbidden.  I suspect the irony was lost on him, but you never know.  He does very much enjoy abusing the media that is so slavishly devoted to him.

Obama and the Castros have a lot in common besides disdain for uppity media types.  They also have similar views on executive power.  Obama doesn’t actually have the power to do what he’s announced, but naturally that isn’t going to stop him  Raul Castro, the backup Cuban dictator who kicked in after the primary dictator failed, actuallyencouraged Obama to use his Constitution-shredding executive orders to get the job done.  “Though the measures of the embargo have become law, the president of the United States can change the enforcement thereof under his Executive Branch powers,” Castro said at a press conference.  

Couple that mutual enthusiasm for rule by decree with an America marked by high unemployment, a vanishing middle class, and a ruling elite determined to live large while the peasants scrape by in a low-mobility, low-energy economy, and you could say Obama normalized with Cuba years ago.

It’s a good thing that Cuban captive Alan Gross is coming home.  ABC News quotes Gross’ lawyer describing him as “nearly toothless, barely able to walk because of arthritis in his hips and blind in one eye” after being “kept in a small room at a military hospital 24 hours a day with two other Cuban political prisoners.”  Democrat faithful are hereby ordered to forget every meaningless word burbled by Party leadership about the treatment of detainees over the past week.

This outreach to Cuba really shouldn’t be a surprise.  Obama has been looking for a foreign-policy “win” after a long string of epic disasters; he sees communist Cuba as reliable negotiating partners, sympatico people he can do business with.  There’s no way our Alinskyite academic President was going to let the ailing Fidel Castro, dashboard saint of the totalitarian Left, check out without handing him a big victory.  The Castros want the waves of cash that will roll in from from both the U.S. government and American citizens, while their liberal apologists gibber nonsense about how economic engagement will spread freedom to the island like a virus and improve the lives of the dungeon state’s citizens.  Those who manage the Castros’ bank accounts must be swooning with delirious glee and telling their wives to pick out a nice Bentley for Christmas.

One consequence of the Cuba deal that Obama might not have gamed out all the way is the incandescent rise of Cuban-American Senator Marco Rubio, who instantly emerged as his leading critic, at least temporarily eclipsing fellow Floridian Jeb Bush’s declaration of consideration of the possibility of a presidential run.  Bush isn’t happy about normalization either, but his mild statement of protest – “I don’t think we should be negotiating with a repressive regime to make changes in our relationship” – was drowned out by the thunder of Rubio’s thermonuclear eruption.  Rubio is so utterly beside himself that he appears to have replicated, appearing simultaneously on every media outlet.  He might be able to serve as his own running mate on the 2016 presidential ticket.

He told ABC News that Obama’s lavish reward to Cuba for releasing an American prisoner has “set a price on the head of every American abroad.”  Rubio continued, “I would love for there to be normal relations with Cuba, but for that to happen, Cuba has to be normal, and it’s not. It is a brutal dictatorship.  Now dictatorships know that if they take an American, they may be able to get unilateral policy concessions.”

Rubio predicted that far from enhancing the freedom and living standard of the Cuban peons, normalization would strengthen the Castro dictatorship by legitimizing it to the world, and pouring American dollars into its coffers.  (There really is nothing more astounding than watching American liberals pretend the Castros are something other than a gangster regime that robs its own country blind.)  “Five years from now, Cuba will still be a dictatorship – but a much more profitable one,” Rubio predicted.

He also took a shot at Obama’s negotiating skills, which haven’t grown any sharper since he traded five Taliban big shots for an American deserter, or gave away the store to China in exchange for a mess of global-warming pottage.  “He’s the worst negotiator of my lifetime,” marveled Rubio.  “He’ll give up everything in exchange for nothing.  What have the Cubans agreed to do?”

Here’s a clip of Rubio making those points on CSPAN.  His entire speech can be seen here.

Rubio’s formal statement on the Cuba affair proceeds under the assumption that the United States is not a full-blown dictatorship just yet, so the new Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Western Hemisphere subcommittee might have something to say about it:

“Today’s announcement initiating a dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Cuba is just the latest in a long line of failed attempts by President Obama to appease rogue regimes at all cost.

“Like all Americans, I rejoice at the fact that Alan Gross will be able to return to his family after five years in captivity. Although he is supposedly being released on humanitarian grounds, his inclusion in a swap involving intelligence agents furthers the Cuban narrative about his work in Cuba. In contrast, the Cuban Five were spies operating against our nation on American soil. They were indicted and prosecuted in a court of law for the crimes of espionage and were linked to the murder of the humanitarian pilots of Brothers to the Rescue. There should be no equivalence between the two, and Gross should have been released unconditionally.”

Ah, yes, the small matter of the Cuban Five, whose story the U.S. media seems completely uninterested in telling, because it makes Barack Obama look just awful.  They were part of a Castro terrorist network whose targets also included the U.S. Southern Command.  They helped Barack Obama’s wonderful new Partners in Peace shoot down two unarmed Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996.  No word on whether the humanitarian pilots had their hands up in the “Don’t shoot!” position when Cuban ordnance hit their planes.  Don’t expect the media to pay much attention to what their families think about the Cuba deal; they matter about as much as people who got rooked by ObamaCare.

Back to Senator Rubio:

“The President’s decision to reward the Castro regime and begin the path toward the normalization of relations with Cuba is inexplicable. Cuba’s record is clear. Just as when President Eisenhower severed diplomatic relations with Cuba, the Castro family still controls the country, the economy and all levers of power. This administration’s attempts to loosen restrictions on travel in recent years have only served to benefit the regime. While business interests seeking to line their pockets, aided by the editorial page of The New York Times, have begun a significant campaign to paper over the facts about the regime in Havana, the reality is clear. Cuba, like Syria, Iran, and Sudan, remains a state sponsor of terrorism. It continues to actively work with regimes like North Korea to illegally traffic weapons in our hemisphere in violation of several United Nations Security Council Resolutions. It colludes with America’s enemies, near and far, to threaten us and everything we hold dear. But most importantly, the regime’s brutal treatment of the Cuban people has continued unabated. Dissidents are harassed, imprisoned and even killed. Access to information is restricted and controlled by the regime. That is why even more than just putting U.S. national security at risk, President Obama is letting down the Cuban people, who still yearn to be free.

“I intend to use my role as incoming Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Western Hemisphere subcommittee to make every effort to block this dangerous and desperate attempt by the President to burnish his legacy at the Cuban people’s expense. Appeasing the Castro brothers will only cause other tyrants from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang to see that they can take advantage of President Obama’s naiveté during his final two years in office. As a result, America will be less safe as a result of the President’s change in policy. When America is unwilling to advocate for individual liberty and freedom of political expression 90 miles from our shores, it represents a terrible setback for the hopes of all oppressed people around the globe.”

Rubio told the Weekly Standard that Obama’s move directly contradicts the promises he made to consult with Congress before changing Cuba policy.  (You mean Barack Obama lied?  GASP!)  He’s likely to enjoy the support of other congressional representatives who still take the powers of the legislature seriously, not to mention other Cuban-Americans such as Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who called Obama “the Appeaser-in-Chief”; Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who said Obama’s unilateral action was a “propaganda coup for the Castro regime” and might violate U.S. law; and incoming Rep. Carlos Cubero (R-FL), who denounced Cuba normalization as “reckless conduct that damages U.S. national security and benefits Cuba’s dictators.”  

Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey was right in the mix with his Republican colleagues, blasting Obama’s actions in no uncertain terms:

President Obama’s actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government. There is no equivalence between an international aid worker and convicted spies who were found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage against our nation. One spy was also convicted of conspiracy to murder for his role in the 1996 tragedy in which the Cuban military shot down two U.S. civilian planes, killing several American citizens. My heart goes out to the American families that lost love ones on that fateful day.

Things are going to happen fast over the next two years.  Presidential campaigns for both Democrats and Republicans will ramp up, while the lame-duck Obama still has many constituencies left to reward, and punish.  A Golden Age of dictatorship has dawned; the consequences of oppression have been cast aside, while legitimacy is available for discount prices.  The news-cycle tides will ebb and flow swiftly.  For the moment, there’s little question that Marco Rubio is the leader of the opposition.

WHEN DID WE VOTE TO BECOME MEXICO?

By Ann Coulter

http://www.anncoulter.com/

May 22, 2013

April 18, 2013: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., flanked by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, speaks about immigration legislation. (AP)

At first I thought the IRS scandal was leaked to distract from the Benghazi scandal. But that didn't make sense because the IRS scandal is a more obvious abuse of power than the White House lying about the murder of four Americans in Libya. 

Before I had resolved which scandal was distracting from which, we found out the Department of Justice was spying on The Associated Press -- not to protect national security, but to prevent the AP from scooping the White House. Then, this week, it broke that the Department of Justice was also spying on Fox News for reasons that remain unexplained.

Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are working feverishly to turn the country into Mexico.

So now I think all the scandals are intended to distract from Rubio's amnesty bill.

For decades, Mexicans have been about 30 percent of all legal immigrants to the United States, while only a smidgen more than 1 percent come from Great Britain. Is that fair? Granted, their food is better, but why is it the norm is to have nearly 30 times as many Mexican as British immigrants?

We have been taking in more immigrants from Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, individually, than from England, our mother country. There are nearly twice as many immigrants from El Salvador as from Canada, and 10 times as many as from Australia.

Why can't the country be more or less the ethnic composition that it always was? The 50-1 Latin American-to-European ratio isn't a natural phenomenon that might result from, say, Europeans losing interest in coming here and poor Latin Americans providing some unique skill desperately needed in our modern, technology-based economy.

To the contrary, it's result of an insane government policy. Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act was designed to artificially inflate the number of immigrants from the Third World, while making it virtually impossible for anyone from the nations that historically provided our immigrants to come here.

Pre-1965 immigrants were what made this country what it was for a reason: They were the pre-welfare state immigrants. From around 1630 to 1966, immigrants sank or swam. About a third of them couldn't make it in America and went home -- and those are the ones who weren't rejected right off the boat for being sick, crippled or idiots.

That's why corny stories of someone's ancestors coming here a half-century ago are completely irrelevant. If their ancestors hadn't succeeded, their great-grandchildren wouldn't be here to tell the story because no one was given food stamps, free medical care and housing to stay. (And vote Democrat.)

Now we're scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world and specifically rejecting skilled immigrants.

As Milton Friedman said, you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. The reason a country's average immigrant matters is that the losers never go home -- they go on welfare. (Maybe if they had to work, immigrants wouldn't have as much time to build bombs.) Airy statements about wanting to end welfare aren't going to change that implacable fact.

It should not come as a surprise that a majority of recent immigrants are following a path that's the exact opposite of earlier immigrants. The immigrant story of lore is that the first generation is poor but works hard, then the second, third and fourth generations soar up the socioeconomic ladder.

But innumerable studies have shown that Mexican first-generation immigrants work like maniacs -- and then the second, third and fourth generations plunge headlong into the underclass.

By now, Mexicans are the largest immigrant group in America, with about 50 million Hispanics living here legally.

Marco Rubio's amnesty bill will soon make it 80 million. First, there are at least 11 million illegal immigrants, a majority from Mexico, who will be instantly legalized. Then we'll get their entire extended families under our chain migration system.

I wouldn't want that many Japanese! I wouldn't want that many Dutch (not that there are that many Dutch)! Why do we have to become a different country? Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico? No other country has ever just decided to turn itself into another country like this.

The nation's plutocrats are lined up with the Democratic Party in a short-term bid to get themselves cheap labor (subsidized by the rest of us), which will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority. If Rubio's amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished. It will be the "Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party" versus the "Chuck Schumer Republican Party."

When that happens, the cover-up of murder in Benghazi, a little IRS abuse or governmental spying on journalists will be a good day for civil liberties.

A majority of Americans still do love this country -- including, one hopes, legal immigrants who thought they were leaving Mexico. But a policy that will change America forever is about to slip through under the cloak of endless scandals from the corrupt Obama administration. 

Marco Rubio: Riding to the Immigration Rescue

By MATTHEW KAMINSKI

The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com

January 11, 2013

Coral Gables, Fla.

Marco Rubio—41-year-old son of working-class Cuban exiles—has lived the upwardly mobile immigrant experience. In his fast rise, the Florida Republican has also experienced the politics of immigration. That story isn't so inspirational.

During his successful Senate campaign two years ago, an attack leaflet picturing "the Real Rubio" alongside an image of Che Guevara was sent to GOP voters. The mailer noted that Mr. Rubio championed laws in the state legislature to give children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition and health benefits. After going to Washington, he was then criticized for not doing enough on immigration reform. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus branded him "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and a Miami-based Hispanic group called him "a Benedict Arnold."

That may be mild compared to what's coming. Florida's junior senator and one of America's most prominent Hispanic politicians wants to take the Republican lead on immigration reform. Getting out front of President Obama's campaign pledge to overhaul the system in his second term, Mr. Rubio is laying out his ideas for possible legislation.

Enlarge Image

Terry Shoffner

Whether Mr. Rubio is courageous or foolhardy, the outcome on Capitol Hill and the impact on his career will tell the story. Immigration has long been a profitable wedge issue for Democrats and Republicans. On Wednesday at the Biltmore Hotel near his home here, Mr. Rubio spells out a reform plan that charges up the middle.

His wholesale fix tries to square—triangulate, if you will—the liberal fringe that seeks broad amnesty for illegal immigrants and the hard right's obsession with closing the door. Mr. Rubio would ease the way for skilled engineers and seasonal farm workers while strengthening border enforcement and immigration laws. As for the undocumented migrants in America today—eight to 12 million or so—he proposes to let them "earn" a working permit and, one day, citizenship.

Those proposals amount to a collection of third rails for any number of lobbies. Organized labor has torpedoed guest-worker programs before. Anything that hints of leniency for illegals may offend the talk-radio wing of the GOP.

Mr. Rubio burst onto the national stage with his 2010 upset win amid the tea party surge. His conservative bona fides come with an appreciation for the realities of legislative politics. He starts by stressing that "legal immigration has been, for our country, one of the things that makes us vibrant and exceptional." But then, in a nod to GOP restrictionists: "Every country in the world has immigration laws and expects to enforce them and we should be no different."

Any overhaul, he says, needs to "modernize" legal immigration. America caps the number of visas for skilled workers and favors the relatives of people already here. "I'm a big believer in family-based immigration," he says. "But I don't think that in the 21st century we can continue to have an immigration system where only 6.5% of people who come here, come here based on labor and skill. We have to move toward merit and skill-based immigration."

He says the U.S. can either change the ratio of preferences for family-based immigration or raise the hard cap on people who bring investment or skills into the country. He prefers the latter, noting that the U.S. doesn't produce enough science, math and engineering graduates to fill the open posts in high-tech. He says this number can be adjusted to demand: "I don't think there's a lot of concern in this country that we'll somehow get overrun by Ph.D.s and entrepreneurs."

At the other end of the skill and wage scale, most of the 1.6 million agricultural laborers in America are Hispanics, the bulk of them illegal immigrants. American produce couldn't be picked without them. The number and type of visas provided through a guest-worker program would have to be sufficient to address this pressing need. From Georgia to Washington state in recent seasons, unpicked fruits and vegetables have rotted in the fields. He'd look to increase the number of visas for permanent or seasonal farm workers.

"The goal is to give American agriculture a reliable work force and to give protection to these workers as well," Mr. Rubio says. "When someone is [undocumented] they're vulnerable to being exploited."

Initially, the illegal migrants now in the U.S. would mostly "avail themselves" of the guest-worker system, says Mr. Rubio. "Just the process to come here to legally work in agriculture is very difficult and very expensive. It doesn't work well. So that alone encourages illegal immigration."

Lest anyone take Mr. Rubio for an immigration softy, he has co-sponsored Senate enforcement legislation championed by restrictionists. The E-Verify law, which has been adopted in several states, would if passed oblige employers to check the legal status of prospective workers against a federal database. Detractors say the database is faulty and error-prone, and the law turns workplace bosses into immigration agents and merely pushes illegal workers further into the shadows, making them more vulnerable to abuse.

Mr. Rubio stands by workplace enforcement as an essential component of any immigration reform. If the guest-worker and expanded high-tech visa programs are adopted, he says, "you want to protect those folks that are coming here . . . and the value of their visa and the decision they've made. You're not protecting them if you allow their wages and their status to be undermined by further illegal immigration in the future."

He says that modern technology—whether E-Verify or something else—ought to let employers easily check whether their hires are in the country legally. Enforcement is meant not to "punish" but to provide employers "safe haven," he says.

As for the border, "we know what we need to do to gain more operational control," which he says is to invest in people and infrastructure. Unlike many Republicans, Mr. Rubio doesn't say that improved enforcement is a precondition for immigration reform. Such reform would, by his argument, ensure that fewer people will need or want to risk an arduous border crossing.

Politically hardest is the question of the up to 12 million illegals currently here. Mr. Rubio's proposal allows for adults who overstayed their visa or sneaked in to come into the open.

"Here's how I envision it," he says. "They would have to come forward. They would have to undergo a background check." Anyone who committed a serious crime would be deported. "They would be fingerprinted," he continues. "They would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They would have to prove they've been here for an extended period of time. They understand some English and are assimilated. Then most of them would get legal status and be allowed to stay in this country."

The special regime he envisions is a form of temporary limbo. "Assuming they haven't violated any of the conditions of that status," he says, the newly legalized person could apply for permanent residency, possibly leading to citizenship, after some years—but Mr. Rubio doesn't specify how many years. He says he would also want to ensure that enforcement has improved before opening that gate.

The waiting time for a green card "would have to be long enough to ensure that it's not easier to do it this way than it would be the legal way," he says. "But it can't be indefinite either. I mean it can't be unrealistic, because then you're not really accomplishing anything. It's not good for our country to have people trapped in this status forever. It's been a disaster for Europe."

The staged process won't please either the blanket amnesty crowd or the Minutemen. Still others have tried to split the difference by arguing for a permanent noncitizen legal-resident status for illegal immigrants and their offspring, on the German and French model.

Mr. Rubio repeatedly says his plan "is not blanket amnesty or a special pathway to citizenship." The illegals wouldn't jump any lines, "they'd get behind everybody who came before them." No one would be asked to leave the country to qualify, but the requirements he sets out merely to get a working permit are "significant."

"In an ideal world we wouldn't have eight, 10 million people who are undocumented," he says. "We have to address this reality. But we have to do it in a way that's responsible."

Mr. Rubio makes an exception for the over one million younger illegals. Along the lines of the Dream Act that stalled in Congress last year, he says people who came here unlawfully with their parents should be accommodated "in a more expedited manner than the rest of the population" to gain a way to naturalize.

During last year's debate over the Dream Act, Mr. Rubio tried to gather support for a less "broad" alternative. Republicans didn't like its pathway to citizenship. His efforts caught the eye of the Obama campaign. President Obama pre-empted—or outmaneuvered—him. The president's executive order offered two-year reprieves from deportation and work permits for young immigrants, and helped him with Hispanics in the election.

It was a lesson for Mr. Rubio, who saw his compromise efforts die as a result. Mr. Obama "may have even set back the cause a bit. He's poisoned the well for people willing to take on this issue," Mr. Rubio says. But he's still ready to do so, though he claims—as hard as it is to believe—that he hasn't "done the political calculus on this." As he knows, politics is everything on immigration. Comprehensive efforts failed twice under the Bush administration. President Obama promised in both campaigns to act, but then he didn't, even when Democrats controlled Congress his first two years.

In terms of legislative strategy, Mr. Rubio says he would want to see "a comprehensive package of bills"—maybe four or five as opposed to one omnibus—move through Congress concurrently. He says other experience with "comprehensive" reform (ObamaCare, the recent debt deal) shows how bad policy easily sneaks into big bills. It would also offer a tempting big target for opponents. Other reformers think that only a comprehensive bill can address the toughest issues. "It's not a line in the sand for me," replies Mr. Rubio.

Not missing a chance to tweak the president, he says that Mr. Obama has "not done a thing" on reform and may prefer to keep it alive as an electoral winner for Democrats with Hispanics for years to come. But, then again, "maybe he's interested in his legacy," Mr. Rubio adds, and open to a deal. The president, he says, would need to bring over Big Labor and talk back the most ardent pro-immigration groups from "unrealistic" positions on citizenship for illegals.

On the right, nativist voices in last year's primary campaign gave birth to phrases such as "electric fence" (Herman Cain), "self-deportation" (Mitt Romney) and other nuggets that turned Hispanic voters off. Mr. Rubio counters that most conservatives understand that immigrants are entrepreneurial and assimilate easily. "Immigration is actually an important part of affirming a limited-government movement," he says.

Is immigration reform a magic bullet for the GOP's troubles with Hispanic voters?

"No," Mr. Rubio says, but "the immigration issue is a gateway issue for Hispanics, no doubt about it. No matter what your stance is on a number of other issues, if people somehow come to believe that you don't like them or want them here, it's difficult to get them to listen to anything else."

He adds: "I think it's the rhetoric by a handful of voices in the minority, but loud nonetheless, that have allowed the left to create an unfair perception that conservatives and Republicans are anti-Hispanic and anti-immigration, and we do have to overcome that."

After two relatively quiet years in the Senate, Mr. Rubio is taking his first significant risk. Often mentioned in talk about a 2016 presidential run, he has decided to make immigration a signature issue.

Mr. Kaminski is a member of the Journal's editorial board.