The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe talks with U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake about the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill. An excerpt:
What will be the hardest part of this agreement to sell or explain back home in Arizona?
I think there is a segment of the electorate who just do not believe that anyone here illegally now should ever be able to access a path to citizenship. I don’t think that’s a majority position, but it is a deeply held position by a lot of people.”And how do you talk to them about that?
We say that it is a long and arduous path, but it is possible. I’ve always felt, even when we weren’t under the gun like this with the Gang of Eight bill, the legislation I introduced before had a path to citizenship.
I’ve always felt that if you’re going to be here for 20 or 30 years in a legal status, why not have the possibility and the opportunity and the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship? That’s what sets us apart from other countries, it’s a good thing. For me, that’s the way I put it.
I think we ought to value citizenship, we ought to value the rule of law. There’s a way to do both. We think we’ve done it in this bill. The vast majority of Americans out there believe that citizenship ought to be earned and valued and that’s what we’ve tried to respect in this bill.
So you’re hearing these concerns about the pathway to citizenship on one end. You heard at various points late last month and this month from the other end of the political spectrum upset with your votes on guns. How tricky is it to be Jeff Flake these days? You have five and a half years before you have to worry about reelection, but clearly you’ve upset parts of your state.
Yeah, in the end — well, let me back up. In the House early on, I went after earmarks and took some positions that were vehemently disagreed with. I had the Arizona Republic writing editorials and cartoons lampooning my position and it was not popular. I had a primary race and had four of the five mayors in my district coming out against me. So being lonely isn’t a foreign concept.
But in the end, if you stick it out and keep explaining — particularly when you don’t have to run every two years — then people understand. And when they understand the principles that you work on, they give you the benefit of the doubt sometimes if they don’t understand the specific vote.
This article appears in Jun 20-26, 2013.
You Jeff FLAKE said fix the problem first then work with the ILLEGAL people that you want to reward for blatently disregarding our laws and national borders. you have broken your word and the faith of the people in you.
If Flake ever runs for re-election, I’ll certainly be sending money to his opponent–whoever it is.
When they complete the enforcement promises from the ’86 and ’96 amnesty, then, sure, I’d support a path to citizenship. Until then, explain all you want Senator Flake, but we see right through it.
It’s all about money and screwing American workers. There are 20 million unemployed and 50 million on foodstamps so Congress is working on legislation to import more workers. Make sense?
One of my brothers believes, fervently, that no illegals should be allowed citizenship. He has every right to believe that, but the ironic part is that our father entered this country illegally and was not granted citizenship until shortly before our youngest sister came along, well after the other eight of us were born.
It takes all sorts.
Close the border, deport them all and make them stand in line to become citizens. There are a lot of the illegals that don’t want to become citizens so what should be done with them?
“And when they understand the principles that you work on, they give you the benefit of the doubt sometimes if they don’t understand the specific vote.” So says Senator Flake, and I’d love to hear just what those principles are. He was going to serve three terms in the House; he ran three times past those six years and flippantly explained that he lied. He claimed to be all for expansion of background checks for firearm sales and voted against an amendment designed to do just that. There’s principle here someplace but where is it and what is it? And if he tells us, can we believe him?