cesar conda

Cesar Conda (Marco Rubio)

Conda is a movement "conservative" who's a strong supporter of amnesty. He currently serves as Chief of Staff to Marco Rubio, who's also an amnesty supporter. From 2001 to 2003, Conda was an assistant to Dick Cheney. Per his Washington Post biography, Conda helped "spearheaded the Bush-era tax cuts".

Contact him on Twitter about the posts below and - more importantly - the posts at the Rubio link above: @CesarConda

Last modified Jan 13, 2013
Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

NFAP misleads on skilled immigration (Stuart Anderson, Frank Sharry, National Foundation for American Policy) - 05/25/11

Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy offers "The Impact of the Children of Immigrants on Scientific Achievements in America" [1], which comes to a highly misleading conclusion based on a very small sample. It's also promoted by Frank Sharry's AmericasVoice [2].

Cesar Conda not quite intellectually honest on Arizona immigration law - 04/29/10

Cesar Conda (a former Tamar Jacoby co-author and signatory to the "Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration") raises questions about the new Arizona immigration law here, saying among other things:

[It's because of questions over what is and what isn't "lawful contact"] why conservatives like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Tunku Varadarajan, David Boaz of the Cato Institute, Bob Barr, and others have raised concerns about the Arizona law, and specifically that this "reasonable suspicion" standard could lead police officers to unreasonably single out legal immigrants and American citizens. Some proponents of the new law contend that the only likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop. But what appears to be a speeding van filled with illegal immigrants could also be an American family of ethnic origin driving through Arizona on vacation and going a little over the speed limit.

1. It would be beyond naive to think that those listed came out against the law for purely pure reasons. Bush and the Cato Institute are cheap labor hacks that have sought to prevent other forms of immigration enforcement. It's not clear what Barr's problem is, whether he's under the control of those who want to profit from illegal labor or whether it's his libertarian ideology. However, the chances of it simply involving concerns about the law are slim.

2. The chances of anyone not being able to tell the difference between a van full of family members on vacation and a van full of unrelated illegal aliens is exceedingly slim, so slim that Conda must think readers of the Corner are extremely naive idiots.

Tamar Jacoby's "Immigration Realism" - 08/02/06

America's favorite amnestibot, Tamar Jacoby, has joined with Cesar V. Conda to pen "Immigration Realism". It's their reply to John Fonte's reply to the WSJ's reply to the original National Review open letter demanding enforcement first.

And, as you might assume, Jacoby is wrong. Here's just one way:

None of those who signed our letter believe that immigrants have a "human right" to come to work in the U.S., as Fonte claims.

From the way that's worded, you might think that Fonte claimed that the WSJ letter that they signed said that. In fact, he was refering to a WSJ editorial in the same issue, and he wanted to know whether they agreed. Needless to say, her statement is highly misleading.

She goes on to pimp the Pence amnesty (that's the one that would allow "unlimited immigrants"). Rather than discussing the rest, I'm going to outsource an evisceration of her thoughts to this comment.

A "Conservative" Statement of Principles on Immigration - 02/09/04

A statement/open letter/mess of lies entitled "A Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration" appeared in Friday's Wall Street Journal (more about the WSJ here and here).

The WSJ is subscription-only, but a copy is available here:

[America is a nation of immigrants, heart-warming platitudes, etc. etc...]

Conservatives believe in legal immigration.[related folderol deleted]

Conservatives oppose illegal immigration. We believe there is a right way and a wrong way to immigrate to the United States. However, as conservatives we believe that our laws must reflect reality and common sense, and be both fiscally responsible and avoid the loss of innocent life. Our current immigration laws do not pass this test.

Bzzzt! It's not the laws at fault, it's our current level of enforcement of them. See this for examples. For a quick example: "In San Diego County, only one owner, whose company hired workers for major hotels, has been prosecuted since 2000, and he was given probation. No business has been fined.".


Between 1990 and 2000, the United States increased the number of U.S. Border Patrol Agents from 3,600 to 10,000. During that same period illegal immigration rose by 5.5. million.

What statistic did they forget to include that would give a clear picture of the problem? Oh yeah, the bit about workplace enforcement being sharply down from past years. And, the several amnesties in the past two decades haven't done much good either, as illegal aliens have come here in droves expecting to be rewarded with yet another amnesty.


Moreover, over the past 8 years, more than 2,000 men, women, and children have died attempting to cross into America and seek the opportunity to work and achieve a better life. The status quo is unacceptable and clinging to the status quo - or tougher versions of it - is neither conservative, nor principled. It has become clear that the only viable approach to reform is combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the United States.

It's unfortunate that those people have died. Perhaps if employers weren't able to employ people regardless of their immigration status, and perhaps if there weren't so many incentives to come here, many fewer would attempt to cross the desert. Most nations - especially those that have been invaded - would be quite grateful for such a natural barrier to invasion.


[Speaking for all conservatives, we support the Bush/Fox Amnesty, etc. etc...]

[We believe strongly in assimilation, etc. etc...]

signed by: Stuart Anderson, Jeff Bell, Linda Chavez, Larry Cirignano, Cesar V. Conda, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Gilder, Hon. Newt Gingrich, Ed Goeas, Tamar Jacoby, Hon. Jack Kemp, Steve Moore, Grover Norquist, Richard W. Rahn, Hon. Malcolm Wallop

Who?

UPDATE: The fact that the Other Side always predicates its arguments on omitting key facts makes their conclusions trivially easy to refute.

Perhaps just once someone on the Other Side could say something like, "We realize the laws work. It's just that we can't enforce them. Racist organizations will use the liberal media against us, and the large manufacturers, agbusinesses, and retailers whose teats we suck might dry up the milk. Plus, we like the idea of a serf class."

Fat chance of that happening, but at least it would be intellectually honest.