Sen. Marco Rubio on Thursday disputed the recently released study from the conservative Heritage Foundation that warned comprehensive immigration reform would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion, saying the findings in the report are "deeply flawed."
The Senate immigration bill would put about 8 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, boost the economy and stop about 2 million would-be illegal immigrants — about half of the expected total over the next decade — from entering the U.S., according to the first government evaluation of the proposal released Wednesday.
"Do as I say, not as I do," goes an ironic saying worthy of Mark Twain. It's a phrase that is well suited to the political field.
Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford — once a rising star in the Republican Party whose career crashed four years ago after a bizarre extramarital affair — capped a remarkable political comeback Tuesday by winning a special election for the state's open House seat.
The Heritage Foundation said Monday that legalizing illegal immigrants would cost taxpayers a net $6.3 trillion over the next 50 years — releasing a report that ignited a venomous battle over an immigration bill and who is truly representing the conservative movement in the debate.
"We will make them pay," South Korea President Park Geun-hye said of the fate of North Korea should it launch an attack of any size or scope on her nation, to CBS News.
Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday that Israel's reported airstrike outside of Damascus early Sunday is "sending a signal" to Iran, Hezbollah and possibly the United States "that the situation right in the Syrian area is getting very, very tense."
Former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint argued on Sunday that implementing immigration reform as proposed by the "Gang of Eight" would "cost Americans trillions of dollars."
The count is 1,920, and rising. That's how many regulations President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated since his 2009 inauguration. Many, if not most, will bring few health or environmental benefits — but will impose high economic and unemployment costs, often to advance the administration's unabashedly anti-hydrocarbon agenda.