It's his best, possibly only good feature.
If they're going to get it no matter what, why not go for the guy where you're somewhat sure you know where you stand.

Rubio's full of shit and if anyone else so personally invested in an issue as Rubio is on special privileges for Hispanics espoused the conservative position, he'd be lambasted for not being objective.
Again, this is bullshit. That Wikipedia article cites DHS statistics, with no citation of their sources, and heavily quotes the Pew Hispanic Center, which has in its very name two reasons demonstrating its partisanship. Government numbers are based on the self-reporting of illegal immigrants. That same article goes on, for people who aren't cherry picking it for numbers they like would see how crime is rising among illegal immigrants and that previously low numbers were due to problems tabulating the numbers. If they can only get a tiny portion of the numbers of criminals, when they are actively investigating them, and have lots of them in prison, how can we believe they know about all the other illegals? The government gets its count of illegals from subtracting the number of legal entries to the country, from the number of admitted foreign census respondents. How many illegal immigrants really fill out the census?

A couple of financial analysts a decade ago discovered that over a period where the government census numbers claimed the Mexican population only rose 50%, and wages 10%, money going back to Mexico went up 200%. So if 50% of 11 million on the census were Mexicans, and the Mexican activity was four times the census estimates, were looking at 22 million, not 11. And that was 10 years ago. After Bush's amnesty in 2005 cost him Congress, a couple of Pulitzer prize winning journalists discovered the numbers were only going up, because when you make a show of declining to punish a type of activity, more people are going to do it.

Yes it is.

It is a fact. Half the population of the California prison system is illegal immigrants, and they are NOT incarcerated for immigration offenses. Either you have to admit one of two things. There are 18 million illegal immigrants in California alone, or illegal immigrants are a disproportionate number of criminals! On the other hand, maybe they are all really shitty criminals, and too ignorant or unfamiliar with America and its law enforcement practices (in spite of the Mexican government distributing pamphlets advising emmigrants how to evade US authorities and deal with being arrested), in which case they are definitely a burden on the tax payers, since they can't even manage to stay out of jail, or they are getting caught and arrested and convicted at the a rate proportionate to their share in the population, which means they are half of California's 36 or so million population, or they are committing more than their share of crimes. Which they are. Whites outnumber them by 3 to 4 times, but the numbers of Hispanic violent criminals is almost even. With 1/3 to 1/4 of the numbers of whites, they produce 3/4 to 9/10 the murders, assaults and violent robberies. I don't think we WANT them doing these jobs Americans won't do, and I seriously doubt our native born criminal population is subcontracting Mexicans a la Danny Trejo in "Machete". As for the drugs issue, you'd have to be insane to argue otherwise, when more than half the drugs in the country came in from Mexico. Do you suppose they are using anyone other than Mexicans to bring them in? The only reason the Hispanics aren't matching us in rapes, is that people tend to rape their own color, and white & black women are prone to falsely report rape more than any other crime % compared to 4% for all other crimes), while Hispanic women, regardless of immigration status, under-report rape.

I did exaggerate on the illegitimacy rate. Hispanics are not nearly as bad as blacks, and are considerably behind the Indians. But they beat whites handily and have close to triple the illegitimacy rate of Asians. Back in 2006, the steadily-increasing-across-the-board illegitimacy rate was 38.5 of all births, 26.6 white births, 70.7 black, 49.9 Hispanic, 64.6 Indian, and 16.5 Asian.

So, yeah. Sorry to dispute the image you made up about Hispanics, but they ARE contributing to those supposedly more important problems. And they vote Democrat more than 70%, so they are contributing to all the problems, even when their hands are clean. I'm pretty sure the portion of Hispanics who broke our laws to get here are not going to be more likely to be found on the positive ends of any of the percentages I cited above.

Because it's a fallacious argument of a false choice. "Come up with a plan to move 11 million people out of the country, or you're not allowed to talk about it." First of all, we can make an effort to actually try deporting them, since no one is doing one thing about it. Anyone who is reasonably suspected of being an immigrant and can't prove the legality of his presence in the country goes out. He gets a reprieve if he can produce a half dozen illegals to get on the bus in his place. Crack down on driver's licenses, and absolutely cut off all federal aid. Anyone in a prison who's an illegal goes out. Until we get some control over the situation, all immigration is suspect until proven otherwise. Too many legal methods are fraudulent anyway, like the supposed visas for elite scientists and tech types, most of whom are unskilled laborers. An Islamic terrorist successfully avoided deportation using an agricultural worker visa despite never having set foot on a farm, while working as urban livery driver! So, sorry, foreigners. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Keep your papers in order and your nose clean until you earn your citizenship properly. And that's just off the top of my head. People who are being serious about the issue could do it. But even if deporting them all, or even many, is impossible (it's not), that doesn't mean we can't stop more from coming in. Violating a nation's borders is a shooting offense, and always has been, until Democrats started realizing that border-jumpers' kids will vote in their favor at a rate of 80%, and began pretending it was some sort of atrocity. So, yeah. Build a wall. Maybe they'll get a ladder one foot higher, but for a properly defended wall, people on a ladder are known by the technical term "easy targets." Anyone on a ladder on the border fence is exactly the same as a burglar climbing through a window, and an absolutely legitimate target. And that takes care of another bullshit argument, that you can climb over a fence. No one, ever, has proposed building a fence, calling it a day, and firing the Border Patrol. But they are discussing public policy using arguments t the intellectual level of second graders, setting impossible conditions, defending straw man positions or offering false choices to skew public opinion polls or as an excuse to not do anything. "I don't know offhand how many buses we'll need to kick out the Mexicans, therefore it's impossible and ridiculous to shut down the border."
He never said they were all rapists, and in fact, went out of his way to NOT say that. Why is rape a national crisis when privileged white women or low class black women are caught lying about it, but were not allowed to call a spade a spade regarding the ethnic group responsible for ALL pregnant girls under age 10. Trump in particular might have reason to be miffed about Hispanic rapists, given how he has taken criticism for taking out an ad calling for the punishment of the Central Park jogger's assailants, who included at least one illegal immigrant, the guy who was nailed on DNA evidence, and used as a scapegoat to overturn the convictions of the others. How about Chandra Levy? Are we honestly supposed to believe that the large numbers of people from a country whose age of consent is 12-14 have nothing to do with the rise in child sex cases? And that's when you consider how that cultural issue makes them very likely to under-report cases, since underprivileged, language-disadvantaged parents who are used to 13 and 14 year olds getting pregnant in the old country are not going to report the guy who does it as a rapist.

Mexicans also behead way more people than ISIS does, a couple hundred a year. And they're doing it here, too. A Mexican chopped of a bunch of kids' heads in Baltimore about ten years or so ago (O'Malley for President! )

If our government officials didn't need nannies & gardeners so badly, and we responded at a proportionate rate to all homicides by foreigners, we'd have invaded Mexico and hanged their president seven or eight times since the 1970s. At least that's what we did because Arabs killed about 3,000 Americans, while Mexicans have murdered more than 20,000 Americans since the illegal entry became a big thing.

It's only "ugly" because you happen to disagree. Why is what is not important to you automatically not a legitimate issue, and anyone who thinks it is, is "ugly"? Well, I happen to think that sexual harassment in the workplace is not important, certainly not a political issue, much less a federal one, and the people who bring up that, and spread the lies about the female wage gap are ugly populists. What makes me wrong, and you right? People who agitate over racial discrimination are, unarguably, acting against the interests of a majority of persons in the country. What happened to democracy?

You think Clinton should apologize? Well, aren't you just the most wonderful human out there. So the hell what? Your version of objectivity is right back to the Kodos and Kang model - "abortions for some, miniature American flags for others" substantive policy support for the left, superficial gestures for the right. I don't care what she said, and neither does any serious conservative woman at this point, because it isn't anything they don't already know about her, and on Clinton's scale, it isn't even a particularly noteworthy piece of hypocrisy. BTW, Megyn Kelly had it coming, too. Trump's comment is only offensive, if you take the sickest possible interpretation...oh, wait, he's the most popular Republican at the moment, so of course that's how anything he says will be treated. But when Kelly is actually being insensitive, does anyone make her apologize, such as for telling actual conservative NJ candidate Steve Lonegan, who challenged Christie in his primary from the right, and ran against Booker in the Senate special election, "You can look at me, I'd appreciate it" on national TV. Lonegan is legally blind. This is common knowledge. When I attended one of his rallys, at which Sen Paul was a guest, he walked out with a hand on Paul's shoulder to reach the podium in broad daylight. If he took a seat in Kelly's studio, that witch had to have seen him use a similar tactic to get to the table & chair, even if her research on him was that deficient. This isn't like that Wendy Davis moron using a common expression about walking that was coincidentally unfortunate given her opponent being wheelchair-bound, this is baiting comment designed to highlight the awkwardness of Lonegan's appearance on camera and his inability to look an interviewer in the eye. It was a contemptible maneuver to pull in an interview, and no one called her on it, ever, because it's always a game of screw the conservative. Which is what's really going on with Trump. Whatever you can say about the rest of his policies, the one on which he is loudest, and probably getting the most support, is the one that would most directly benefit the right if someone acted on his words. They're trying to make an example of anyone who dares point out the imperial nudity on this topic.