Rubio Has Been Consistent on Immigration Since Before 2013 But Not Always Honest

3
Share

Senator Marco Rubio is interviewed by National Journal's Major Garrett during the Washington Ideas forum, at The Newseum in Washington

Marco Rubio appeared on The O”Reilly Factor last night and the key question asked was what he would do about the 12 million people already here illegally. After dodging the question several times, and insisting he will close the borders first, he described the Senate immigration bill in part as a solution.

He doesn’t want blanket amnesty but, as in the past, he does support amnesty and a path to citizenship.

After Rubio tied with Cruz in South Carolina, he was asked about the issue raised by Breitbart and Border Agent union president Chris Crane.

Rubio called them liars and said Breitbart was a conspiracy website. It would be more appropriate to describe them as an anti-Rubio website.

The issue was over an interview with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council President Chris Crane by Breitbart about the 2013 Gang of Eight immigration fight. Crane described it as a betrayal.

Rubio never reached out to ICE but only to business groups or amnesty groups, he said, and only met with ICE briefly immediately before the passage of the bill.

Rubio met with Crane once but did not allow him to bring anyone along, according to Crane, while Rubio brought an entourage. As Crane raised concerns, Rubio checked with his staff to determine if the issues raised were in the bill. Each time, the staff said yes and Rubio said they would have to be removed but they weren’t.

In May, 2013, Crane said the same thing in an interview with the Daily Caller and he gave the same testimony before Congress before the interview. You can listen to the interview on this link.

Here’s a brief clip:

The changes Crane asked for were: establishing a biometric entry-exit system, and cracking down on sex offenders, gang members, violent criminals and other criminal aliens.

At the time, Ted Cruz spoke before the senate about the ID system: “this amendment does not require a biometric entry-exit system. It weakens current law. Current law requires it. This amendment takes that out. Instead, it requires essentially a photo ID. I would suggest, madam president, for anyone who perhaps has known a teenager, you would know that the difficult of securing a fake ID with a picture on it is not very high. Any flea market in the land will allow it.”

At the press conference to announce the agreement to the Gang of Eight bill, Crane said he tried to ask a question, as he said in the Daily Caller interview linked above, but the amnesty folks attacked him and, Crane said, Rubio, looked him straight in the eye but did nothing to allow him to ask a question.

ICE wrote a letter to the Congress signed by 150 sheriffs including some elite members screaming for help but it was the Chamber of Commerce and special interest groups who were allowed to engage in the process.

“It was dirty D.C. politics at its worst,” Crane said. In the 2013 interview, he said the staffers for the Gang of Eight appeared to have “hate” for law enforcement. It was clear to him.

At the time, Rubio said the Gang of Eight bill provided the toughest border security and law enforcement measures in our history but that was completely false, Crane added.

The bill actually relinquished Congress’ authority to establish border security measures to the head of DHS. The head of DHS then had something like so six months to unilaterally develop a border security plan after the Gang of Eight bill passed, Crane added.

Rubio said in his press release to announce the agreed-upon bill that Conservatives are unhappy with the bill because “they have heard that “the Secretary of Homeland Security can just ignore the border requirement.” But this is not true, he said. The department does have discretion on where to build the fence, but not on the amount of fencing it must build. At the end of the day, 700 miles of pedestrian fencing must be built.”

However, as the Washington Times reported, there is a section in that bill that states:

“…nothing in this subsection shall require the secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the southern border, if the secretary determines that the use of placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the southern border at such location.” [p.36]

At the time, Rubio applauded the fact that there will be 20,000 border agents added to the border in his statement but he neglected to tell the public that the government has until 2021 to do it. [pp. 64-65] The agreement to legalize and give a path to citizenship to millions was based on the hope of future security and legalization was immediate.

Senator Rubio’s bill did not provide enforcement first.

His bill allowed for legalization of sex offenders, drunk drivers, and others with criminal records.

The bill allowed criminals with endless arrests and up to three misdemeanors according to Crane who has said that consistently.

Chris Crane and Kenneth Palinkas, president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Council, said of the bill.

“The 1,200 page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future,” Crane said. ”It provides no means of effectively enforcing visa overstays which account for almost half of the nation’s illegal immigration crisis.”

Crane said then that Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) “directly misled law enforcement officers” by refusing to amend “provisions that he himself admitted to us in private were detrimental, flawed and must be changed.” Information at the National Review online.

Rubio said the bill changes our legal immigration system from a predominantly family-based system of chain migration to a more merit-based system focused on job skills.

However, it only changed it for the first person here but after that their relatives are legalized and it’s back to chain migration. The bill allows parents and unmarried children of people here illegally to apply for legalization. It is unlikely that they will all have jobs as Rubio promised.

The bill put border agents under the Office of Civil Rights division in the Justice Department.[sections 1111, 1112, 113], a decidedly left of left department. Law enforcement wouldn’t have been able to do a thing. For example, people who sneak over the border couldn’t be remanded if it’s not in their best interest of the illegal crossers including any of the children.

It came out in June 2013, that the White House was in complete control of the Gang of Eight bill and that Rubio appears to have met with the president personally.

The NY Times described a White House in complete control of the immigration bill process in 2013.

So while lawmakers from both parties are privately relying on the White House and its agencies to provide technical information to draft scores of amendments to the immigration bill, few Republicans are willing to admit it…

Obama, the Times reported had a cadre of lobbyists and other policy makers who are orchestrating this:

Inside Room 201, the administration has gathered a collection of its own Congressional lobbyists, policy specialists and experts from an alphabet soup of the agencies that will have to put the immigration legislation into effect if it passes. They all moved into the vice president’s offices on June 10, setting up laptop computers and thick binders filled with proposed amendments on an oval conference table.

“We have folks who know the Senate really well, who know the players, who have been through this before so they know exactly what Senate staff needs,” Ms. Muñoz [director of the White House Domestic Policy Council] said. “We are deeply, deeply engaged.”

The NY Times said that White House and administration officials have been in frequent touch with Republican senators as the lawmakers have to come up with dozens of amendments on tighter border security and other parts of the bill they deem insufficient.

Rubio has called Ted Cruz a liar for saying he supported amnesty.

Do you know how many immigrants Mexico allows in a year – they allow 15,000. We allow a million and with illegal immigration and refugees, we allowed 2.7 million in 2014.

Share

3 COMMENTS

  1. There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION, Rubio committed some of the worst betrayals of the very people who trusted him most.
    The issue of illegals is huge. IMO, the only issue of greater importance is that of national security and without doubt, the both issues are inextricably wedded together.

    Before Rubio’s involvement with the Gang of 8, I will candidly admit, I liked the guy. He seemed to have it all going on: great communications skills, seemingly staunch conservative and easy on the eyes – shouldn’t matter but in today’s world, it does.
    Rubio was a TP darling and received much help from those patriots. More over, he made a solemn promise to his conservative supporters, there would not even BE a discussion regarding what to do with the 12 (ahum…more like 30) million illegals already here. ONE WEEK LATER, Rubio gave a speech to a Latino group, in Spanish, promising the exact opposite, they would stay regardless whether the border was secured or not.
    IN THAT VERY MOMENT, I was done with Marco Rubio. Did he think Conservative meant incapable of understanding a foreign language? Or that there would be no translators available?

    I do not expect any candidate to agree with my own opinions 100% of the time; impossible. But there are certain issues which are simply too enormous to be negotiable. The issue of a secured border and illegals is just too great to be given a pass.

    At this point, a judicious estimate illegals cost to taxpayers? ONE TRILLION/year, and that figure includes the obvious and more easily accounted for ie welfare, housing, wic programs, health care. The less obvious, more difficult to estimate such as educating illegal children, fall out from the MANY American victims of their outrageous violence and criminal behaviors, the billions illegals send home to their Latino families… all brings that number even higher. And thus I ask, does a couple of billion in deportation fees now seem reasonable to you? It certainly does to me.

    As to deportation, something I suggested years ago (pre Trump), should we actually grow “a pair.” Deduct deportation costs from the billions Mexico receives in U.S. aid, watch how fast MEXICO moves to secure their side of the southern border.

    No, there is no wiggle room on the issue of illegals ILLEGALLY entering our country. Since it has become so popular to be perpetually offended about one thing or another, I would like to express what I’m offended by. All we’re hearing about is candidates wooing the black vote, Latino vote, every special interest vote. Does ANYBODY CARE about the middle class, out busting their butts every day, paying for the everything vote?

    • I agree with you and my disenchantment with Rubio followed the same course. I really liked him at first. He isn’t honest about any of it and I don’t trust him. It’s hard to ignore what Chris Crane is saying. Rubio wants us to ignore him because he’s a union president as if that means anything. Rubio needs to leave the race and let’s see if Cruz or Trump are the peoples’ choice. Kasich should be in charge of social work somewhere and Carson is just not going to make it though I like him.

      • Your assessments are spot on…they always are! Why the Independent Sentinel is ALWAYS a reliable “go to” for honest, factual news.

        My own admission, it just about broke my heart when the ugly truth became evident about Marco Rubio. There are many issues we can overlook, illegal immigration is simply not among those forgivable issues.

        Kasich, lol, the social worker indeed! I keep suggesting somebody clue the man in, Bleeding Heart Compassionate Conservatism has been given a good, long trial: It has been a dismal failure. Coming up against the “take no prisoners” hard Left, it is very much akin to bringing a rubber knife to a gun fight.

        I have actually anguished, truly anguished between Trump and Cruz. Both bring their own urgently needed additions to the table. It is unfortunate they’ve been ripping into each other because together, they would have been made an incredible 1,2 punch ticket.

Comments are closed.