Tag Archives: Amnesty

Where did Rubio, Cruz and Trump stand on amnesty before running for President?

Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain

Here is an article from the non-partisan Roll Call, from way back in April 22, 2013. The title is “Rubio Targets Fellow Conservatives on Immigration”.


Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is running a campaign-style press operation to push an immigration overhaul, a fitting move for a politician who needs it to bolster a rumored 2016 presidential bid.

[…]According to multiple sources tracking the immigration debate, Rubio is perhaps the most important senator in lending the group’s effort enough conservative credibility to result in a final bill. Because Rubio’s future political aspirations will certainly be affected by the fate of the looming legislation, the proactive approach his team is taking is helping him take matters into his own hands.

[…]Of course, with each email, Rubio’s commitment to the bill grows stronger. And in a town where perception is almost everything, a daily record of his defense of the bill and attacks on the conservatives trying to kill it is certainly building a perception.

Who were the “conservatives trying to kill it” mentioned in the linked article? Jeff Sessions, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. And now Rubio has the nerve to accuse Cruz of supporting amnesty, after Cruz led the fight against it.

So let’s see what Ted Cruz did to fight amnesty.


Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty

Ted Cruz

Listen to Senator Jeff Sessions, a hawk on immigration, explain where Ted Cruz was when amnesty was being proposed by Rubio and his Democrat allies:

Legal Insurrection describes what Sessions says:

Sessions states:  “One of the things you’ve been hearing about somehow is a criticism of Ted and how he and what he did with regard to this massive [immigration bill] that they tried to ram through in 2013,” Sessions said. “Let me tell you, I was there. Every step of the way, Ted Cruz was on my side and fought this legislation all the way through.”

Sessions makes an important point during this speech:  “This presidential election is going to decide who runs the White House: the crowd that pushed this legislation or the crowd that opposed it.”

And that, I think, is the crux of this issue . . . and, at least in part, of this election.

And what about Donald Trump? Does he have a record of opposing amnesty?

Donald Trump

Trump was for amnesty back in August of 2013 – according to his own tweet:

Donald Trump tweets about illegal immigration, circa August 2013
Donald Trump tweets about illegal immigration, circa August 2013

If illegal immigration and border security are important to you, then your candidate is Ted Cruz. He is the only one running with the record of fighting against illegal immigration, as well as taking in refugees from countries that are dominated by radical Islam.

Amnesty: Marco Rubio sponsored a bill to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship

Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain

Just two years ago, Marco Rubio sponsored a bill to give people who were in the country illegally a path to citizenship.

Here is the article from the non-partisan The Hill.

It says:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says Sen. Marco Rubio’s “fingerprints are all over” a 2013 immigration bill with a path to citizenship, highlighting the Florida Republican’s ties to a reform effort he has downplayed during his presidential campaign.

“He was not only totally committed, he was in that room with us,” Schumer told CNN when asked how committed Rubio was to the “Gang of Eight” immigration effort. “His fingerprints are all over that bill. It has a lot of Rubio imprints.”

Rubio has drawn fire from conservatives for his role in crafting the Senate’s 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, a 1,200-page measure that would have put an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship and spent $46 billion to tighten border security.The bill passed the Senate but died in the House.

[…]Schumer suggested that Rubio didn’t resist putting provisions in the legislation that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship — the aspect of the legislation that was denounced by the right.

“He understood it, he molded it, he made it a tough path to citizenship,” Schumer, who is expected to be the next Democratic leader, told CNN. “But we all agreed to it, and it would have to be a tough path to citizenship. But he was all for it. “

And in comments made just this week, Rubio reiterated that people who are in the country illegally should get amnesty.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty

What about Ted Cruz?

Ted Cruz actually fought a battle to stop Obama’s executive order amnesty.


Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Jeff Sessions are pushing for a vote to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty in the “Cromnibus” spending bill Friday night, The Daily Caller has learned.

The trio of conservative senators is hoping to get the defund vote onto the Senate floor as a “point of order,” which would force a procedural vote on the issue without Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having to introduce it.

The senators are pushing hard on Capitol Hill for the measure as of early Friday afternoon. If successful, the vote would take place late Friday night, after planned deliberations on the defense budget.

Instead of joining up with the Democrat Chuck Schumer, Cruz joined up with the Republicans. It’s not difficult to tell which person is serious about border security and illegal immigration. It may be that Rubio is the nominee in 2016. But we can do better if we choose Ted Cruz.

Marco Rubio’s billionaire hedge fund donor supports amnesty and gay marriage

Marco Rubio and his billionaire puppet master Paul Singer
Marco Rubio and his billionaire puppet master Paul Singer

Every day of this week, I will be writing a post that explains why we should prefer Ted Cruz over Marco Rubio in the Republican primary. I have tried to be circumspect, in case Rubio is the nominee.

First article from CNBC.


Marco Rubio got some great news on with backing from influential hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who was heavily courted by multiple GOP presidential candidates, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

But Singer’s backing — while a huge positive for Rubio in the money race — does not come without some risks for the Florida senator. Singer is distrusted in the conservative base of the GOP both for his support of same-sex marriage and his support of Rubio’s immigration reform efforts in the Senate. According to a person close to Singer, the hedge fund billionaire gave $100,000 to support immigration reform, which the right widely regards as “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants.

A little more on the gay marriage issue from NewsMax:

The news last week that Paul Singer, billionaire Republican fundraiser and unabashed advocate of same-sex marriage, will support Marco Rubio for president has drawn mixed reviews from state and national pro-family activists.

[…]A billionaire hedge fund manager, Singer has been a major GOP donor – and has made quite clear that his priority issue has been support of gay rights in the Republican Party. Singer and his network of donors have steered millions to GOP candidates at the federal and state level who backed same-sex marriage.

Now, if you ask me, this means that Marco Rubio will not be as good as Ted Cruz on issues like gay rights, gay marriage, religious liberty, border security and immigration.

After all, why would a man like Paul Singer, who knows how to make billions of dollars, throw his money away on a candidate who does not intend to give him what he is paying for?

Ted Cruz blasts Democrats for hiding immigration histories of terrorists in the USA

Texas Senator Ted Cruz
Texas Senator Ted Cruz

This story is from the Washington Free Beacon.


Leading senators on Monday petitioned multiple Obama administration agencies to stop stonewalling a congressional investigation into the immigration histories of at least 113 foreign-born individuals implicated in terrorist operations after legally entering the United States, according to a copy of the letters.

The latest investigation comes just days after the Washington Free Beacon disclosed that an additional 41 foreign-born individuals who legally entered the United States had been arrested for planning a number of terror attacks.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) disclosed Monday that they had been pressuring the Obama administration for months to disclose the immigration histories of these foreign-born individuals implicated in terror plots.

Agencies including the Departments of State and Homeland Security have stonewalled these efforts, declining since mid-2015 to provide Congress additional information. This move has prompted speculation among lawmakers that the administration is withholding information to prevent the exposure of major gaps in the U.S. screening process for new immigrants.

“The American people are entitled to information on the immigration history of terrorists seeking to harm them,” Cruz and Sessions wrote to the secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the attorney general.

Similar requests for information issued sent in August and again in December have not been answered by the administration

The letter cites a recent Free Beacon report detailing that an additional 41 foreign-born individuals had been snagged on terrorism-related charges since 2014. The disclosure of these previously unknown accused terrorists brings the total number of foreigners brought up on terrorism charges to 113.

Sessions and Cruz note that at least 14 of those foreigners accused of terrorism were granted legal entrance to the United States as refugees.

[…]The letter comes amid a debate over immigration and an Obama administration plan to boost the number of refugees granted residence in the United States. Under the administration’s plan, an additional 170,000 new migrants from Muslim-majority countries will enter the country in 2016.

[…]The United States has issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim-majority nations during the past five years.

Something to think about, given the permissive attitude of members of the Democrat party when it comes to acts of terrorism committed by radical Islamists. It’s almost as if they would rather punish people who have concerns about safety than do anything to make it harder for terrorists to harm us. Is this what we are paying taxes for? So that politicians can be nice to people who want to kill us? I understand that Democrats love to embrace evil and shame good, in order to achieve their goal of equality, but I don’t think we should be paying them to do it. We’re paying them to protect us, not to expose us to harm.

Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit crimes than the general public?

Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.
Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.

So we had a case in the news where an illegal immigrant who had been arrested and deported numerous times was allowed to stay in the U.S. thanks to San Francisco’s very Democrat “sanctuary city” policy. All the people running for the Democrat presidential nomination support sanctuary cities, and amnesty for illegal immigrants as well. But how do these policies affect American taxpayers?

Breitbart News has the numbers from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.


While illegal immigrants account for about 3.5 percent of the U.S population, they represented 36.7 percent of federal sentences in FY 2014 following criminal convictions, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data obtained by Breitbart News.

According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

Now a lot of those convictions will be related to immigration… what happens when we take those out?

The sentencing rate is still higher than normal:

Eliminating all immigration violations, illegal immigrants would account for 13.6 percent of all the offenders sentenced in FY14 following federal criminal convictions — still greater than the 3.5 percent of the population illegal immigrants are said to make up.

All that crime is not only dangerous and expensive, but we have to pay for the fails and law enforcement to catch them, too. Now, let’s review Hillary Clinton’s views on illegal immigration.

The Washington Times reports that she favors amnesty:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Tuesday that if elected, she would try to expand President Obama’s deportation amnesty to more illegal immigrants, saying this administration has left out a number of aliens who deserve to be granted legal status.

Speaking in Las Vegas at a Cinco de Mayo meeting focused on immigration, Mrs. Clinton also called for granting attorneys to illegal immigrants facing the complex immigration system, and said she would like to re-examine detention to ensure more illegal immigrants are released as they await deportation.

Mrs. Clinton delivered on just about every question from immigrant rights activists, who had been pressing her to reject Mr. Obama’s detention policies and go beyond his amnesty.

The Daily Caller reminds us that she also supports sanctuary cities:

Clinton last weighed in publicly on sanctuary cities during the 2008 presidential campaign.

“You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?” Clinton was asked by Tim Russert during a Sept. 6, 2007, debate at Dartmouth College.

“Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she responded.

Clinton said she backed the sanctuary city concept because without it, illegal immigrants refuse to cooperate with police because they are afraid of being deported.

“Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement,” Clinton said. “The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton again expressed her support for sanctuary cities in a 2008 interview with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities?” O’Reilly asked.

“No, I’m not,” Clinton said, eliciting a shocked response from the host.

I’m all for more skilled immigration, but that’s not what is happening on our southern border. If Hillary becomes president, that situation will only get worse.