LAS VEGAS, NEVADA -- Last night's primetime Republican debate was, for the most part, a serious and substantive discussion of foreign policy and national security; anything less would have been a disservice to voters and the party. The field rose to the moment, with each candidate performing either relatively or objectively well. Overall, I called
Advertisement
Recommended
Advertisement
The first two-and-a-half minutes of the clip entails Rubio laying out the very best, most elegant immigration answer he has at his disposal, given his history as a co-author and champion of the fatally flawed 'Gang of Eight' legislation. Message: I've learned my lesson that the American people won't accept other reforms, which I still support on a piecemeal basis, until and unless we implement effective border security first. That's all well and good today, but why did it take a wrenching debate, in which he sided with the likes of Chuck Schumer, for Rubio to learn that lesson? And was it really such a shock, given the federal government's epic ineptitude on, say, the Obamacare roll-out? Also, hadn't Rubio already rejected a "path to citizenship" as "
Advertisement
That was Ted Cruz in 2013, urging his colleagues to support his amendment to the Gang of Eight bill, which he expressly says would leave a path to permanent legal status for illegal immigrants intact. Quote:
Advertisement
"I don't want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. So I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle: If the objective is to pass common-sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement, and compromise to come together. And this amendment, I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically."
Cruz also affirmed at the time that his proposed changes to the existing bill would grant eligibility for permanent legal status to millions: "The eleven million people who are here illegally would be granted legal status once the border is secure...and indeed, they would be eligible for permanent legal residency." Cruz now indignantly claims that the black-and-white evidence in these two clips is "not accurate." Some of the Texas Senator's defenders say that his pro-legalization amendment was merely a strategic move designed to prove a point (that Democrats were insistent upon citizenship, not legalization, because they were hunting for votes), or to help torpedo the broader legislation. But that's not what Ted Cruz said at the time. He told journalist Byron York that his amendment was a good faith effort to fix the bill "so that it actually solves the problem." He
Advertisement
Rubio: Does Ted Cruz rule out ever legalizing people who are in the country illegally now?
CNN: Senator Cruz?
Cruz: I have never supported legalization...
Rubio: Do you rule it out?
Cruz: I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization.
The public record refutes the first sentence of Cruz's final answer, and his use of "intend" is a slippery weasel word, chosen very carefully by a very smart litigator. Cruz wants to bash Rubio as pro-'amnesty' (again, there's ample material to work with) while preserving rhetorical wiggle room for himself to tack back to the center by proposing widespread, non-citizenship legalization. This
Advertisement
Join the conversation as a VIP Member