Sunday’s Marco Rubio rally at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, was a well-attended event with a great deal of enthusiasm. Senator Rubio himself was smooth, quick on his feet, and funny.
In speaking to folks in attendance, I made several observations.
First, people are still making up their minds.
Second, the old “electability” myth that the GOP establishment always trots out to mark the most vulnerable candidate has now been attached to Marco Rubio.
Third, in an odd twist to the “electability” myth, some people are now suggesting, ostensibly as a strategy to take out Trump, that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are somehow interchangeable, and they are encouraging voters to be uncritical and just pick the person “currently second in the polls in your state,” and vote for him. See: http://theresurgent.com/for-president-of-the-united-states-i-endorse/
I do not know what to make of it, but my wife noticed on the Washington, DC station WMAL this morning that not a single mention was made of Ted Cruz. On this station, the day before Super Tuesday, the hosts discussed Marco Rubio as the candidate likely to come in second, and then they moved right on to another topic without even breathing the name “Ted Cruz.”
Fourth, a very interesting thing about Rubio is who is openly endorsing him. More on these items will follow.
***
In 2010, I supported Rubio in his bid for the Senate, and donated to his campaign financially at that time.
In this article I will explain why I do NOT support him as a candidate for President. I thank John Garber for also attending and providing a second set of eyes; I’ve incorporated a good deal of his material in this article as well.
1) Marco Rubio is endorsed by many of those inside the Republican Party who have most actively undermined the principles of the Republican Party and the will of their constituents
Not only, I’m sorry to say, did Marco Rubio turn out to be a candidate who disappointed through broken promises, but also many of the other people who have done the same (Mark Levin calls them the “Usual Suspects”) are the very ones endorsing Rubio now. The quintessential “Republican Establishment” that was so strongly repudiated by the dramatic ouster of Eric Cantor by Dave Brat is now lining up behind Marco Rubio.
One local example will suffice for the purpose of this article:
Congresswoman Barbara Comstock
– Voted on 1/6/15 against removing John Boehner as Speaker of the House,
– Voted on 3/3/15 against defunding Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Amnesty,
– Voted “yes” on 6/18/15 to give Fast Track authority to Obamatrade,
– Voted on 9/30/15 to fund Planned Parenthood and Obama’s other priorities,
– Voted on 10/30/15 to raise the debt by $1.5 Trillion and increase spending,
– Voted on 12/3/15 to re-authorize No Child Left Behind,
– Voted “yes” on 12/3/15 for the $305 Billion highway bailout bill,
– Voted “yes” on 12/18/15 for the $1.1 Trillion spending bill which fully funded Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Amnesty and Obamacare and Planned Parenthood and gave away Congress’ power of the purse for the entire remainder of Obama’s term, AND
– Has endorsed Rubio and introduced him Sunday at his rally at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville.
If you want to continue to support the agenda of President Obama and the Democrats, then Rubio is your guy, apparently. I do not support that agenda, so I will not be supporting the candidate that those advancing this agenda have endorsed.
2) Marco Rubio has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to do what he says, and he has yet to prove he has mended his ways
What a candidate says while campaigning is unimportant if he or she cannot be relied upon to follow through when in office. I believe this principle applies equally to both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio.
It does not apply to Ted Cruz, who has proven himself not only to have a near-perfect position on the issues, but also has shown he is not just talking. Cruz went to the Senate and did exactly what he said he would do. All the talk about what is or is not happening on the campaign trail is a sideshow. Will your candidate follow through reliably or not? This is the crucial question.
When Rubio was campaigning for the Senate, he did so as a constitutional Tea Party conservative. Among the major issues upon which he became elected was opposition to amnesty for people illegally present in the United States.
Once in the Senate, however, Rubio’s single legislative accomplishment has been the passage, in partnership with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and others, of the disastrous “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill. The Gang of Eight bill met fierce opposition from conservatives, including Rubio’s own constituents. The bill was ultimately defeated in the House of Representatives, but it no thanks for this is due to Marco Rubio, who was put forward as the main mouthpiece in desperate attempts by the pro-Amnesty Democrats and crony GOP Establishment to bring the rank-and-file conservative base in line with their wishes. Really, it was yet another attempt by the establishments in both parties to ramrod unpopular and harmful legislation through against the will of the people.
Note this progression:
In a Senate candidates’ debate that aired October 24, 2010, Charlie Crist made this statement:
First, secure the border. That’s the right thing to do … After that I think you have to have an earned path to citizenship, not amnesty … People should have to get in the back of the line, pay a fine if necessary, their back taxes, and be able to become productive members of the American economy. It’s a compassionate way.
Marco Rubio shot back:
First of all, ‘earned path to citizenship’ is basically code for amnesty. It’s what they call it. And the reality of it is this. This has to do with the bottom line that America cannot be the only country in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws. It is unfair to the people that have legally entered the country to create an alternative pathway for individuals who entered illegally and knowingly did so. And all I’m saying is that if you do that … you will never have a legal immigration system that works. No one is going to follow the law if there is an easier way to do it.
Notice what Rubio said in 2010: 1) “Earned path to citizenship” is code for amnesty, even if people get in the back of the line, or pay a fine or back taxes, 2) It is unfair to the people that have legally entered this country, and 3) It undermines the rule of law.
Yet, once he entered the Senate, he did a complete 180 and joined the Gang of Eight, pushing a bill that was diametrically opposed to his campaign principles and promises. At that time, he essentially shut down his office switchboards, preventing constituents and erstwhile supporters from calling or even leaving a voicemail to register their opposition to his about-face.
One supporter of the Bill (that passed the Senate with Rubio’s advocacy and his own vote), the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, summarized it in this way:
On June 27, 2013, the US Senate passed the ‘Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.’ This bill includes a path to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants as well as several other major changes to our immigration system.
It is not surprising that politicians beholden to special interests engage in such heavy-handed tactics, but it is never something to which a conservative should be a party.
Such behavior by a politician should not be rewarded with the Party’s nomination for President.
3) In at least one clear case, Marco Rubio appeals to principle when it serves him, but avoids applying it to his own pet project
At his rally at Patrick Henry College, Marco Rubio made the statement that Hillary should not get a pass because, “No one is above the law.”
It is unquestionably a true statement and a claim that would be (and to my knowledge has been) made by nearly every candidate on the Republican side of this primary race.
At the same time, Rubio to my knowledge still advocates against applying immigration law equally by returning people, who did not come in through the front door, to their countries of citizenship. He may not see the conflict in his position, but I believe many others do. If you steal something, you don’t make it right by saying sorry and promising not to do it again; you make it right by saying sorry and giving back what you have stolen. 20 million people who are breaking immigration law every day they remain illegally present in the United States, some of whom have been doing so knowingly for decades, need to stop it or be compelled to do so by the authorities – in the same way that Hillary Clinton must be held to account under the Anti-Espionage Act if her actions are found to be in violation of it.
If Rubio wishes to be consistent, he in my view has two choices: 1) Advocate for enforcing the laws as written for those now illegally present in the U.S. and then changing immigration rules going forward (if he wishes, and if the nation agrees) or, if he wishes to create a special second pathway for people already here, he must 2) Also advocate for changing the Anti-Espionage Act to accommodate people like Hillary Clinton who has allegedly already violated it.
4) What Marco Rubio did not mention
Sometimes we can discern something about a candidate by obvious things or major issues that he/she neglects to discuss. Certainly, a candidate can’t be rigidly expected to hit every issue at every stop, but what the candidate leaves out may give you a window into his priorities and/or his vulnerabilities. Here are some things Rubio did not say at his Patrick Henry College speech yesterday:
· He did not address the issue of life.
· He did not address the issue of taxpayer funds going to Planned Parenthood.
· He did not address the issue of the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage.
· He did not address the persecution of Christian bakers and photographers in the wake of that decision.
· He never in his speech addressed the issues of border security, amnesty, and people illegally present.
Rubio’s failure to address life and marriage left unsaid another major issue in this race: judicial nominations. Rubio may have a solid philosophy of judging and picking nominees, or he may not. Even if he does pick good nominees, will he have the backbone to stand up to a hostile Democrat establishment and go to the mat for his picks? His actions in the Senate do not inspire confidence in this regard. Cruz, on the other hand, is clearly the most constitutionally literate of all the candidates, and has left no doubt about the kind of nominees he would choose. Likewise he leaves no doubt that he would stand up to recalcitrant Senate Democrats in defending his picks.
And one more thing: Rubio’s full-throated support for smaller government and free enterprise is undermined by his failure to take on ethanol mandates and his defense of domestic sugar price supports – both of which are inimical to free enterprise, and are the very essence of crony capitalism. His penchant for carving out exceptions to the free market is worrisome; again, Cruz is more consistent in his opposition to crony capitalism, and in his support for free markets.
***
Certainly, there are things to like about Rubio’s speaking style and the arguments he makes. In this way he is no different than Donald Trump – he speaks to the issues that concern us.
But talk (even if highly intelligent and compelling) is cheap. As Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” Senator Rubio’s fruit over his time in the Senate has been mediocre at best; and in some cases as discussed, it has been downright rotten.
Are people permitted to make mistakes and learn from them? Certainly. And if Rubio’s support of the Gang of Eight bill and TPA was indeed a mistake, he should be able to have a chance to prove to the American people through consistent action that he has mended his ways. But I believe he ought to earn back the trust of the American people through his actions before being handed the Republican nomination for the United States’ Presidency.
Senator Rubio at one point in his speech Sunday stated, “This election is a referendum on our identity as a nation.”
We could not agree more.
The United States desperately needs leadership from principled, proven, and trustworthy conservatives, and for the office of President they will only get the chance at such if we actually put one up as our nominee – and not someone whose actions, supporters, and lack of consistency given reason to believe that he has been co-opted by the very go-along-to-get-along, go-to-the-voters-at-election-time-then-do-the-bidding-of-the-donors-and-party-leadership Republican establishment that has aided and abetted the anti-American progressives in bringing this great and beautiful nation to the brink of the abyss.
For Rubio to unite the party, he would need to convince onetime Trump or Cruz supporters that he is trustworthy, and that he is with them on one of the biggest issues in this campaign – both of which I doubt he can pull off.
When it comes to popular support, Cruz wins hands down. Here is what USA today reported on February 24:
Cruz entered this month with $13.6 million in available cash, more than twice the amount stockpiled in Rubio’s account, new reports show. More than 40% of Cruz’s January donations came from small donors he can tap repeatedly for contributions, compared with 19% of Rubio’s contributions.
In summary, for all the issues Rubio addressed at the rally, Cruz is at least as good, or better. Cruz is more knowledgeable on judicial issues, and arguably superior when it comes to choosing and defending judicial nominees. And on one of the biggest issues of this campaign season – immigration and amnesty – Cruz is in tune with the base, as his fundraising records show, and he has not deviated from his positions. Cruz is much better positioned to unite the base than is Rubio.
In conclusion, a statement from our most recent Republican candidate for Virginia Governor, Ken Cuccinelli, concerning Sen. Rubio’s appearance in Virginia:
While Sen. Rubio and Donald Trump have spent much of the last week making personal attacks on one another, Ted Cruz has laid out his substantive vision to make Americans’ lives better and to defeat Hillary Clinton in November. From Amnesty to the economy to Obamacare and beyond, Ted Cruz is the only candidate with both a track record and a vision for a prosperous conservative future. Ted has proven his mettle taking on the Washington cartel, including taking on the Republican leadership directly.
Cruz is the only candidate with a record of taking on the Washington establishment every day. Both Cruz and Rubio campaigned against the Washington establishment, but Rubio came to Washington and joined it, while Ted Cruz fought it; meanwhile, Donald Trump has been funding the establishment for his entire adult life.
Finally, and most obviously, with the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, Republicans have NEVER had a candidate better prepared to get ALL of his picks for the Supreme Court right than Ted Cruz. Never.
Jon Garber contributed to this piece.
33 comments
I don’t like Rubio making fun of Trump at every campaign stop. It certainly isn’t Presidential.
I find it concerning that the author implies that because Rubio didn’t talk about abortion, Planned Parenthood, or Marriage that he doesn’t truly believe that those are problems or would take action to address them. Even more so after I saw this from FRC’s Tony Perkins
“We thank Senator Rubio for consistently voting to uphold the fundamentals of faith, family and freedom. Senator Rubio voted to repeal key parts of Obamacare, protect the unborn, end the forced partnership between taxpayers and Planned Parenthood, and protect state marriage laws before the Supreme Court changed the [natural] definition of marriage.”
https://marcorubio.com/news/marco-rubio-social-conservative-frc-marriage/
I think the larger point was that we don’t know what he will or will not take action on, I mean really stand up for. You are right, Rubio is probably not afraid of the PP & Marriage issues, but although I can remember hearing Cruz talk directly about these things on more than one occasion, I don’t have a similar memory concerning Rubio. Particularly the marriage and taxpayer funding of abortion issues. I could be wrong, but it is my impression.
I again offer the recommendation that all conservative voters read Steve Elliot’s small booklet “Revolt” issued by, and available at very low cost, from http://www.grassfire.com for a clear explanation of how important it is to vote for a non-establishment (read Carl Rove) candidate. It’s only 61 pages so it can read in a single sitting. It identifies Rubio as a covert establishment candidate.
If it were not for the Gang of Eight/Amnesty, Rubio would be way ahead.
Bingo!
Except that there was the Gang of 8, and Rubio broke his campaign promises, making his current promises suspect.
If there were no Trump, Cruz would have secured the nomination already. Unfortunately we have to deal with the reality of the situation, and the reality is that only Cruz can unite the party and bring Trump supporters back into the fold. Rubio can’t.
The path to citizenship was only for those undocumented residents who had been here for more than 15 years, many of them brought here as children. The federal courts more than likely would mandate that the US grant these people citizenship based on the legal doctrines of estoppel and laches. If you treat someone like a citizen for a long time, you cannot “deport” them as Trump and others have suggested…. that is why Rubio’s compromise was worth it in exchange for all of the border controls mandated (and if Obama did not enforce the laws, Congress could), E-verify, visa reform, etc. You should actually read the bill, and try to understand that Rubio did not propose “Amnesty” in any respect… Obama did not like the Bill and discouraged the Bi-partisan support in the House by using his pen and the telephone to give the democrats much more through executive order and action… so why would they agree to reform, more strict border control… Rubio’s actions would have been hailed as genius if not for the undermining by Obama…
If the federal courts would mandate these people be granted citizenship, then what was the need for the Gang of Eight bill?
If these people have been “treated like … citizen[s] for a long time,” then why all the rhetoric about getting them to “come out of the shadows?”
If they have been “treated like … citizen[s] for a long time,” then what was the need for the Gang of Eight bill?
Let’s imagine someone did something illegal, like driving 20 miles over the speed limit. Let’s imagine (either through evasiveness or living in a remote area or lax policing) they did it every day for 15 years and 1 month, without ever being caught. Let’s imagine that they then were stopped and given a speeding ticket. Would it be a valid defense for them to say that they could not be held to account for their decision to speed today because they started speeding more than 15 years ago?
There is no doctrine like she is proposing in immigration. Illegal immigration has no statute of limitations… no estoppel doctrine.. immigration is statutorily based… it is not a common law area.
Thanks for that clarification. My rhetorical questions were just meant to expose the inconsistency, but your knowledge of the law works just fine too!
Of course there is a doctrine where if you fail to enforce your laws for a length of time (amnesty means general pardon of crimes, or general failure to enforce laws) a court would say an adult immigrant who, for example, was brought to this country illegally as an infant (obviously no criminal intent), knows no other country, went to public schools and public university, is gainfully employed, assimilated and speaks English, has no criminal record, has children born in this country, pays taxes, and is allowed to vote by a government that casts a blind eye (eg, states like California and Oregon) a court would find that amnesty had already been granted… and order the US government to make this long time resident a citizen.
I see the parallel, of course, but in a proceeding on statutory law the judge doesn’t have that kind of discretion unless the statute allows it. There is no such doctrine that allows a judge to set aside a statutory requirement. The doctrines you cite are civil (meaning applicable to disputes between private entities).
Steve, there are plenty of examples where a private entity sued the government based on estoppel and laches, and the lower federal courts have allowed these causes of action… I linked a Fordham University law review article above. It is from 1989. I know when I graduated from law school back in the 70’s it was understood that estoppel did not apply against the government, but that is not true today, especially with so many liberal judges having been appointed to the federal courts, very few conservative judges left…
The American people have been screaming for controlled borders and enforcement of immigration by timely deportation of violators for as long as I can remember – decades. And actual enforcement has ebbed and flowed; I remember a time during the beginning of GWB admin that enforcement began to pick up for a short time. It was so refreshing … and then it went back to business as usual.
So, what you are saying is that if people get away with breaking the law long enough (in this case by flooding the system and going around Congress by applying political pressure to drive simple non-enforcement via the executive & by threatening/shutting down (as in Arizona) state efforts), then they can be considered immune from the law in the end?
And, if that is what you are saying, I restate my question above: What, then, would be the need for any legislation at all to legitimize or “bring out of the shadows” people here illegally?
Is this really how our system works? If people can maintain a culture of lawlessness for long enough, lawlessness itself becomes the law? I certainly hope that is not the case, but with our courts packed with progressives, in practice I don’t entirely doubt that what you say could be true.
The point of letting certain long standing hard working honest immigrants become citizens in legislation is saying, we won’t fight over these immigrants, and we could make it difficult for them, but if we adopt E-verify, etc (Did you know there was a requirement in that Bill to build a fence before any immigrant would be processed for even a temporary resident permit?) ~ if you give us a fence, border control (I think the bill funded something like 40,000 more border agents) ~ if you do all these things, then immigrants in a small but growing category can apply for a temporary resident permit, good for 3 years, with one extension for 3 years, then that person can apply for a green card, which he must hold for ten years with no criminal convictions other than traffic tickets, and then that immigrant can apply for naturalization or permanent residency (without the right to vote.) At every stage, the immigrant has to show he/she is working, not on welfare, has references, goes through a background check…. it was a good deal for the US in general… and this ridiculous purity argument for grandstanding sake is honestly destroying our country.
I understand, and do not completely disavow all those objectives. I find it very hard to believe that something that was acceptable to the Democrats on the Gang and to John McCain would not undermine our society. Also, I wonder at the adjective ‘honest’ being applied to any person staying here illegally for an extended time. I think that is what this discussion is mostly about: whether we admit honest people as new citizens or sneaky and opportunistic people. I especially find it disingenuous when people talk about “law-abiding” illegal immigrants (you did not). But in my view the regular process selects for people who respect rules, and circumventing it is hugely problematic because it selects in the opposite direction. Adding millions of lawless people solidifies our culture of lawlessness … And lawlessness & the toleration of lawlessness is in our culture is destroying this country, in my view.
Two points. First if the immigrant agrees to go through the process, then that immigrant is bound to it, cannot complain about it. Second, many of these immigrants came here as minors, who by law do not have criminal intent, so they are not criminals. No judge is going to say that a 2 month old child is a criminal b/c his mother brought him here. It would not be an easy process to become a citizen and it would require the applicant to stay squeaky clean during the 15 plus year process…
They should have had the courage to defend the Bill, and work on it honestly to tweak it in the House, but Obama threatened them if they did not sign on, he would issue executive orders/decrees (“Don’t throw me in that briar patch” bluff), then we got the hard liners no compromise ever and name calling and grandstanders, then Eric Cantor lost his primary and everyone ran scared instead of having the courage to tell the American people the truth… scatter and use sound bites, that is why we are in trouble.. we will not even defend our good ideas… reasonable compromise, that Obama worked hard to undermine, telling the D’s they did not need to agree b/c he was going to give them everything they wanted by executive order, and meantime encourage more and more minors especially, but another million people last year alone, who come and are treated as citizens, welcomed to vote in many jurisdictions who simply do not care to identify non citizens.
I understand that about children, while they are still children. However, at some point (say age 18), do they not become responsible for themselves such that, if they choose to continue breaking the law by remaining illegally present day after day rather than returning to the country of their citizenship, they can be then held to account? If your parents rob a bank with you, a 7-year-old child, in tow, I understand that the law would not view you as having adult responsibility in the matter. If, however, you grow up and continue the family tradition of robbing banks, then I would hope it could become an issue.
To adopt legislation is like settling a lawsuit, you get something, we get something. If the issue is litigated, one party takes all. So if the immigration issue is litigated in a class action suit and they all win, they are all automatically mandated by the court to be processed as citizens, and we still don’t have e-verify, a tracking system for visa overstays, the fence the Bill required to be built, the extra funding for border guards, etc. This is why Obama undermined the legislation and issued executive orders and decrees, b/c the Democrats win as long as they can stop enforcement of our immigration laws, voting laws, etc… we are losing our country, and this is why Trump is so popular… so many people really want it to stop and they do not care about one single other matter, character, background, nothing…
NO Sally you obviously do not understand the immigration laws. Can you please find me a case where your legal theory has been applied in a court to grant amnesty? Don’t try hard it hasn’t been done. In Immigration the law does allow for what is called cancellation of removal, but it is statutory, not common law. And it is a matter of discretion. It is not a common law created doctrine. In order to be granted cancellation of removal an alien has to prove that his deportation would create an extreme and unusual hardship for a citizen or LPR dependent. This is as close as you can come to the doctrine you are attempting to create. Courts have not weighed in to do what you are saying because they generally deem the Executive and the Legislative branches to have plenary power for dealing with aliens.
Now of course with the activists courts we have now… perhaps one day the 9th Circuit will apply your theory.. you know like how a mandate to buy health insurance is really a tax…
You should read the articles that I posted. There are a lot of cases in the lower federal courts applying estoppel against the INS, and requiring the INS to grant citizenship to non citizens who did not follow the rules…. the trend is to weigh “fairness and justice” against the technical rules… I told Dick Black and Dave LaRock that many circuit courts in Virginia were upholding gay marriage, despite Virginia law and before the S Ct decision, and that it was a trend all across the Country… people did not pay attention to the trend, and instead said very divisive things denying reality, and so, in a perfect world the Rubio Bill should have been shot down like it was, but in the real world, it made sense to create a “path” (a very long and difficult path) to citizenship for those in a class that might have a very good case for being granted citizenship… and by doing nothing, we have made the situation much worse and are losing our country.
There is no doctrine of estoppel and laches in immigration. You are not treating them like citizens. They cannot vote. Cannot legally hold a job. If they leave they cannot re-enter the country. They are not supposed to be entitled to welfare benefits.
Did not propose amnesty? Baloney. It was the same crap bill that they foisted on the US in 1986 without even the pretense of the enforcement that was supposed to come of that– employer sanctions. Same crap about paying a fine. Border Control my bottom also… it made the same empty promises in exchange for amnesty. You are going to say it wasn’t amnesty to pay a fine and all that fine nonsense. The bottom line for illegal aliens is to stay and work and also to collect welfare benefits via anchor babies… That is amnesty.
Obama did not like the bill? Bull. He would have signed that in a heartbeat had the House not stopped it..
Obviously you do not understand the doctrines of estoppel and laches. Many illegal non citizens do vote, and are encouraged to vote, are automatically registered to vote when they apply for a driver’s license. 1986 was complete amnesty where anyone who was here could apply for a green card or citizenship with no questions asked. In 1986 however, I believe the immigrant had to go home to get his or her new green card/visa from the US embassy in his/her homeland…
No. Sorry, Sally. That’s not how laches and estoppel work. Those are common law doctrines that govern how private entities may redress injuries through the courts. They don’t affect how and when the sovereign may enforce its laws.
Steve, this is an old law review article (1989) but even then there was a “growing trend” to apply estoppel against the federal government. Yes in general the federal government is sovereign but it can be estopped in equity…. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2738&context=flr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fclient%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26q%3Dcan%2Ba%2Bgovernment%2Bbe%2Bestopped%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8#search=%22can%20government%20estopped%22
Here is another University of California article specifically addressing the issue of whether estoppel can be asserted against the federal govt and the INS. You can read it but it gives cites where the courts have found yes estoppel can be applied against the fed govt and specifically against the INS, requiring that citizenship be granted… http://escholarship.org/uc/item/78802978#page-1
Another article with relevant cites, where “justice and fairness” are at the heart of the application of estoppel in immigration matters… https://www.fcsl.edu/sites/fcsl.edu/files/ART%206.pdf
One last thing… every damn thing that this hideous bill was supposed to do was already on the books. The damn President can build a wall any time he wants literally or through other means.. E Verify– already there. Rubio is a damn liar also. Ask the Border Patrol. They say his skanky bill was.. written as though the criminals wrote it…
No, E-verify is not a federal requirement. Some states require E verify and some states like California have legislated to make E verify illegal.
“He did not address the persecution of Christian bakers and photographers in the wake of that decision”
Actually, he pretty much did. I don’t remember the exact words, but he clearly stated that unlike the Obama administration, he will support the right to live out the principles of your faith. In context, it was a CLEAR reference to this important religious freedom issue.
I don’t have time to fact-check this whole article, and you’re right that Cruz is a great candidate. (I would say “also” a great candidate.) But I really don’t know why Rubio is being labeled as “establishment.” Yes a lot of establishment folks have lined up behind him (after the truly establishment candidates dropped out, or became non-viable). And yes he has supported real immigration solutions, instead of repeating the hard-line platitudes that would be astronomically expensive. But generally speaking, he’s a true conservative. This year, the so called “establishment” candidate is better than last cycle’s conservatives.
OK, here’s what we need: A candidate who believes that life begins at conception, but accepts that a woman’s right to choose is enshrined in law. Also someone who insists that gay and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, but accepts the fact that they now can enjoy the right of such a union. Happy now?