Do you believe Marco Rubio over immigration?


We know one of the big issues of this election is legalization and openness to that. That’s one of the big draws of Trump. We also know it might be risky chancing Rubio if a sizable number of people stay home in November over his record on this. We are looking at razor thin margins in OH and FL against any Democrat, conceivably.

Instead of explaining his record or saying his position has evolved, Rubio has taken to attacking the skeptic, Cruz, calling him out for lying.

He was skewered on this by Mark Levin and then called out over the Univision flap, because instead of clarifying his comments he accused Cruz of not speaking enough Spanish to be credible, whatever that means.

Ace at AOSHQ posted a link showing Rubio backed amnesty for Hondurans in 1998.

Then he ran against amnesty to win major office. Then he went all in with Schumer on the Gang of 8. Now that he’s running for another office, he’s against it again.

Now, Ace posted a scathing response to apparent pandering on the eve of a must win primary.

Was this a poor translation regarding the Jorge Ramos 2015 interview?

Ace does not agree. It’s hard to argue with his sincerity, but easier to argue with Rubio on the same given the totality of circumstances and his actions over this aspect of his resume.

Here’s Ace’s version of events:

Here’s what he said in his 2015 interview with Jorge Ramos…

DACA [Obamas amnesty for DREAMers] is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can’t be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefiting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don’t think that’s what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform.

“By the way: There is a lot of lying on social media about this being a “mistranslation.” That claim is all made about a single quibble: Sarah Rumpf made a big deal that some people said Rubio’s reference to “important” refers not to DACA (as it sure appears to), but to the thought that “people…are benefiting from it.”

So based on that — and only that — Rubio’s Minions are claiming the entire translation is wrong.

It’s not. I went through it word for word and actually if you want to contradict me I’l put up the word for word translation, which each word linked to the definition on WordReference. I already went through the exercise of translating it mentally; won’t take too much longer to just write it up and hyperlink each word.

The translation is accurate. The spin here is that this minor quibble over what Rubio is calling “important” has nothing to do with the rest of this: Rubio is saying he won’t cancel DACA until he has some other plan in place, because people are already “benefiting” from DACA and you can’t take that away from them.

Don’t believe people who tell you otherwise. Again, I’ll just put up the translation if you make me. I don’t mind that much. I’m learning Spanish now anyway.”

Thus ends Ace’s rant.

Here’s mine:

I don’t agree at all that this (“comprehensive immigration reform”) is a meaningless issue because as some claim, it is DOA given the division on it. I can easily see the country giving away the farm on amnesty, because other nations have already done so in defiance of their citizenry,  just ask Sweden.

This argument that “amnesty does not mean anything anymore because the definition has been so blurred” is also bunk.

Like porn, you can tell it when you see it, and you can see when the intent is to allow people who who violate our border respect are given unreasonably favorable treatment. Again, just ask Sweden.

Rubio is backed heavily by open borders money, it’s hard to see them not expecting a return on investment if he wins.

What is to stop him from backing amnesty again, once he wins the nomination?

What does Rubio truly believe?

Why should you trust him over Cruz?

Why does he keep changing positions on these issues involving illegals if his core views are consistent and thus believable?

I will support Rubio in November if he prevails over Trump and passes Cruz, because of his solidity elsewhere compared to others in the race besides Ted. We cannot kid ourselves about this or suggest their records are similar on immigration just because one of them is claiming to be nearly the same as the other while running from his record on that and yelling liar.