Here’s a question an incisive debate moderator ought to ask Marco Rubio: are you happy Senators Sessions and Cruz helped defeat your Gang of 8 immigration bill?
One of the more obscure yet destructive provisions of the Gang of 8 bill I wrote about in 2013 was section 3405 (page 693), which created an entire new pipeline for refugees. This bill would have concocted an unconditional right to immediate legal permanent resident status for any person in the world who declares himself “stateless.” Had the bill passed in 2013, it would have given the Obama administration power to define who is considered stateless. Most of those likely to be designated as stateless are from Islamic hell holes and would include the Syrians, Somalis, Palestinians, and the Muslim Rohingya in Burma.
In addition, section 3403 would have granted Obama broad authority to create entire classes of refugees by categorically declaring them eligible based on humanitarian grounds. Under existing law, to the extent it is adhered to, each application must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis and the prospective refugee must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution on an individual level.
Section 3401 of the bill also dramatically weakened the precautions against fraudulent asylum petitions by, among other things, eliminating the time constraints on filing those applications.
In totality, this bill would have created endless avenues for this president to bring in an unlimited numbers of Islamic immigrants from the most volatile corners of the world.
Step back and ponder this thought for a moment: had Rubio gotten his away – had Sessions and Cruz and other conservatives followed his lead – Obama would have had an unlimited pipeline at his disposal to bring in the worst security risks among the entire Islamic world. Yet, Rubio touts himself as the paragon of national security because of his alacritous desire to support every Islamic insurgency in the Middle East.
While much of the conservative media is promoting the notion that Rubio has changed his position on immigration, the reality is that to this very day he believes the Gang bill was good legislation. According to the Washington Post, Rubio said late last week that “the bill had the correct security components but was waylaid by voter mistrust.” In other words, the bill was near-perfect, it’s just that the plebes weren’t smart enough to understand its virtues. Accordingly, Rubio’s current position is that the Gang of 8 was prudent legislation.
Republicans would never nominate someone who openly promoted Obamacare, abortion, raising taxes, or increasing regulations. How can they possibly nominate someone who is on the wrong side of the most existential threat of our time and who – to this very day – defends a bill that would have saddled America with what we are seeing in Germany and France today?
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.