Thread: Sessions says Rubio wrong on immigration attacks: ‘Cruz stood with me’

Sessions says Rubio wrong on immigration attacks: ‘Cruz stood with me’

• WRITTEN BY CLIFF SIMS
• ON DECEMBER 17, 2015 AT 8:13 PM CST

(Video above: Senator Jeff Sessions backs Senator Ted Cruz in his spat with Senator Rubio)

WASHINGTON — Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is lending his significant credibility to Senator Ted Cruz in a spat with Senator Marco Rubio, after the two presidential candidates tangled over their respective records on the issue of immigration.

Cruz has long been critical of Rubio’s participation in the so called Gang of Eight, a bi-partisan group of senators who pushed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that many conservatives view as amnesty. Cruz continued that line of attack against Rubio earlier this week during the most recent Republican presidential debate.

Rubio shot back, however, by claiming that Cruz’s hardline rhetoric on immigration does not match up to his actual record, which Rubio says is not much different than his own.

Here is a transcript of their exchange:

RUBIO: As far as Ted’s record, I’m always puzzled by his attack on this issue. Ted, you support legalizing people who are in this country illegally. Ted Cruz supported a 500-percent increase in the number of H-1 visas, the guest workers that are allowed into this country, and Ted supports doubling the number of green cards.

CRUZ: Look, I understand Marco wants to raise confusion, it is not accurate what he just said that I supported legalization. Indeed, I led the fight against his legalization and amnesty. And you know, there was one commentator that put it this way that, for Marco to suggest our record’s the same is like suggesting “the fireman and the arsonist because they are both at the scene of the fire.”

He was fighting to grant amnesty and not to secure the border, I was fighting to secure the border. And this also goes to trust. Listening on the campaign trails, candidates all the time make promises…

RUBIO: Does Ted Cruz rule out ever legalizing people that are in this country now?

CRUZ: I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization

Cruz’s “intend to” language was far from his finest moment, and a campaign spokesperson later clarified that the senator would not support legalization under any circumstances. But the crux of Rubio’s argument is that Cruz offered an amendment during the Gang of Eight bill debate that would have granted legal status, but remove the possibility of citizenship, to individuals in the country illegally.

Cruz says now the amendment was meant as a “poison pill” to kill the whole package, or at the very least as a way to expose that what Democrats really wanted was not to “bring people out of the shadows,” as they often claimed, but rather to grant citizenship to millions of future Democratic voters. By removing citizenship from the equation, Cruz allies said he was exposing Democrats’ true motives.

Rubio and other scoff at that explanation, and some pundits argued after the debate that Cruz’s conservative luster on the issue of immigration had been dimmed by the Rubio exchange.

But the one individual whose record on the issue of immigration is beyond question with conservatives is Sen. Sessions, making his perspective on the Rubio-Cruz spat the definitive word for many immigration hawks on what actually happened.

During an appearance on the Howie Carr Show on Thursday, Sessions firmly sided with Cruz.

“Senator Cruz stood with me,” Sessions said emphatically. “We recognized that the talking points that Senator Rubio and others were using to describe the monumental (Gang of Eight) bill were not accurate. It would not do the things they said it would do. The law enforcement people opposed it vigorously.

“And so one of (Senator Cruz’s) amendments was to block citizenship, and he made it just to block citizenship for anybody who entered the country illegally, which I think is exactly right. Of course, the bill allowed for citizenship as part of amnesty. (Cruz’s amendment) didn’t fix everything, but of course I voted for it, and so did he and he spoke for it and he sort of teased or mocked the other side by saying, ‘Well, you say you want immigration, you can have immigration, but give us citizenship.’ Oh no, they wouldn’t do that. Ted won that debate — lost the vote, but won the debate.

“The vote was a good vote,” Sessions continued. “It exposed how politically attuned the Democrats and sponsors of the bill were. The key parts were to have citizenship and voting rights for people who had been in the country illegally. I don’t think that should have ever been done… (Senator Cruz and I) stood together on this one, I’ve got to tell you. And I think Senator Rubio has to answer for things that were in that bill that I don’t think were good policy.”

http://yellowhammernews.com/politics...stood-with-me/

“And so one of (Senator Cruz’s) amendments was to block citizenship, and he made it just to block citizenship for anybody who entered the country illegally, which I think is exactly right. Of course, the bill allowed for citizenship as part of amnesty. (Cruz’s amendment) didn’t fix everything, but of course I voted for it, and so did he and he spoke for it and he sort of teased or mocked the other side by saying, ‘Well, you say you want immigration, you can have immigration, but give us citizenship.’ Oh no, they wouldn’t do that. Ted won that debate — lost the vote, but won the debate.

“The vote was a good vote,” Sessions continued. “It exposed how politically attuned the Democrats and sponsors of the bill were. The key parts were to have citizenship and voting rights for people who had been in the country illegally. I don’t think that should have ever been done… (Senator Cruz and I) stood together on this one, I’ve got to tell you. And I think Senator Rubio has to answer for things that were in that bill that I don’t think were good policy.”

We heard it on the videos. Yes, the Cruz Amendment would have prevented citizenship, but it wouldn't have stopped immigration. Sessions even says "you can have immigration, but give us citizenship".

In 2013, it seems they both thought legalizing illegal aliens was okay, they just didn't want to give them the right to vote for political reasons. What Sessions is supporting Cruz on is entirely different than what Rubio's point was. Rubio's point in the debate was that Ted Cruz approved legalizing illegal aliens, without citizenship, and Cruz lied and said he didn't, when Jeff Sessions has just confirmed here he did, that they both did, "you can have your immigration, give us citizenship", when means you can legalize illegal aliens, keep them here and give them work permits but please don't give them the right to vote because they'll vote Democrat instead of Republican.

Fact. In 2013, Ted Cruz supported legalization of illegal aliens without immediate path to citizenship.

Fact. In 2013, Ted Cruz supported doubling the number of green cards from 675,000 to 1.3 million.

Fact. In 2013, Ted Cruz introduced a separate amendment to increase the number of H1B visas from 65,000 to 300,000.

Ted Cruz may now realize that he has no prayer of winning the Republican nomination with this record, so he lied about it Tuesday night, and has now and only now decided oh well maybe we should enforce the law and deport illegal aliens after all so he can have a shot at the nomination, not for us, but for his own aspirations.

Those are the facts. What voters decide to do with that information is of course up to them.

Cruz says now the amendment was meant as a “poison pill” to kill the whole package, or at the very least as a way to expose that what Democrats really wanted was not to “bring people out of the shadows,” as they often claimed, but rather to grant citizenship to millions of future Democratic voters. By removing citizenship from the equation, Cruz allies said he was exposing Democrats’ true motives.

Of course it was intended as a "poison pill." Cruz, and anyone else paying attention, knew the Democrats would never support an immigration bill that didn't offer a path to citizenship!

But that backfires on Cruz, MW, because it exposes that his objection to the bill wasn't based on illegal immigration and the harm it was causing to Americans, it was based on partisan politics and his plan to run for President in 3 years. This "poison pill" excuse won't fly, because he had over 2 years to declare his opposition to illegal immigration, excess immigration and what to do with illegal aliens in the country.

Instead he wanted more immigration, twice the green cards, 5 times the H1B visas, and wanted it easier and faster, and under oath in a Senate hearing he states he supports legalization of illegal aliens, so they can stay here and work, but not with citizenship so they can't vote Democrat.

Personally, I don't think that's going to fly with most Republican voters. But, we'll see what happens.

Originally Posted by Judy

But that backfires on Cruz, MW, because it exposes that his objection to the bill wasn't based on illegal immigration and the harm it was causing to Americans, it was based on partisan politics and his plan to run for President in 3 years. This "poison pill" excuse won't fly, because he had over 2 years to declare his opposition to illegal immigration, excess immigration and what to do with illegal aliens in the country.

Instead he wanted more immigration, twice the green cards, 5 times the H1B visas, and wanted it easier and faster, and under oath in a Senate hearing he states he supports legalization of illegal aliens, so they can stay here and work, but not with citizenship so they can't vote Democrat.

Personally, I don't think that's going to fly with most Republican voters. But, we'll see what happens.

So, are you saying the Democrats would have supported a comprehensive immigration bill that denied a legal path to citizenship for illegals? Not need to answer that because anyone that's been in this game awhile knows the answer is NO, NO, NO.

Originally Posted by MW

So, are you saying the Democrats would have supported a comprehensive immigration bill that denied a legal path to citizenship for illegals? Not need to answer that because anyone that's been in this game awhile knows the answer is NO, NO, NO.

Are you saying Republicans would have? No need to answer that because everyone that's been in this game awhile knows the answer is YES, YES, YES.

That's what Rubio exposed on Cruz and unfortunately, Sessions jumped into it and unintentionally proved the point. In 2013, they weren't against the bill because of the harm illegal immigration and excess immigration were causing Americans, they were against the bill because it would in their minds have added more Democrats to the voting rolls. That's why we have this problem. It's about politics, and elections, and Senators running for President, it's not about what's best for American citizens, American workers and American taxpayers, it's about their own political aspirations.

And you have to remember, S 744 passed the US Senate 68 to 32 and there were only 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and 2 Independents. S 744 passed the US Senate with more than a 2/3 majority vote, more than is needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment bill. So, no one in the US Senate can get credit for anything other than clear super majority passage of this bill. This bill died in the US House of Representatives, because of House Republicans, the failure of the bill had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone in the US Senate, not Cruz or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Judy

Are you saying Republicans would have? No need to answer that because everyone that's been in this game awhile knows the answer is YES, YES, YES.

That's what Rubio exposed on Cruz and unfortunately, Sessions jumped into it and unintentionally proved the point. In 2013, they weren't against the bill because of the harm illegal immigration and excess immigration were causing Americans, they were against the bill because it would in their minds have added more Democrats to the voting rolls. That's why we have this problem. It's about politics, and elections, and Senators running for President, it's not about what's best for American citizens, American workers and American taxpayers, it's about their own political aspirations.

And you have to remember, S 744 passed the US Senate 68 to 32 and there were only 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and 2 Independents. S 744 passed the US Senate with more than a 2/3 majority vote, more than is needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment bill. So, no one in the US Senate can get credit for anything other than clear super majority passage of this bill. This bill died in the US House of Representatives, because of House Republicans, the failure of the bill had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone in the US Senate, not Cruz or anyone else.

Without Democrat support the bill couldn't have passed. Sen. Cruz, along with everyone else knew this.