About that “Rubio said something different on Univision” charge

posted at 10:01 am on February 16, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

One of the more volatile moments from Saturday night’s WWE cage match, er… Republican debate which didn’t directly involve Donald Trump, was when Ted Cruz accused Marco Rubio of telling the mainstream media one thing on immigration while whispering something else to Hispanic voters en Espanol on Univision. Rubio quickly turned around with a scathing response, saying that Cruz wouldn’t know what he said since he didn’t speak Spanish. (Washington Post)

Cruz refused, saying something that lots of Texas Republicans seemed to like: Most people don’t speak Spanish. The goal was probably to throw the championship debater, Cruz, off his game, but also to associate Cruz with a particularly modern kind of alleged cultural failing. Cruz’s opponent knew that might have meaning in a state with a lot of Latino voters.

That WaPo analysis immediately went down into the weeds, seeking some sort of cultural division which could be played up into a running theme of the GOP being out of touch with minority voters. But what of the original charge? Is it true that Rubio has been literally saying one thing in Spanish and another in American? (I’ve lately come to prefer saying American rather than “English” since the languages have diverged so much.) Because if that’s true, it seems like a significantly bigger story than whether or not any of the candidates are bilingual.

Julia Hahn had a piece covering this question a couple of days ago and it certainly seems to support Cruz’s version of events. Since words matter in a campaign, it’s important to remember exactly what Cruz alleged during the debate. He said, “Marco went on Univision in Spanish and said he would not rescind President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office.”

So is it true?

It is perhaps bizarre that Rubio would now try to deny the existence of this exchange, since Rubio’s campaign– in an on-the-record interview with Breitbart News — confirmed the Univision translation of Rubio’s comments.

According to the Univision transcript, Rubio said in Spanish:

Well, DACA 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.

I got the impression from Rubio supporters in the aftermath of all this that he didn’t say he would never end DACA or other mandates from President Obama on immigration, but that this was instead a matter of timing. (It’s a popular theme among politicians who are trying to dance on both sides of a coin.) But this sounds like something else entirely, at least looking at how the transcript reads. He clearly seems to be saying (en Espanol) that yes, DACA will need to end, but preferably only because it’s been replaced by some comprehensive immigration reform plan which gets passed into law. That is very, very different from the position taken not only by Cruz, but by Trump and others hoping for the nomination, who have said that they would use the power of Executive Authority to roll back any amnesty programs on day one.

Who came out on top in this one? It’s tough to argue that Cruz didn’t come off with the upper ground. I can recall a time more than a year ago when I was doing some media hit and was asked what the biggest anchor around Jeb Bush’s neck might be in a potential presidential run. Back then it was a combination of immigration and Common Core. It looks like at least half of that particular virus was spreading all over Florida and it’s come back to bite Marco Rubio as well.

RubioDebate


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

stop pushing for the anti-usa beta male runt

Pragmatic on February 16, 2016 at 10:05 AM

Still no FB??

Is it April 1 on Planet Clueless?

Maddie on February 16, 2016 at 10:05 AM

It’s very simple. If Rubio wants to rebut the charge by Cruz that he’s a two-faced liar, simply state unequivocally that he’ll reverse Obama’s executive orders on amnesty on Day 1, no exceptions. If he can’t do that, then Cruz is right.

Doughboy on February 16, 2016 at 10:07 AM

DACA will need to end, but preferably only because it’s been replaced by some comprehensive immigration reform plan which gets passed into law.

I don’t see how that’s somehow less damaging than what Cruz said. We all know that “comprehensive immigration reform” is code for amnesty. How exactly should we interpret it if not that?

Ukiah on February 16, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Facebook in 3, 2, 1….eh…no.

Oil Can on February 16, 2016 at 10:09 AM

I don’t know what debate the writer was watching, but the one I watched made Cruz look like an immature fool.

BettyRuth on February 16, 2016 at 10:10 AM

Since Jazz respects us enough to read the comments…

Jeb! forgot to renew jebbush.com. Trump bought the domain. Guess where it redirects?

Valiant on February 16, 2016 at 10:11 AM

I’ve lately come to prefer saying American rather than “English” since the languages have diverged so much.

Heh. I’ve made that same joke with some of my British friends and colleagues.

flipflop on February 16, 2016 at 10:12 AM

DACA will need to end, but preferably only because it’s been replaced by some comprehensive immigration reform plan which gets passed into law.

Very next question in the interview:
“But then, to clarify, you would end DACA once immigration reform is approved. But what happens, Senator, if there is no immigration reform? Would you cancel DACA anyway?”
Rubio’s answer (still in Spanish):
“At some point it’s going to have to end. That is, it cannot continue to be the permanent policy of the United States.”
I would say I’m surprised that anyone would use Breitbart on this since they screwed up the translation originally, but since Jazz and Allah have been shilling for Cruz I’m not surprised. Because here is the really funny thing, Cruz said “illegal executive amnesty”. Last I checked, no one is challenging the original DACA order. That is the order that has given people permission that Rubio is talking about. Its the expansion of DACA to cover adults and DAPA that are the targets of court cases.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM

This isn’t the first time…

LYING TO CONSERVATIVE MEDIA

Rubio’s repeatedly stated reason for joining the Gang was to get the most conservative bill out of the Senate; the reality, however, was that Rubio sold Republican lawmakers on a bill radically to the left of McCain-Kennedy: a bill that granted instant legalization, doubled annual foreign worker admissions (a much larger increase than McCain-Kennedy), issued 30 million green cards, provided mass amnesty, expedited citizenship for DREAMers without an age cap, removed the limits on family-based migration, etc., etc. Rubio’s bill was supported by every single Senate Democrat, every single liberal house lawmaker, every progressive politician and group in the country, Nancy Pelosi, Luis Gutierrez, Harry Reid, La Raza, Center for American Progress, George Soros, and on and on. Of course the White House was the biggest champion.

Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him. His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.

The seminal moment of the media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He declared: “if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” Of course, we know there wasn’t any such language but he voted for it anyway. But this promise — and many others — and the calculated neutralization of conservative media, helped Schumer get 68 votes. But conservatives trusted Rubio. Limbaugh declared: “you are meeting everybody honestly.”

***snip***

DIFFERENT MESSAGE FOR SPANISH MEDIA

At the same time Rubio was pledging to conservatives his bill was enforcement first, Rubio had a different message in Spanish media. As Byron York reported:

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

“As for the legalization, the enormous majority of my colleagues have accepted that it has to happen and that it has to begin at the same time we begin the measures for [the border],” Rubio said. “It is not conditional. The legalization is not conditional.”

Of course, this presentation to Spanish media was accurate: the bill conferred immediate legal status on illegal immigrants that included work authorization, federal benefits, the ability to travel in and out of the country, immunity from deportation the second the bill was passed, and a path to citizenship.

Caught in the contradiction, Rubio had a new explanation for conservatives. Byron York writes again:

“Why is it necessary to legalize the roughly 11 million currently illegal immigrants in the U.S. before newly enhanced border security and internal enforcement measures are in place? Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Senate’s Gang of Eight, says part of the reason is that the federal government can’t afford to secure the border on its own and needs financial help from the immigrants themselves, in the form of fines paid when they are legalized.

“‘We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security,’ Rubio explained. ‘If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security.’”

TBBT on February 16, 2016 at 10:17 AM

Tedcruz.com goes to a link that says “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!” WTF

Valiant on February 16, 2016 at 10:18 AM

Jazz, any update on the switch to Facebook for comments? Or some meeting has been called to reconsider after the huge blowback from your faithful readers?

:)

TheRightMan on February 16, 2016 at 10:21 AM

Tedcruz.com goes to a link that says “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!” WTF

Valiant on February 16, 2016 at 10:18 AM

Dude! I thought you were joking.

ElectricPhase on February 16, 2016 at 10:21 AM

Valiant on February 16, 2016 at 10:18 AM

That’s because you aren’t at Ted Cruz’s site. tedcruz.org

Bmore on February 16, 2016 at 10:22 AM

And, speaking of “something different” … Trump is now praising obama’s DACA scheme …

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/699321932509024256

Just ANOTHER massive flip-flop from the most dishonest candidate running.

Pork-Chop on February 16, 2016 at 10:22 AM

End it on day one? Why does not Jazz follow through and tells us how can it be done on day one?

ojfltx on February 16, 2016 at 10:23 AM

That’s because you aren’t at Ted Cruz’s site. tedcruz.org

Bmore on February 16, 2016 at 10:22 AM

He was too cheap to buy the other domains with his name? Sheesh.

ElectricPhase on February 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM

I think some conservatives overestimate the unpopularity of immigration reform of some kind. Most Americans want to stop illegal immigration, but aren’t nearly so clear they want to send those already here back to where they come from. The reality is that most Americans know someone here illegally who is contributing to their communities in a positive way. Most Americans don’t round to round them up and send them back home like the Donald does. Of course he’ll let the good ones back. There is an easy compromise here It is the one that Ted Cruz offered which grants them legal status without giving them a pathway to citizenship. I’ve heard the argument that such an arrangement would ultimately fail because the Democrats would keep clamoring to give these people citizenship. The Dems are going to keep clamoring to give them citizenship whether or not an accommodation is provided to give some people legal status without providing a pathway to citizenship. The Republican answer has to be to keep blocking a pathway to citizenship for those who came here illegally.

The moment we decide to go full Trump and round people up to send them home is the moment such a policy would become unpopular as Americans saw their friends’ families split up and forced out. The liberal cries of injustice write themselves and will not ultimately be helpful to the cause of limited government. Better to get the border under control and an e-verify system mandated which will prevent future hiring of illegals while at the same time accommodating those who were invited in with a wink-wink by 30 years of both Republican and Democratic controlled governments.

Eventually all of those who came here illegally will die off. Their children will move up in society and we can convince them of the Republican arguments for limited government just like we have done with many of the children of 20th century Eastern European immigration. We can sell them the conservative message, but not if we act inhumanely in the present.

Bart Burk on February 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Apparently, Ed sent out an email saying that the switch over to FB is definitely happening SOMETIME today….

Indiana Jim on February 16, 2016 at 10:25 AM

Tedcruz.com goes to a link that says “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!” WTF

Valiant on February 16, 2016 at 10:18 AM

As it has for the last 8+ months – this was widely reported in the media. Ted Cruz’s site is TedCruz.org. Someone had purchased the .com site prior to Cruz launching his campaign.

Pork-Chop on February 16, 2016 at 10:25 AM

And, speaking of “something different” … Trump is now praising obama’s DACA scheme …

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/699321932509024256

Just ANOTHER massive flip-flop from the most dishonest candidate running.

Pork-Chop

Because he’s probably referring to the original DACA which is for people younger than 31 years old, not the expansion.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:26 AM

Indiana Jim on February 16, 2016 at 10:25 AM

But he lacks the courtesy to inform the users? It would be easier for him to just post their plans.

–gh

gh on February 16, 2016 at 10:27 AM

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM

The obvious point is that there is a real contrast between the candidates’ positions. Cruz is perhaps guilty of exaggerating the contrast in their overall positions, but Rubio is guilty of trying to pretend none exists.

Herod on February 16, 2016 at 10:27 AM

As it has for the last 8+ months – this was widely reported in the media. Ted Cruz’s site is TedCruz.org. Someone had purchased the .com site prior to Cruz launching his campaign.

Pork-Chop

If you google “Ted Cruz 2016” his .org site comes up first and no sight of the .com, least not on the first page of results.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:27 AM

So DACA, which was enacted in June 2012 (before the 2012 election against Romney), is a separate and different thing from Obama’s notorious Executive Amnesty right after the 2014 Midterms (DAPA), which is being challenged in court.

DACA covered perhaps 1.5M illegals and, to be eligible, you had to have come to the U.S. at under 16 years of age and been here for 5 years. It’s a problematic policy for many reasons, but any presidential candidate (maybe other than Trump) promising to repeal it on Day One stands very little chance of being elected.

DAPA was the big fat, notorious Executive Amnesty that we all remember. It is DAPA that is being seriously challenged in the courts. It affects potentially millions upon millions of illegals.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 10:30 AM

The obvious point is that there is a real contrast between the candidates’ positions. Cruz is perhaps guilty of exaggerating the contrast in their overall positions, but Rubio is guilty of trying to pretend none exists.

Herod

I would say they are both doing that once you factor in reality (also Cruz for acting like Rubio won’t cancel DAPA and DACA expansion). Whats the chance that if a President Cruz or Trump try to cancel the original DACA there will not be a lawsuit in front of an immigration friendly judge and possibly an injunction? I would say a good chance, which means its not ending on day 1.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:33 AM

I’m more interested in what Cruz said in Spanish that evening.

The Schaef on February 16, 2016 at 10:34 AM

Last I checked, no one is challenging the original DACA order.

Zaggs

And they should be. That no one is simply proves they really aren’t opposed to amnesty no matter how much any of them pretend they are.

But if DAPA is thrown out, DACA should be too. Obama doesn’t have the right to change immigration law for “dreamers” either. DACA is no different from DAPA. Can’t have it both ways. If he can change the law for one, he can do it for the other, and vice versa.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 10:34 AM

The story that Rubio said one thing in Spanish and another in English has been debunked.

Syzygy on February 16, 2016 at 10:36 AM

ElectricPhase on February 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Maybe, don’t know what transpired with the url. He is very frugal.

Bmore on February 16, 2016 at 10:36 AM

I’m more interested in what Cruz said in Spanish that evening.

The Schaef on February 16, 2016 at 10:34 AM

I read Cruz said, “We can do this in Spanish if you’d like” or something to that effect.

Bmore on February 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM

I left Politico when they went Full Zuckerberg.
I’ll leave Hot Air when they go Full Zukerberg.

Anyone have recommendations for a good site?

Never go Full Zukerberg.

crash72 on February 16, 2016 at 10:39 AM

DAPA was the big fat, notorious Executive Amnesty that we all remember. It is DAPA that is being seriously challenged in the courts. It affects potentially millions upon millions of illegals.

AmerigoChattin

Unless I missed something it is DAPA and the expansion of DACA (changing from entering before 2007 to 2010, removing the 31 YO age limit) that is the target of the 26(?) states against the admin that the 5th circuit issues an injunction against. The original DACA is not targeted in the lawsuit.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Whats the chance that if a President Cruz or Trump try to cancel the original DACA there will not be a lawsuit in front of an immigration friendly judge and possibly an injunction? I would say a good chance, which means its not ending on day 1.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:33 AM

DACA is a policy, not a law. And it runs counter to actual law. So a judges’s injunction would not be legally binding and could simply be ignored.

db on February 16, 2016 at 10:39 AM

The obvious point is that there is a real contrast between the candidates’ positions. Cruz is perhaps guilty of exaggerating the contrast in their overall positions, but Rubio is guilty of trying to pretend none exists.

Herod

I would say they are both doing that once you factor in reality (also Cruz for acting like Rubio won’t cancel DAPA and DACA expansion). Whats the chance that if a President Cruz or Trump try to cancel the original DACA there will not be a lawsuit in front of an immigration friendly judge and possibly an injunction? I would say a good chance, which means its not ending on day 1.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:33 AM

Agree with all this.

A candidate saying he will cancel the original DACA is just grandstanding. If the original DACA was that upsetting, then the GOP should have been all over it not only in the 2012 Presidential race, but also in the 2014 Midterms.

Instead, silence.

Cruz was always against the original DACA, but he never sought to shut down the government over it, and for good reason: it’s political suicide.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 10:42 AM

DAPA was the big fat, notorious Executive Amnesty that we all remember. It is DAPA that is being seriously challenged in the courts. It affects potentially millions upon millions of illegals.

AmerigoChattin

Unless I missed something it is DAPA and the expansion of DACA (changing from entering before 2007 to 2010, removing the 31 YO age limit) that is the target of the 26(?) states against the admin that the 5th circuit issues an injunction against. The original DACA is not targeted in the lawsuit.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:39 AM

That is correct.

What Rubio said on Univision was in reference to the original DACA.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 10:43 AM

But if DAPA is thrown out, DACA should be too. Obama doesn’t have the right to change immigration law for “dreamers” either. DACA is no different from DAPA. Can’t have it both ways. If he can change the law for one, he can do it for the other, and vice versa.

xblade

Well the stated purpose of DACA by Obama (yes I know, stop laughing), is to cover children who did not choose to break the law but who were “forcibly” brought here by their parents (which of course means they would be younger than 22 when brought here, but I digress). So does the executive branch have the power to defer prosecution of those they have a reasonable belief did not willfully commit a crime? In a general sense I would yes. Do I actually think thats what Obama believes? In a general and specific sense, no. Of course this line of thought would not cover the expansion of DACA nor DAPA.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:44 AM

Crash72. Hotgas.net we will all b over there.

Indiana Jim on February 16, 2016 at 10:44 AM

Last I checked, no one is challenging the original DACA order.

Zaggs

And they should be. That no one is simply proves they really aren’t opposed to amnesty no matter how much any of them pretend they are.

But if DAPA is thrown out, DACA should be too. Obama doesn’t have the right to change immigration law for “dreamers” either. DACA is no different from DAPA. Can’t have it both ways. If he can change the law for one, he can do it for the other, and vice versa.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 10:34 AM

You are 100% correct on legal/constitutional principle.

But the political realities are just different.

Even Ted Cruz was scared away from doing anything aggressive on the original DACA.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 10:46 AM

For a little of Adam Smith, go to

http://www.tlgte.com

esblowfeld on February 16, 2016 at 10:48 AM

Well the stated purpose of DACA by Obama (yes I know, stop laughing), is to cover children who did not choose to break the law but who were “forcibly” brought here by their parents (which of course means they would be younger than 22 when brought here, but I digress). So does the executive branch have the power to defer prosecution of those they have a reasonable belief did not willfully commit a crime? In a general sense I would yes. Do I actually think thats what Obama believes? In a general and specific sense, no. Of course this line of thought would not cover the expansion of DACA nor DAPA.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 10:44 AM

The argument for a policy of deferred prosecutorial action on “innocent” transgressors at least presents a better argument for a valid, constitutional use of executive power.

At the end of the day, I’m not sure that the original DACA would be upheld by an appellate court; but the argument is stronger there. And the GOP never seriously sought to challenge it.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 10:50 AM

Jeb! forgot to renew jebbush.com. Trump bought the domain. Guess where it redirects?

That’s pretty hilarious. And no, I still don’t have any updates on the Facebook thing. Will let you know when I do.

Jazz Shaw on February 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM

So DACA, which was enacted in June 2012 (before the 2012 election against Romney), is a separate and different thing from Obama’s notorious Executive Amnesty right after the 2014 Midterms (DAPA), which is being challenged in court.

DACA covered perhaps 1.5M illegals and, to be eligible, you had to have come to the U.S. at under 16 years of age and been here for 5 years. It’s a problematic policy for many reasons, but any presidential candidate (maybe other than Trump) promising to repeal it on Day One stands very little chance of being elected.

DAPA was the big fat, notorious Executive Amnesty that we all remember. It is DAPA that is being seriously challenged in the courts. It affects potentially millions upon millions of illegals.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 10:30 AM

This is a pretty big distinction. Thanks for clarifying.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on February 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM

Pork-Chop on February 16, 2016 at 10:22 AM

This comment epitomizes “Trump Derangement Syndrome” at its most profound level; Trump does not support DACA.

If anyone wants to know the truth, here is what Trump said about “dreamers,” video included.

texacalirose on February 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM

Remarkable rubio (now all in lower case) is on the rise. Until you consider 0 was elected twice.

Bmore on February 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM

en Espanol, por favor

If you can’t type the ñ, then español is spelled espannol.

Tzetzes on February 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM

Jeb! forgot to renew jebbush.com. Trump bought the domain. Guess where it redirects?

Valiant on February 16, 2016 at 10:11 AM

This might be the strongest argument yet for not voting for Jeb!, and voting for DJT.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM

Tzetzes on February 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM

And I should care …. because?

OldEnglish on February 16, 2016 at 11:02 AM

This comment epitomizes “Trump Derangement Syndrome” at its most profound level; Trump does not support DACA.

If anyone wants to know the truth, here is what Trump said about “dreamers,” video included.

texacalirose on February 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM

DACA has been in place since June 2012.

Did DJT say anything about DACA or the ‘Dreamers’ before he announced for President?

There were two whole election cycles for everyone to be complaining about DACA. Cruz did complain, but he never took any action. No serious legal challenges were mounted.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 11:05 AM

Eventually all of those who came here illegally will die off. Their children will move up in society and we can convince them of the Republican arguments for limited government just like we have done with many of the children of 20th century Eastern European immigration. We can sell them the conservative message, but not if we act inhumanely in the present.

Bart Burk on February 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Dream on, or stop smoking that stuff!

tomshup on February 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM

And I should care … because?

OldEnglish on February 16, 2016 at 11:02 AM

Well, judging from your handle, I’d say you have an appreciation for language?

Tzetzes on February 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM

texacalirose on February 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM

REPORTER: “There are over 100,000 young people known as dreamers who have deferred action given to them. What should they expect?”

TRUMP: “I think it’s great.

Pork-Chop on February 16, 2016 at 11:13 AM

Well the stated purpose of DACA by Obama (yes I know, stop laughing), is to cover children who did not choose to break the law but who were “forcibly” brought here by their parents (which of course means they would be younger than 22 when brought here, but I digress).

Zaggs

In other words, they are here illegally under current immigration law. He does not have the power to rewrite immigration laws.

So does the executive branch have the power to defer prosecution of those they have a reasonable belief did not willfully commit a crime? In a general sense I would yes.

Zaggs

He does not have the power to give them work permits and legal status. That’s what DACA does.

But the political realities are just different.

Even Ted Cruz was scared away from doing anything aggressive on the original DACA.

AmerigoChattin

No the political realities aren’t different. That’s just more of the sort of special pleading we always get from amnesty shills. Ted wasn’t scared away from anything. Ted is fine with amnesty. That’s why he didn’t touch it. Pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 11:17 AM

The argument for a policy of deferred prosecutorial action on “innocent” transgressors at least presents a better argument for a valid, constitutional use of executive power.

At the end of the day, I’m not sure that the original DACA would be upheld by an appellate court; but the argument is stronger there. And the GOP never seriously sought to challenge it.

AmerigoChattin

True it may not be granted constitutional by an appellate court. But I’m thinking with the stronger argument, some judge shopping, its going to be at least a year (and far from day 1) before its found unconstitutional at best. Course during that year the media will find the youngest that qualify for DACA (or even younger ones that do not) and broadcast their sob stories to affect opinion which might drag things out even longer.

Zaggs on February 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM

DACA covered perhaps 1.5M illegals and, to be eligible, you had to have come to the U.S. at under 16 years of age and been here for 5 years. It’s a problematic policy for many reasons, but any presidential candidate (maybe other than Trump) promising to repeal it on Day One stands very little chance of being elected.

AmerigoChattin

Like I said, typical special pleading we get from amnesty shills.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 11:20 AM

But the political realities are just different.

Even Ted Cruz was scared away from doing anything aggressive on the original DACA.

AmerigoChattin

No the political realities aren’t different. That’s just more of the sort of special pleading we always get from amnesty shills. Ted wasn’t scared away from anything. Ted is fine with amnesty. That’s why he didn’t touch it. Pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 11:17 AM

I don’t get it.

You say “the political realities aren’t different,” and then the very next thing is that Ted Cruz was scared away.

That’s pretty much the definition of political realities.

In the past two election cycles — both after the original DACA was implemented — what politician has stood up to the original DACA?

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Tzetzes on February 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM

Only English, in its proper form. In an English-speaking country, other languages are of no concern to me – nor should they be.

OldEnglish on February 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM

Pork-Chop on February 16, 2016 at 11:13 AM

Context. Try it.

If one listens to Trump’s entire statement and still states that Trump supports DACA, then that person has diagnosable Trump Derangment Syndrome.

texacalirose on February 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM

Any attempt to analyze this has to acknowledge the difference between DACA and DAPA. It seems to me that Cruz is the one trying to conflate the two.

JohnJ on February 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM

Only English, in its proper form. In an English-speaking country, other languages are of no concern to me – nor should they be.

OldEnglish on February 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM

I like your furniture polish.

phadras on February 16, 2016 at 11:31 AM

You say “the political realities aren’t different,” and then the very next thing is that Ted Cruz was scared away.

That’s pretty much the definition of political realities.

In the past two election cycles — both after the original DACA was implemented — what politician has stood up to the original DACA?

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 11:23 AM

there are 2 sets of political realities.

There is what the voters want. That is one political reality that has to be taken into account. And voters are overwhelmingly against giving illegals any form of legal status. Pollsters use all kinds of trick questions to undermine this reality, but every fairly honest poll, plus the GOP primary, and the outrage when they tried to ram amnesty down our throats – shows what the truth is.

The second political reality is that the money that supports the GOP/DNC uni-party desperately want amnesty and essentially an open border (i.e., no real enforcement).

It is far easier to lie to and trick the voters than the money people. Therefore, the politicians have time and again lied on this issue. That’s why, for instance, Cruz has been dishonest on this issue just as much as Rubio. I don’t like him, but I’ll give Bush credit where it is due – he has been very honest about being an amnesty supporter.

But, this primary season it is becoming harder for them to get away with lying about it. Let’s hope we make it impossible for them to get away with.

Monkeytoe on February 16, 2016 at 11:34 AM

Eventually all of those who came here illegally will die off. Their children will move up in society and we can convince them of the Republican arguments for limited government just like we have done with many of the children of 20th century Eastern European immigration. We can sell them the conservative message, but not if we act inhumanely in the present.

Bart Burk o

No doubt. Just like we’ve done with black people, lol.

Dude, the party doesn’t even believe that, you included. Half of the republican party can’t even be convinced to buy into limited government, which most republican politicians don’t even believe in themselves. And stop with the “inhumanely” bleeding heart liberal crap. We have immigration laws on the books, and there’s nothing inhumane about expecting people to abide by them or punishing when they don’t. We ship millions of Americans off to prison if they don’t follow the law and no one says boo, so stop claiming it’s inhumane to enforce the laws against illegal aliens.

Republicans are without a doubt the dumbest motherf’s around. Folks, it’s time stop pretending the democrat party is the problem.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM

I don’t get it.

You say “the political realities aren’t different,” and then the very next thing is that Ted Cruz was scared away.

No wonder you’re confused about political realities. You can’t even comprehend simple English apparently.

Ted wasn’t scared away from anything. Ted is fine with amnesty. That’s why he didn’t touch it. Pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.

xblade

Or maybe you’re just be dishonest like amnesty shills always are. The only one who said Cruz was scared away is you.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 11:39 AM

being, not be.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 11:39 AM

In the past two election cycles — both after the original DACA was implemented — what politician has stood up to the original DACA?

AmerigoChattin

None. And I quite clearly explained why in an earlier post.

Last I checked, no one is challenging the original DACA order.

Zaggs

And they should be. That no one is simply proves they really aren’t opposed to amnesty no matter how much any of them pretend they are.

xblade

They haven’t left it untouched because they’re afraid of the issue. They WANT AMNESTY, and this is an easy one to make excuses for….just like you’re doing.

xblade on February 16, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Bart Burk on February 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM

The Republicans are political cowards. She should have done some immigration reform when they got the House, instead they bailed out on it because they were afraid of losing the 2012 election, which they did anyway.

Hispanics want immigration reform, to protect the jobs they have now. THe REpublicans are stupid.

bflat879 on February 16, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Stop the lies! Rubio has said all along, border security first! Then immigration reform. He has said and stand by it, that illegals who break the law get deported, if you pay your taxes then pay a fine and be legal but NOT a citizen.

soapyjeans on February 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM

Does Rubio even understand Spanish? He certainly had a blank look on his face and didn’t reply to Cruz’s question about continuing the debate in Spanish. Don’t suppose that just because his mother and father were from Cuba that he automatically speaks the language and there is a difference in the language from country to country. If you’re from Cuba, you can make out what Mexicans are saying but it’s not exactly the same.

Kissmygrits on February 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM

There is an easy compromise here It is the one that Ted Cruz offered which grants them legal status without giving them a pathway to citizenship.

Bart Burk on February 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Cruz offered that amendment as a poison pill to stop Rubio’s Gang of Eight amnesty. He’s not pushing it now.

Legal status would absolutely become a path to citizenship because we would be under great pressure to resist having a second class of people within our borders.

NbyNW on February 16, 2016 at 12:48 PM

Stop the lies! Rubio has said all along, border security first! Then immigration reform. He has said and stand by it, that illegals who break the law get deported, if you pay your taxes then pay a fine and be legal but NOT a citizen.

soapyjeans on February 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM

Immigration reform is the politically correct term for amnesty.

NbyNW on February 16, 2016 at 12:50 PM

The story that Rubio said one thing in Spanish and another in English has been debunked.

Syzygy on February 16, 2016 at 10:36 AM

I read this, and it just confirms what Jazz wrote. There’s no debunking.

NbyNW on February 16, 2016 at 12:54 PM

It’s unfortunate (and indicative of a bias that is unacknowledged) that both Shaw and Hahn reflexively jump to a conclusion that Rubio lied. First, a very reasonable interpretation of Rubio’s Unavision comments (given in both Spanish and English, rendering Cruz’ allegation inaccurate) is that it would be improper to immediately void existing deferred actions. In other words, there are those who acted in accordance with what they understood the law to be (wrong though they might have been), registered and received the Obama administration’s deferral status. Even though the President’s action was unlawful, that does not mean those who received deferrals should be rounded up and deported. This is especially true when the particular individual who has received the deferral is not himself a lawbreaker but is someone who was brought to the U.S. as a child. Frankly, I seriously doubt that Cruz would order immediate arrest and deportation of such an individual. So, Rubio reasonably could hold the position that he will immediately rescind Obama’s executive order initiating DACA while also not immediately revoking the pseudo legal status of those who acted in reliance on the executive order.

Second, Hahn states without citation that Cruz accurately stated the Rubio favors immediately granting citizenship tot the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. Yet neither Hahn nor Cruz gave any source supporting this allegation, and my understanding is that not even the Gang of 8 bill was claimed to provide citizenship to all illegal immigrants.

matt curtis on February 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM

Just last week Rubio said illegal immigrants with less than 3 criminal convictions will be allowed to stay.

Identity theft is given amnesty under Rubio’s plan.

This Rubio guy is absolutely insane.

TAARP on February 16, 2016 at 1:23 PM

Can we please all be at least a little intellectually honest? There is no such thing as an illegal alien that “hasn’t broken the law”. They have ALL broken the law, and continually do so every second they are here.

Side note: this could very well be my last comment in Hot Gas. It’s been real, compadres.

Darksean on February 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM

there are 2 sets of political realities.

There is what the voters want. That is one political reality that has to be taken into account. And voters are overwhelmingly against giving illegals any form of legal status. Pollsters use all kinds of trick questions to undermine this reality, but every fairly honest poll, plus the GOP primary, and the outrage when they tried to ram amnesty down our throats – shows what the truth is.

The second political reality is that the money that supports the GOP/DNC uni-party desperately want amnesty and essentially an open border (i.e., no real enforcement).

It is far easier to lie to and trick the voters than the money people. Therefore, the politicians have time and again lied on this issue. That’s why, for instance, Cruz has been dishonest on this issue just as much as Rubio. I don’t like him, but I’ll give Bush credit where it is due – he has been very honest about being an amnesty supporter.

But, this primary season it is becoming harder for them to get away with lying about it. Let’s hope we make it impossible for them to get away with.

Monkeytoe on February 16, 2016 at 11:34 AM

And you honestly believe that the majority of American voters want to do away with the original DACA?

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM

Just last week Rubio said illegal immigrants with less than 3 criminal convictions will be allowed to stay.

TAARP on February 16, 2016 at 1:23 PM

Link please.

AmerigoChattin on February 16, 2016 at 1:49 PM

Then why did he apologize for it?

According to the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, Rubio told Hannity that he “probably should have been more artful in the use of terms” when he claimed on Univision to a Spanish-speaking audience that the bill first legalizes America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants, then provides for increased border security after.

“Let’s be clear, nobody is talking about preventing the legalization,” Rubio said on Univision on Sunday. “The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: first comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

Rubio went on to say during that Univision interview that such “legalization” measures in this bill are “not conditional.

LilyBart on February 16, 2016 at 1:51 PM

Rubio on Gang of 8:

“When I initially got involved in this effort in December of last year, I initially said let’s make sure everything, including that first step, is conditioned on the border and all these other things,” Rubio said. “Here’s the problem with that: Let’s say that it takes four years to do the border plan. What do we do with the millions of people that are here illegally in the meantime? Do we just ignore them?

Hannity seemed skeptical. “Why wouldn’t it be better to just secure the border first totally and then move forward with dealing with the 11 million people or so that are in the country illegally?”

“That’s how I felt at the beginning, too,” Rubio answered, “The problem I encountered is what do I do in the meantime — ”

“How about nothing?” Hannity interjected.

Rubio again explained that he believes the issue of the 11 million has to be addressed first.

LilyBart on February 16, 2016 at 1:59 PM

I’m more interested in what Cruz said in Spanish that evening.

The Schaef on February 16, 2016 at 10:34 AM

Does Rubio even understand Spanish? He certainly had a blank look on his face and didn’t reply to Cruz’s question about continuing the debate in Spanish. Don’t suppose that just because his mother and father were from Cuba that he automatically speaks the language and there is a difference in the language from country to country. If you’re from Cuba, you can make out what Mexicans are saying but it’s not exactly the same.

Kissmygrits on February 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM

Cruz said, “Marco, si quieres, dicelo ahora. Ahora mismo dicelo, ahora. En Espanol. Si quieres.”

Which means, “Marco, if you want, say it now. Right now say it, now. In Spanish. If you want.”

I was very surprised because I had read Cruz didn’t speak Spanish.

He spoke it perfectly and with a beautiful accent. Much prettier accent than Rubio has.

Rubio speaks Spanish fluently and has a big vocabulary. Cruz probably doesn’t have as good a vocabulary. But his accent is great. Rubio drops his “s” ‘s like some Cubans do. Cruz’s Cuban father doesn’t do that. He also has a nice accent.

My parents are from Spain. I have Cuban second cousins. I can be understood everywhere I go and have a good accent, but like Cruz, I don’t have the vocabulary to talk politics, philosophy, science, etc. My accent is Castilian Spanish, like English from England.

Just like we can understand most English speaking people, if a Scot talks fast, we may have a problem understanding.

Elisa on February 16, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Elisa on February 16, 2016 at 3:17 PM

and Cruz is right about Rubio. Rubio said, “it’s going to take time” and he said, “God willing it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass.”

Which means: NEVER end or end after a LONG TIME.

Either you do it immediately, at least in some form, from day one or it doesn’t get done.

Elisa on February 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM

Check this out, the Rubio jerks are now pushing a Cruz/Rubio run.

Cruz is the anti-Punk, or so all the Cruzers told us.

This season is way better than Christmas.

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2016 at 5:09 PM

God damned liars by omission. See the big fat liar, Pork Chop.

Here is the full segment, you swine.

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2016 at 5:18 PM

Pork Chop, you were a Liar before, but now you are fully exposed as the biggest fat pig of HA.

Listen to this until you dummy head falls off, you deceiving hyena.

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2016 at 5:20 PM

your dummy head

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2016 at 5:20 PM

The traitorous punk

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2016 at 5:22 PM

So Rubio is a robot, repeats the same words over and over… only when he says the same thing differently that is lying.

Rubio will not get rid of the executive order on day one… but will do it in a way that is fair to the people who relied on the President of the United States when he made them a promise.

Cruz would break the word of the United States of America. Because he lies easily and the ends justify the means.

And Trump will do anything he darn well pleases and we better not dare bring up his own words to him or he is going to sue us all.

petunia on February 16, 2016 at 5:38 PM

Rubio lies, bilingually, and without a prompter, but the same as does obama.

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2016 at 6:33 PM