But when you compare what USA Today reported with the bipartisan principles Rubio signed onto earlier this year, there is not much difference between the two plans. Both plans “repeats the failures” of an amnesty-for-enforcement framework. Both plans create “a special pathway that puts those who broke our immigration laws at an advantage over those who chose to do things the right way and come here legally.” USA Today had no details on how Obama’s bill would “address guest workers or future flow,” but the principles Rubio signed were exceedingly vague on that subject too.

The only real difference between Obama and Rubio appears to be whether or not a border security “trigger” should be met before those here illegally now could become citizens. But even this is not that big a deal. White House spokesman Josh Earnest has already admitted that while Obama does not prefer a trigger, he will sign a bill that contains one.