Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is a member of the Senate’s pro-amnesty Gang of Eight. But for some time he has tried to present himself as an honest broker on immigration, one who would make sure that an amnesty bill would guarantee effective enforcement. Rubio has been particularly active in trying to enlist conservative Republicans to support amnesty.
Fact Check: Rubio has shown little real commitment to immigration law enforcement in his career. As a Florida legislator, he was unsupportive of legislation in that state to deal with illegal immigration, and he expressed general opposition to the concept of states taking action to do so.
During his campaign for U.S. Senate, Rubio stated that he opposed amnesty for illegal aliens. Nevertheless, after his election he appointed Cesar Conda as his chief of staff. Conda has long opposed measures to curtail illegal immigration.
Sen. Rubio says his support for the Gang’s bill is not inconsistent with his no-amnesty pledge. He does so by claiming that it really isn’t an amnesty because it would impose fines and other requirements on applicants before they can qualify. This is the same old dodge that amnesty supporters have used for years because they know that the word “amnesty” has negative connotations associated with the first mass legalization of illegal aliens in 1986 and its record of failure.
But this claim has no credibility, as pointed out by Former Attorney General Edwin Meese who served under Ronald Reagan when the 1986 law passed. That legislation, he noted, also had fines and other requirements for applicants. Yet no one denies it was an amnesty, and it is so defined in Black’s Law Dictionary. Amnesty is allowing illegal aliens, through whatever process, to become legal residents. Rubio is for it—and probably always has been.
One of Sen. Rubio’s lead selling points to conservatives, after openly backing legalization, was that he would not support a bill which didn’t ensure effective border control before legalization. But the bill proposed by the Gang essentially offers only a promise to control the border at some future date before allowing illegal aliens to stay. That promise no doubt would prove just as worthless as the promise of enforcement made in the 1986 law. Rubio, despite his former pledge, continues to support the bill.
Something else he pledged would not support the Gang’s bill if the Senate refused to take time to consider its provisions carefully. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, has promised to ram it though with “all deliberate speed.” Rubio has protested, but doesn’t seem inclined to drop his support.
One further indication of where Rubio’s heart may truly lie is that recently he’s begun to use the term “undocumented” to refer to illegal immigrants. Opponents of immigration law enforcement use it because they don’t really believe that immigration laws should matter. Conservatives shouldn’t follow Rubio’s lead because he is truly misleading them.