Senator Marco Rubio appeared of Fox News Sunday to begin the sale of the gang of eight immigration plan to America. One part of the discussion was particularly disturbing:
WALLACE: All right. Let’s go back to the border, though, just as an example. You say it’s a trigger, the number, 90 percent apprehension rate has to be certified by the Department of Homeland Security before the 11 million illegals, a decade from now, can begin to apply for green cards.
But the Democrats on your “Gang of 8”, including Dick Durbin, who will be on in the next segment, saying, no, it’s not a trigger. It’s just a goal that they have to be working towards.
Now, is it a trigger that has to be met or is it a goal?take our poll - story continues below
RUBIO: Yes. Let me tell you why it’s a trigger because, basically, homeland security will have five years to meet that goal. If after five years, Homeland Security has not met that number, it will trigger the Border Commission who will then take over this issue for them. So, they’ll have five years to get it done. They have to create these two plans — a fence plan, there has to be a fence component to this, and a border security plan.
And if at the five-year mark, they have not achieved that 90 percent or 100 percent, then they lose the issue to the Border Commission who has money set aside so they can finish the job and they can get to that number.
And then, of course, understand that it also includes as part of the trigger, E-Verify, universal, and entry/exit. All three things have to happen, and they all three work together to ensure that this is the most effective enforcement system that this country has ever had, if we can get it done.
Let me tell you why its a trigger? Is it a trigger or not? After five years if the 90% is not met its turned over the border commission. What happens if the border commission doesn’t fix the problem? Senator Rubio neglects to answer that question?
I first met Marco Rubio at CPAC in 2010 when he was still a wide-eyed candidate who had no chance of winning the GOP nomination. That Marco Rubio was a “different” kind of politician, who looked in your eye and meant what he said.
Rubio said November’s midterm elections would be “a referendum on the
very identity of our nation.The issues are so big, so consequential, so
generational, that many of the old rules of political engagement will
Its incredible how two and a half years in Washington DC can change someone. Based on his answer to Chris Wallace those “old rules of political engagement” especially the part about giving spin instead of are alive and living in Marco Rubio’s office.