Background:

Rubio And Cruz: Two Sides Of The Same Coin On Immigration

Repeal DACA

September 2014: Cruz Called For Using “Any And All Means” To End DACA.  According to the Huffington Post, “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Tuesday fed speculation he might try to force a government shutdown in an effort to end deportation relief for young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. ‘I think we should use any and all means necessary to prevent the president from illegally granting amnesty,’ Cruz told reporters at a press conference, adding it would be ‘appropriate’ to include a measure ending the relief policy, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA), in an upcoming continuing resolution to fund the government.” [Huffington Post, 9/9/14]

NBC News: Marco Rubio: DACA Must End With or Without Immigration Reform.According to NBC News, “GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio said Wednesday in New Hampshire the deportation deferral program that has allowed hundreds of thousands of youngimmigrants to stay and work in the country has to end with or without immigration reform legislation. Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, made the comment about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program in response to a reporter’s question while campaigning in the early primary state. “DACA is going to end and the ideal way for it to end is that it’s replaced by a reform system that creates an alternative,” Rubio said while in Manchester, N.H. “But if it doesn’t, it will end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States.” [NBC News, 11/4/15]

Oppose Comprehensive Reform

November 2015: Cruz Said He “Led The Fight” Against The Comprehensive Immigration Reform. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Cruz was asked Wednesday night by a reporter in Kingston N.H., if there was still a distinction between his position on immigration and Mr. Rubio’s. ‘It is not complicated,’ Mr. Cruz said, then paused before adding, ‘that on the seminal fight over amnesty in Congress, the Gang of Eight bill that was the brainchild of Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama, that would have granted amnesty to 12 million people here illegally, that I stood with the American people and led the fight to defeat it in the United States Congress.’ Mr. Cruz said: ‘In my view, if Republicans nominate for president a candidate who supports amnesty, we will have given up one of the major distinctions with Hillary Clinton and we will lose the general election. That is a path to losing. ‘And part of the reason the debate last night was so productive is you started to see clear, meaningful policy distinctions, not just between what people say on the campaign trail. Talk’s cheap. But between their records. When the fight was being fought, where did you stand? That speaks volumes about who you are and where you will stand in the future. And we’re entering the phase now in the presidential race where primary voters are starting to examine the records of the candidates.’” [New York Times, 11/11/15]

Rubio Noted That The “Time Has Passed” To Present A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Similar To The 2013 Gang Of Eight Proposal. According to Fusion, “Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) said Friday that the ‘time has passed’ to put forth a comprehensive immigration bill like the one he co-sponsored in 2013. Rubio said President Obama ‘poisoned the debate’ onimmigration when he extended deportation relief to an estimated five million undocumented immigrants in November and that a rapid influx of Central American families and children at the U.S.-Mexico border last summer has eroded public confidence in the federal immigration enforcement. ‘The only responsible way to move forward is to first and foremost secure our immigration system,’ Rubio said at the National Review Institute’s Ideas Summit in Washington, D.C. ‘If we do not do that, we won’t have the political support to move forward.’” [Fusion, 5/1/15]

Oppose The Dream Act

Cruz Opposed The DREAM Act. According to PolitiFact, “Let’s start with how Cruz, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, stands on the cited act. We didn’t have to look far. In a transcribed interview with blogger Sonja Harris of Conservatives in Action that Cruz has on his campaign website, the candidate says: ‘I do not support the DREAM Act and categorically oppose amnesty. I categorically oppose amnesty, and I strongly support legal immigration for those that have followed the rules and come here to pursue the American dream.’” [PolitiFact, 2/21/12]

November 2010: Rubio Opposed The DREAM Act. According to St. Petersburg Times, “Senator elect Marco Rubio may not have to vote on a controversial immigration bill that could come before Congress in the lame duck session, but said he is opposed to the legislation. His stance is at odds with other Republican lawmakers from South Florida. ‘As I’ve said before, obviously there are children who are brought here by their parents when they were very young, illegally, but who are high academic achievers or want to serve in the Armed Forces and we should figure out a way to accommodate children in that specific situation,’ Rubio said in an interview. ‘But the DREAM Act, as I have read it, goes well beyond that. It’s much broader and is not the right approach to that issue. In fact, it makes having a legal immigration system that works harder to accomplish. I have the same position I had during the campaign.” [St. Petersburg Times, 11/19/10]

Support for SB1070

Cruz Supported Arizona’s Immigration Law That Allowed Police To Inquire Into The Legal Status Of Someone They Stop.  According to the Texas Tribune, “Former Texas Solicitor General (and U.S. Senate candidate) Ted Cruz: ‘The federal government is utterly failing to secure our borders. When Arizona stepped in to address out-of-control illegal immigration, liberal groups attacked Arizona and the Obama Administration sued the State. Rather than actually enforce our Nation’s immigration laws — which is the President’s explicit constitutional obligation—President Obama instead asked the Supreme Court to strike down Arizona’s law. Today, the Supreme Court upheld the central provision of the Arizona law. Although the Court unfortunately struck down other provisions of the Arizona law, the Court held that there is no barrier in federal law to States’ requiring local law enforcement to check on the immigration status of those criminally detained. This makes clear that sanctuary cities exist only because of state and local decision-making; it highlights that we have sanctuary cities in Texas only because Lt. Gov. Dewhurst killed the bill that would have ended sanctuary cities. Had the Texas Legislature passed that bill—had Lt. Governor Dewhurst not run from the fightand prevented its passage—then today’s decision would have upheld that Texas law as well. We need leaders who will get serious about enforcing the border: triple the border patrol; use walls, fences, and technology; end sanctuary cities; repeal Obama’s newly ordered amnesty; and end benefits like in-state tuition for illegal aliens.’” [Texas Tribune, 6/25/12]

 After Originally Saying Sb1070 Was Not The Best Answer To The Problem, Rubio Said He Would Have Signed The Bill. According to PolitiFact, “What Rubio said on Fox News April 30 ‘I don’t believe that law is the best answer to that problem.’ Later, Rubio said, ‘There are portions of the law that over time may lead to unintended consequences.’ What Rubio said to a Human Events reporter in a story published May 6 ‘Understand that what Arizona is facing is different from anything Florida has ever faced,’ Rubio told Human Events’ Jason Mattera. ‘Arizona has a physical border with Mexico. And there (are) kidnappings, human trafficking, drug wars coming across that border into an American city. Frankly, very few states in the country can imagine what that’s like.’ Human Events, a conservative publication, asked if Rubio were in the Arizona Legislature, would he have voted for the law? ‘The second (version) that passed hit the right note. Yes,’ Rubio responded. The interviewer then asked about the first version. ‘Well, I would have wanted to see changes like the ones that were made because I know that that’s not the intent of the bill.’” [PolitiFact, 5/12/10]