Patterico's Pontifications

2/21/2016

Marco Rubio Has Said Different Things About Amnesty in Spanish and English — Part One

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:32 pm

“First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border.” — Marco Rubio, speaking in Spanish to Univision

This is Part One of two posts showing that Marco Rubio has said one thing about immigration in English, and quite another in Spanish.

Here is Marco Rubio speaking to Rush Limbaugh, January 29, 2013. Note how he emphasizes, in English, that border security comes before anything else:

RUSH: Yeah, but, Senator, that’s in a way the point, because, you’re right, 1986, President Reagan agreed to outright amnesty, is called Simpson-Mazzoli. He was reluctant, by the way, but he did it, because he was promised border security. The border security never happened. And the same language is being used today as was used in 1986. You know, the president’s gonna be out in Las Vegas today, I know for you border security is the first and last, if that doesn’t happen, none of the rest does, right?

RUBIO: Well, not just that. That alone is not enough. It has to be a combination. We need border security. We need workplace enforcement. We need a visa tracking system. You know, 40% of our illegal immigrants of our undocumented people that are in this country, they didn’t cross the border, they came legally. Their visa expired and they stayed and we don’t track people when they leave. We only track them when they come in. So all three of those things have to happen and, by the way, the language of the bill has not even been drafted yet. These are just principles. And I agree with you; this is gonna be a challenge. If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, 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. But the principles clearly call for that. Now, obviously, we have to make sure the law does, too.

So. That is Marco Rubio stating in English that border security has to happen first — before anything else. He tells Rush Limbaugh, in English, that he won’t support a bill unless that bill guarantees that nothing else will happen until these enforcement mechanisms are in place.

Here’s Marco Rubio in a recent English interview with Jake Tapper, making exactly the same point:

When I’m president, we’re going to do it our way. And that means before we do anything, we are going to secure our border and enforce our laws. Until we do that first, we won’t be able to do anything else on immigration. And after we’ve done that, we’ll see what the American people are willing to do with someone who’s been here for a long time, and passes a background check, learns English, pays a fine, starts paying taxes.

But all that, of course, is Marco Rubio speaking in English. To an English-speaking audience concerned about border security. What does he say when he speaks to a Spanish-speaking audience that wants them some legalization and wants it now? Why, he says something quite different.

Here is an excerpt from a transcript of a Univision interview with Rubio from June 9, 2013. The transcript is provided by the Center for Immigration Studies, but anyone suspicious of their transcript can consult the video here, or a similar transcript from PolitiFact which tries to defend Rubio on this issue (more about that sloppy and incomplete PolitiFact entry on a separate page). Rubio says at 3:35:

Let’s be clear. 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.

There it is. Marco Rubio said one thing about immigration in English, and a totally different thing in Spanish.

I have much more analysis on a separate page, to deal with the inevitable retorts from the Rubiobots. Rubiobots: do not tell me that I failed to address your argument x, y, or z without first reading the linked page. I’m not getting bogged down in your minutiae here, but I am getting plenty down into the weeds at the linked page.

P.S. The point of the post is not to claim that Rubio has always said different things about amnesty in Spanish and English. The point of the post is to debunk the claim made by Rubio supporters that it is a “lie” for Ted Cruz to say Rubio said different things about amnesty in Spanish and in English.

46 Responses to “Marco Rubio Has Said Different Things About Amnesty in Spanish and English — Part One”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. there’s just no america so desperate as to elect this flitty little poser

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. Yes there is — an America that is desperate not to elect Donald Trump. Say hello to the likely nominee.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  4. AKA the law of unintended consequences, courtesy of Mr Trump. We could have had Scott Walker.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  5. And anyone who favors Trump is ineligible to comment on anyone else’s changes of position.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. “How would you know? You don’t speak Politician.”

    nk (dbc370)

  7. By the way, I do not find any of this to be a contradiction. You can choose to parse it that way, but it really isn’t. It all hinges on what is meant — at different times and in different conversations — by the word “legalization.”

    Legalization can be taken to mean “given permanent residency and work permits” aka amnesty, or it can mean only that “deportations cease while we finish the wall and work out who gets to stay”. It is clear that he means the latter in the Univision interview, and in several English interviews for that matter. Just because Obama uses the former meaning does not mean Obama’s weasel worlds are Rubio’s.

    But, yes, Rubio believes that many of the 11 million (or whatever the number is) will eventually be granted residence, but never citizenship. He is quite open about that. Attack him for that if you want to. Attack ME for that if you want to. But stop with the intentional misunderstanding of things that are NOT in contradiction. There IS no contradiction here, only painting meaning that isn’t there.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  8. Rubio ought to have just come out and said a year ago that he realizes it was a mistake to support the Gang of 8. He should have confessed and sought penance. He was elected with lots of tea party support, yet he ultimately let a lot of tea party people down with this issue. That being said, it’s one issue—an important issue—but it didn’t pass as legislation.
    Everyone has blemishes on their record, including Governor Reagan.

    What did Reagan say, the 70% guy is my friend, not my enemy? Rubio’s way better than a 70%er.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  9. Please explain how “legalization” and “permanent residency” are synonyms.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. Rubio ought to have just come out and said a year ago that he realizes it was a mistake to support the Gang of 8. He should have confessed and sought penance.

    Uh, he did.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-10-24/senator-mark-rubios-apology-tour

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. Legalization and amnesty are synonymous. But I see that you do speak politicians.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. I think Bernie Sanders voters should visit Venezuela for taste of what the ideology offers: triple digit inflation, product shortages, joblessness, no hope… what happens when you run out of other people’s money to spend.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  13. speak *Politician*.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. But I agree that it does not make Rubio a leper. I will vote for him against Hillary, Bernie, Trump or Mitch McConnell.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. There are things I REALLY do not like about Rubio. I particularly dislike how he takes money from Larry Ellison then works to stab US tech workers in the back by quadrupling H-1B visas.

    But you can’t have everything, and as in all things, Hillary would be worse. I want the next 4 justices on the Supreme Court appointed by a Republican and I’ll eat a lot of crap sandwiches to get there.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  16. 8 … Rubio’s way better than a 70%er.

    Depends on how important you think immigration is.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  17. Kevin M,

    You can argue about what is meant by legalization.

    But the words “anything” and “nothing” (as in “anything else” or “nothing else will happen”) are pretty clear to ordinary people. And that is why Rubio used them, to mislead people in English.

    See my latest post, part two in the series, to show how Rubio absolutely lies about another of Cruz’s claims.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  18. 7. … Just because Obama uses the former meaning does not mean Obama’s weasel worlds are Rubio’s.

    Actually it sort of does. If Rubio chooses to use the same words as Obama it is natural to assume he means the same things by them. Especially since Obama’s use of legalization (by your account) seems clear and straight forward, it is Rubio’s strained meaning which comes across as weaseling.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  19. I will be voting for him, gladly.

    Victoria (41f527)

  20. James B. Shearer,
    Well, it’s just math, really. When Reagan was speaking about being a 70%er on the issues, he was talking about 70% of the issues. It’s a general rule of thumb. It’s a metric for the totality of a candidate.

    For instance, I don’t think Ron Paul’s good on foreign policy issues. But I agree that he’s otherwise a solid conservative across the board even though I consider myself a national security guy. On the other hand, Joe Lieberman was pretty good on national security issues (ultimately), but he was otherwise an across the board liberal.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  21. If Rubio chooses to use the same words as Obama it is natural to assume he means the same things by them.

    Including if, and, is, are and the?

    Let’s say I’m against legalizing marijuana. Does that mean I’m against “medical marijuana”, which for all intents and purposes makes marijuana legal? Or does it mean that I’m against some more formal legal structure, like in Colorado? And does it matter that it is still quite illegal if you ask the Feds?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. I don’t think Ron Paul’s good on foreign policy issues.

    Those things aren’t fungible. A president can do a lot of things in foreign policy on his own hook, but on domestic issues he usually needs to gets laws passed. So, I’d be more inclined to vote for someone whose domestic policy I disliked than one whose foreign policy was suspect.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. My real point here is not to defend Rubio, or attack Cruz, but to point out that I would happily vote for either of them. Something that cannot be said about Trump.

    Eyes on target. Stop fighting to see who will be chief ankle-biter. Right now Trump is winning because Cruz and Rubio are diminishing each other with crap like this.

    Follow Reagan. Do not speak ill of a fellow Republican. Speak ill of Trump.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. you miss why parkinson came up with the 11th commandment, the establishment then as now, would not give conservatives a hearing, william knowland was perhaps the exception, because he went back to the jurassic period,

    narciso (732bc0)

  25. 9.Please explain how “legalization” and “permanent residency” are synonyms.
    Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/21/2016 @ 3:17 pm

    If one is “legalized” he can stay in America. If one is a “permanent resident” he can stay in America. Neither one is a citizen but both can stay. Please explain how they’re not synonyms.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  26. There are a dozen legal immigrant or visitor statuses which are not permanent resident.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. Obama’s Notice to Appear, also known as Catch and Release, whereby* fence-jumpers are caught but are then released inside the United States with a Notice to Appear within x-days for their deportation hearing is a legal status.

    *I usually get $5.00 for a “whereby”, just so you know.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. Right now Trump is winning because Cruz and Rubio are diminishing each other with crap like this.

    Trump is counting on Rubio and Cruz to go after each other while he works to pick up Independents or Reagan Dems. But, since Trump is also in on the smear of Cruz, it makes perfect sense for Cruz to defend himself and point out the real and verifiable lies of Rubio (and Trump). All the more because Rubio (and Trump’s) accusations against Cruz have indeed hurt him.

    You can pick it apart, but the bottom line, and the line that should matter most, is that Rubio lied. And Rubio continues to lie. I already didn’t trust him on immigration because of the Gang of 8. Do you think there’s any chance that I will now? If Trump’s strong immigration stance is what is keeping his house of cards in tact, then it should stand to reason that Rubio’s very weak and dishonest one will damage to his campaign. How can we trust someone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth?

    Dana (86e864)

  29. #22 Kevin M,

    You win the thread for using the word “fungible” in a sentence. That’s above my pay grade. Ha, ha, anyhow, Reagan’s 70% rule was a general metric. It’s basic point is that someone agreeing with you on 70% of the issues—or even 69.4839% of the time—is your friend, not your enemy. He didn’t make any academic distinctions between giving more weight to foreign policy issues vs domestic issues.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  30. My biggest reservation about Rubio is that he is the most likely to want to be a spoiler. To give the election to Hillary so he can run in 2020 without having to primary a Republican incumbent. More than Trump would want to be a spoiler from pique. Or maybe it’s just my 48 years in Chicago.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. nk,

    Cruz and Rubio are the same age. And it’s anybody’s guess if Hillary would be able to run again in 2020 — she can barely run now. Her VP choice is going to be as important as McCain’s was.

    If I was in charge, I’d have Cruz and Rubio agree on a Cruz/Rubio ticket right the heck now, and then win all the primaries going away. But I’m not in charge.

    Why Cruz/Rubio and not the other way around? Because for the VP to get that 3rd term he has to move to the middle to get past voter exhaustion. Like Bush after Reagan. Rubio could do that after Cruz but the other way around doesn’t work.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  32. nk,

    My guess is that Rubio would be looking ahead to run for Governor in 2018. If he doesn’t get the nomination this time, he might look to a Presidential run again in 2024 after he’s spent six years as a Governor.

    But I do like the idea of a Cruz/Rubio ticket this year as Kevin M suggests.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  33. Maybe one of you smart guys can explain why the need to campaign in Spanish at all. As I see the thing the candidate needs is to get citizens, eligible voters, to like him and his policies. Citizens here are English speakers, or should be. They have to show some ability in English to complete the naturalization process. In most cases those who speak other than English will not be voters.

    No, I have no misconception that being a non-citizen will keep one out of the voting booth. If we really wanted that there would be an ID requirement. I just want to know why people who want to be President think they have to kiss the a$$ of potentially illegal residents.

    Gramps (6a37e4)

  34. Gramps, there’s plenty of older Asians who reside with their assimilated adult children and the grandkids, but they don’t ever learn to speak English. And there’s a lot of Mexican-Americans living in the southwest who don’t speak a lot of English. It’s much better for someone like Marco Rubio to sit down and speak directly to give an interview to Spanish language media, than to allow Jorge Ramos and the other propagandists at Univision, La Opinion, etc., to TELL THEM what Rubio said.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  35. possibly, but you don’t understand how spanish language media works, he has gotten no credit for his efforts in the gang of 8 brouhaha,

    narciso (732bc0)

  36. 20Well, it’s just math, really. When Reagan was speaking about being a 70%er on the issues, he was talking about 70% of the issues. It’s a general rule of thumb. It’s a metric for the totality of a candidate.

    Well when the NRA grades a Congressman they don’t look at all his votes, they look at the ones which are most important to the NRA. Similarly when I evaluate a candidate all issues aren’t created equal. Some matter more to me than others and I adjust my evaluation appropriately.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  37. 21Let’s say I’m against legalizing marijuana. Does that mean I’m against “medical marijuana”, which for all intents and purposes makes marijuana legal? Or does it mean that I’m against some more formal legal structure, like in Colorado? And does it matter that it is still quite illegal if you ask the Feds?

    This all sounds like weaseling to me. If politicians use language that can easily be misinterpreted and that misinterpretation works in their favor I will tend to assume they are doing it on purpose.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  38. There’s such a concept as provisional legalization BEFORE the security measures are in place, and then permanent legalization AFTER the security measures are in place. I don’t think Rubio was necessarily being dishonest about it, telling two different stories in Spanish and English. It’s not like Rubio photoshopped an image to make it look like Cruz was interacting with Obama when Cruz wasn’t doing so.

    Anyway, the amnesty bill passed the Senate 68 to 32 with Rubio’s support, but Rubio then reportedly signaled that the bill should not be taken up by the House because other priorities, like repealing Obamacare, were a higher priority for him; the House never did take up the bill. See http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/rubio-immigration-reform-gang-eight

    Andrew (b12b60)

  39. Ruarri the Mactire.

    Steve57 (b30def)

  40. Of course he panders to Univision. It’s clearly left-leaning and the only way they’ll air him.

    Dale Day (d3da5d)

  41. After reading these posts, I watched both of the Univision Rubio videos linked here this morning, and can vouch for this being exactly what Rubio said to Univision:

    “Let’s be clear. 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.”

    Always trust content from Patterico.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  42. Rubio’s way better than a 70%er.

    Sure, let’s support someone who is a 70%er in general, but a 0%er against an existential threat against the nation. Lest anyone miss the point, the progressive/liberal goal for immigration is to garner enough government dependent, dependable Democrat voters to assure Democrat control of the country. Since Dems have been very happy to shred the constitution or do an end run around it, the immigration issue will determine the fate of our nation, its values and the past supremacy of rule of law.

    Somehow, I just can’t ignore Rubio’s deceptive approach to the immigration issue.

    in_awe (faf180)

  43. 43. …Somehow, I just can’t ignore Rubio’s deceptive approach to the immigration issue.

    in_awe (faf180) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:24 am

    I can’t ignore the lies. And there is no other word.

    Rubio, all amnesty enthusiasts, want me to ignore the felonies illegals commit when they fill out the I9 form.

    Steve57 (b30def)

  44. Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:50 am

    Rubio, all amnesty enthusiasts, want me to ignore the felonies illegals commit when they fill out the I9 form.

    Yes. This is malum prohibitum, not a malum per se, although I think some people want to pretend it is a malum per se or that all felonies are malum per ses. It is also a malum prohibitum that really isn’t prosecuted, nor is anytbody interested in doing so across the board.

    Patterico:

    So it is correct for Cruz to say Rubio has said in Spanish that he would not repeal Obama’s illegal amnesty on Day One.

    I think he has now indicated he will rescind it, but not revoke any status gained under it. And Ted Cruz has not said explicitly he would revoke any documents.

    Sammy Finkelman (882d94)

  45. Rubio’s number one problem is the fact that he betrayed all he ever met:

    He betrayed his friend, Jeb Bush, who supported him morally and sent him a check even, in his FL congressional and senatorial, state and federal endeavors.

    He betrayed the TEA party, who worked avidly to make him Senator of FL, instantly, as soon as he saw the big columns in DC.

    He betrayed legal Americans and America with his Gang of Eight.

    He still betrays the two, above, when he speaks in Spanish to Jorge Ramos and tells 180 degrees different on amnesty, saying in Spanish that he’ll “keep president Obama’s amnesty deal”, but tells the viewers in English that he wouldn’t.

    He betrayed all the FL residents by being absent from DC and not performing his senatorial duties, in pursuit of yet another position.

    He never has staying power for more than a few months, after he wins any position.

    The media all call him an “establishment insider candidate”. He ran for the senate as an outsider, in the TEA party, and was a total deceiver as soon as he hit DC.

    He is, in simple words, Benedicto Arnold to all he ever met, depending on what his incredible political ambitions are.

    His second biggest problem is inexperience in the real world.

    He has never produced or built anything. He was a lawyer for a very brief time. Other than that he has never even run a taco stand.

    Trump/Cruz 2016

    John75 (1239b8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2671 secs.