Donald Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser declared that Marco Rubio is in no position to criticize President Obama for trying to transform the nation, given Rubio’s essential role in championing and co-authoring Obama’s transformational immigration agenda.
“Rubio complaining about Obama trying to transform America is like Nancy Pelosi complaining about Obamacare,” Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser, Stephen Miller, told listeners on Monday’s program of Breitbart News Daily.
As Miller previously declared, “If you look at the one consistent through line of his [Rubio’s] career, it is that every decision appears to be perfectly calculated to try and open America’s borders.”
The media created and hyped “Marco-mentum” seemed to collapse into a Marco-meltdown Saturday night as it was met by Chris Christie’s buzz saw. The American people watched as Rubio “glitched” and repeated the same talking point on loop throughout the course of the presidential debate.
In the aftermath of his glitch, Rubio indicated that he will continue to repeat this memorized talk point.
Miller explained that “it doesn’t make any sense” for Rubio to criticize Obama’s alleged effort to fundamentally transform the nation, given Rubio’s essential role in pushing President Obama’s open borders agenda. Miller said:
What’s the number one thing that people think when they think of President Obama’s fundamental transformation? It’s immigration. Marco Rubio was Barack Obama’s partner-in-chief on his immigration agenda … Marco Rubio would be President Obama’s third term on immigration, so Marco Rubio complaining about Obama trying to transform America is like Nancy Pelosi complaining about Obamacare. It doesn’t make any sense. He’s the architect of it. Rubio’s the architect of it… [that’s why] he can’t apologize for it.
And the other transformational policy, of course, that’s coming up is the TPP — the Trans-Pacific Partnership. So these two transformational policies. President Obama’s hoped-for, ever-lasting legacy — Marco Rubio is President Obama’s partner, aid, friend, [and] best assistant.
“If you look at the one consistent, through line in his career, it has been that every decision appears to be perfectly calculated to try and open America’s borders,” Miller said on Breitbart News Sunday.
If you look at Phyllis Schlafly’s memo that was released — 15 pages … when he [Rubio] was in the Florida … House, he both stopped legislation to shut down sanctuary cities and he also pushed legislation to give discounted tuition to illegal immigrants. And then when he needed to get to the Senate in the next phase of his career, what did he do? He adopted a hawkish tone on immigration. And hit Charlie Crist for pushing the DREAM Act among other things. Then in 2012, he began pushing– Rubio, this is — the DREAM Act as soon as he arrives. Then he gets involved in the Gang of Eight bill and he says everything and anything you can possibly imagine to try and pass it. And then he starts running for President … to this day he’s campaigning on everything in the Gang of Eight bill.
Miller explained that there are “three core provisions to the Gang of Eight bill: (1) citizenship for illegal aliens, (2) massive expansions of foreign guest worker programs, and (3) large expansions to the rate of permanent annual immigration. He is in favor of and is campaigning in favor –ultimately, using code words — of all three of those provisions. Everything else is just details. That’s the core essence of the Gang of Eight bill, that’s the core essence of Rubio’s immigration platform today, that is the core essence of what he’ll do as President.”
The flip side of that [i.e. Rubio’s support for expanding immigration] is what he will never do as President, [which] is take up, propose, support, push for, stump for, advocate for legislation supported by 92% of the GOP electorate to slow down the growth of immigration into the United States. So you’re getting both a guarantee of the legislation that the GOP base aggressively opposes, and a guarantee that what they support, and want, and desire will never get advanced. At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, as a Party, would we nominate someone who, say, wants to get rid of the second amendment? Would we nominate somebody who, say,– wants to raise the tax rate up to 90% across the board? Well, of course, we wouldn’t. So why would we nominate somebody, or even think or consider nominating somebody, who on an issue as fundamental to the country as immigration is opposed to at minimum — at minimum — 92% of the GOP electorate.