In a misleading article published today in Politico, Politico’s Isaac Arnsdorf suggests that—despite Marco Rubio’s longstanding, and repeatedly articulated support for citizenship for illegal aliens— that Rubio’s position on the matter is somehow unknown.
The Politico story focused on Rubio’s interview with Chuck Todd on today’s program of Meet The Press in which Rubio reiterated his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Yet Politico added a peculiar line in the piece. Politico writes, “In this interview, he didn’t specify whether those allowed to stay would ever be able to become citizens.” The line is especially odd in that Chuck Todd didn’t ask Rubio about citizenship in the first place, and thus the reporter is introducing doubt into a settled area that Todd didn’t even feel necessary to explore.
Although the piece notes that Rubio’s Gang of Eight bill “included a path to citizenship,” the suggestion that Rubio did not “specify” whether he supports citizenship for illegals in his interview with Chuck Todd would lead any reasonable reader to assume that Rubio’s position on citizenship is not known.
However, nothing could be further from the truth.
As recently as last month Rubio affirmed his support for citizenship for illegal aliens to an audience of more than 18 million Americans who tuned in to watch CNN’s December 15th GOP presidential debate.
CNN’s Dana Bash asked Rubio directly: “Senator Rubio. You co-authored a bill with Democrats two years ago that allowed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Do you still support that path to citizenship, which means giving those immigrants rights, like the right to vote?”
After Rubio initially sought to dodge her question, Bash followed up and refocused attention to her initial question: “Senator, you haven’t answered the question. You described a very long path, but does that path end at citizenship?”
Rubio explained that he has “answered that question repeatedly” and again reiterated his support for a pathway to citizenship, also known as a “green card.” Rubio said:
“I’ve answered that question repeatedly. I am personally open — after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card. That may not be a majority position in my party, but that’s down the road. You can’t even begin that process until you prove to people– not just pass a law that says you’re gonna bring illegal immigration under control.”
Indeed, as CNN reported on November 12th, Rubio has even campaigned on the issue. CNN wrote: “On the campaign trail, Rubio says he’s open to the most controversial aspect of that plan [i.e. his Gang of Eight bill]: a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants… “I personally am open to that,” he said of a “very long” path to citizenship on National Public Radio… Rubio has signaled an openness to eventually let the 11 million undocumented apply for citizenship, after paying back taxes and fines and taking other punitive steps– echoing the call in the Gang of Eight plan that would have created a 13-year pathway to citizenship.”
Similarly, in a November interview with Sean Hannity, Rubio declared, “Now the majority position in our party is it should stop at just a work permit… I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card.” Rubio admitted that he is at odds with the Republican voters on this issue, stating, “That is not a majority position in my party.”
A “green card” is the document that entitles foreign nationals to collect welfare, draw Social Security and Medicare, bring their foreign relatives into the U.S., and to become subsequently apply for citizenship.
It is unclear why Politico would suggest that Rubio’s position on this matter is unclear. In a recent interview, conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly told Breitbart News that the establishment media has done so little proper reporting on, what she described as, Rubio’s “anti-American” and “dangerous” immigration position because “they’re protecting him.”
As of publication, Politico did not respond to request for comment about its misleading text.