While immigration has become perhaps the dominant issue of the 2016 election, in last night’s debate Fox News’ moderators asked surprisingly few questions on the subject.
Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly, and Bret Baier did not address many hot topics on immigration. They did not address the economic implications of mass immigration; they did not address whether candidates thought immigration should be reduced or not; they did not address recent Census projections showing the U.S. is about to break all historical immigration records; nor did they address the growing number of H-1B scandals or the violent crime spree carried out by a free Ohio illegal alien only minutes from the debate stage.
Instead, the moderators went hard after Trump for his comments on illegal alien criminality and then, almost sarcastically, Wallace asked Rubio whether he thought that, “all of these illegals coming over are criminals?” Rubio ignored the question, and Wallace did not think, instead, to perhaps mention the 2011 report from the U.S. government confirming Trump’s assertions. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee even held a hearing on alien criminality only two weeks prior to the debate.
But the most remarkable omission was that, before an unprecedentedly large debate audience, not one of the three moderators asked Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) about his role in writing, selling, misrepresenting, and ultimately passing through the Senate the Gang of Eight immigration bill. This is also significant since several prominent FOX personalities praised the bill at the time. Sean Hannity, in 2013, described the Schumer-Rubio plan as, “probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” Bill O’Reilly formally endorsed it; so did the immigration lobbying group, the Partnership for A New American Economy, run by Rupert Murdoch.
By contrast, the moderators did go after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on immigration. Walker, unlike Rubio, has said he opposes citizenship for illegals and believes that too much immigration hurts American workers. Rubio endorsed citizenship for illegals as recently as Monday night in a New Hampshire Republican presidential candidates forum, and only months ago, Rubio introduced legislation known as the I-Squared bill which would triple the number of wage-cutting H-1B visas for big tech and lift the green card cap at universities. I-Squared would expand Muslim immigration into the United States as well. I-squared has also been endorsed by Rupert Murdoch through his immigration lobbying group the Partner For A New American Economy.
Rubio was similarly not asked about the controversy in his own backyard, where Disney reportedly sacked 250 workers and forced them to train their H-1B replacements. Disney has endorsed Rubio’s bill as its CEO sits, along with Murdoch, on the board of the group lobbying for its passage.
Reports show that the Fox moderators have been preparing for the debate for weeks, yet even a minimal amount of research would have produced plenty of questions for the moderators to ask Rubio about his immigration bill.
-Why did he voted for the bill after telling Rush Limbaugh: “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.”?
–Why did he deliver a different message in Spanish than he delivered to Rush? Rubio told 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.”
–Why does he still support all of the policies put forth in the Gang of Eight proposal, namely citizenship for illegals, increased foreign workers, and expanded green cards?
– Why has he continued to push legislation that would triple the number of new foreign guest workers at a time when a record 93 million American workers are operating outside of the labor force?
– Why does he still express support for citizenship for illegal aliens?
-Why does he support a plan that would cause the U.S. to vastly exceed the highest level of immigration ever recorded in U.S. history?
– Why did he vote against an amendment to his immigration bill that would have required the completion of a border fence?
– Why did he vote against an amendment to his bill that would have required implementation of the biometric entry-exit tracking?
– Why did Rubio vote for the bill after Sen. Chuck Grassley’s amendment was defeated, which would have prevented the Schumer-Rubio bill from granting amnesty to gang members?
–How does Rubio respond to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) union president, Chris Crane’s, accusations that Rubio lied to immigration enforcement officers about the contents of the legislation: “Senator Rubio, who promised ICE officers and Sheriffs that he would take steps to repair the bill’s provisions that gut interior enforcement, has abandoned that commitment. He directly misled law enforcement officers.”
By not asking Rubio about the Gang of Eight bill, or anyone of the many controversies surrounding his involvement in the effort, Fox News delivered a big boon to the Rubio’s campaign. They effectively ensured that the millions of Americans watching from home and being introduced to Rubio for the first time would have no idea that he was involved in crafting the most expansive immigration bill since the one pushed by Ted Kennedy in 1965. In fact, Rubio’s bill, in it’s first decade, would admit more than seven times more permanent immigrants on green cards (30 million) than Kennedy’s original 1965 legislation (4.1 million) that turned much of America blue.