Posted on 11/16/2015 8:44:52 AM PST by xzins
In the wake of the Islamic terrorist attack establishment Republican presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio is standing by his support for bringing Syrian refugees into the United States of America, despite the evidence that the Paris murder-rampage involved at least one Muslim terrorist who had infiltrated Europe among the thousands of “refugees†now leaving the Middle East.
Rubio’s astonishing doubling down on his support for this policy of national suicide was documented in a weekend article by our friend Matthew Boyle of Breitbart.
When Boyle asked Rubio if after the Paris attack he still supported bringing more Syrian “refugees†to America (even though 77 percent of those entering Europe are young men of military age) Rubio’s spokesman referred him to two previous interviews Rubio has done on the matter—essentially confirming that Rubio still supports, at this time, bringing Syrian refugees into America.
But this should not have surprised Matt Boyle or anyone else familiar with Rubio’s thinking and record on refugee resettlement and the continued dilution of American exceptionalism with unassimilated Muslim immigrants.
As our friend Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review documented back in 2013, “One of the more obscure yet destructive provisions of the Gang of 8 bill… was section 3405 (page 693), which created an entire new pipeline for refugees.  This bill would have concocted an unconditional right to immediate legal permanent resident status for any person in the world who declares himself “stateless.â€â€¯ Had the bill passed in 2013, it would have given the Obama administration power to define who is considered stateless.  Most of those likely to be designated as stateless are from Islamic hell holes and would include the Syrians, Somalis, Palestinians, and the Muslim Rohingya in Burma.â€
In addition, noted Horowitz, section 3403 would have granted Obama broad authority to create entire classes of refugees by categorically declaring them eligible based on humanitarian grounds. Under existing law, to the extent it is adhered to, each application must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis and the prospective refugee must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution on an individual level.
Section 3401 of the bill also dramatically weakened the precautions against fraudulent asylum petitions by, among other things, eliminating the time constraints on filing those applications.
In totality, concluded Horowitz, this bill would have created endless avenues for this president to bring in an unlimited numbers of Islamic immigrants from the most volatile corners of the world.
What’s more said Horowitz, while much of the media is promoting the notion that Rubio has changed his position on immigration, the reality is that to this very day he believes the Gang bill was good legislation. 
According to the Washington Post, Rubio said late last week that “the bill had the correct security components but was waylaid by voter mistrust."  In other words, the bill was near-perfect, it’s just that the plebes weren’t smart enough to understand its virtues.  Accordingly, Rubio’s current position is that the Gang of 8 was prudent legislation.
Now here’s the key tie between the Boyle and Horowitz articles; Marco Rubio’s rehabilitation as a presidential contender has been based on two things, his well-rehearsed debate performances on national security issues, and his carefully crafted obfuscation of his continued support for the hated Gang of Eight approach to “comprehensive immigration reform.â€
But when you read the Boyle and Horowitz articles together the contradiction and cynical lies behind Rubio’s resurgence become obvious.
Much as Marco Rubio would like conservatives to think that he is one of us on national security issues, when you look at what he does, rather than listen to the carefully crafted words that he says, there’s no daylight between Rubio’s position and Obama’s policies on Syrian “refugee†resettlement and Muslim immigration to America.
As Daniel Horowitz said, and we agree, Republicans would never nominate someone who openly promoted Obamacare, abortion, raising taxes, or increasing regulations. How can they possibly nominate someone like Marco Rubio who is on the wrong side of the most existential threat of our time and who – to this very day – defends a bill that would have saddled America with what we are seeing in Germany and France today?
Click this link to read Daniel Horowitz’s article “Rubio’s Bill Would Have Opened Floodgates to Islamic Refugees.â€
Click this link to read Matt Boyle’s article “POST-PARIS ATTACK, RUBIO TWISTS, TURNS ON REFUGEE ADMISSIONS.â€
Train wrecking before our eyes.
If this is true fact.....Rubio is dead politically!!!
Real Dead
poor guy, at this point Senior Amnesty probably doesn’t know what Adelson and the Koch brother want him to say.
Still sticking to serving his GOPe masters.
Obama says we should not restrict the immigration of muslim’s but the govt is restricting Christian refugees.
Tone-deaf Rubes is headed for low single digits and political oblivion. He may not hold his senate seat next time.
I could sort of understand the degree of Marco Rubio’s partiality to bringing in expatriate Cubans. Even some other Hispanic factions.
But I do not understand in any way, shape or manner, the rationale behind bringing in Syrians, from thousands of miles away, with no contiguous family or cultural connections to the North American continent, without some kind of vetting at some offshore site NOT on US soil. The Syrian Christians, I could understand, for purely compassionate reasons. The Syrian Muslims, not so much, as THOUSANDS of Islamic Jihadist radicals have slipped into Europe, interspersed with the other more or less legitimate refugees.
Rubio is just a slick talking dope.
Leni
Let’s just send Sparky to Syria instead.
He can entertain them over there with his flowery rhetoric and geopolitical geopolitics.
Marco Rubio is giving up the Senate seat for 2016 - said it was to devote his energies to pursuing the Presidency.
All that energy is going to have to go somewhere, now....
Complicit in Obozo's plan to destroy America.
Damn. What kind of dirt do the ‘RATS have on this guy?
Rubio is an a$$whole.
He will keep his senate seat because he’s going to drop out after the early primaries.
He’s jebbie JR and if bushie steals the nomination somehow he will probably be the VP.
We really need to quit giving credibility to every person who gives an ‘excellent speech’ at the convention. Rubio gave a ‘great speech’ and the he was ‘presidential material’, we need to quit listening to their words and start only watching their actions.
Stuck on stupid, doubling down on stupid, just plain stupid...its all the same, Rubio is finished in this race. He may still be FL’s senator (if he still wants the job that he’s tired of - boy will that be an interesting primary), but he won’t be President any time soon.
To which I say, “GOOD!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.