Patricia Mazzei wrote an article in the Miami Herald on February 22, 2016 describing how Senator Marco Rubio is gaining support in Florida and elsewhere after Jeb Bush suspended his GOP presidential race. On February 22, Representatives Carlos Curbelo, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart held a news conference in Coral Gables, Florida declaring their support for Senator Marco Rubio. This event sent a message to others individuals who were former Jeb Bush supporters to join Marco Rubioâs presidential campaign. In addition, at least 20 Florida House Republicans who supported Jeb Bush, including the entire Miami-Dade County legislative delegation, switched their support to Rubio.
Representative Carlos Curbelo endorsed Senator Marco Rubio along with Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart with Florida Lt Governor Carlos LĂłpez-Cantera, a long-time Rubio supporter, watching the ceremony.
Congressman Carlos Curbelo, who has questioned if Trump is a Democratic plant â and said he still considered that âa possibility.â Curbelo said that: âThe Republican Party and the American people deserve a candidate for president who respects the American people, who respects the Constitution of this great country, and who can attract new voters to participate in our elections.â Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said the following: âHeâs ready, heâs effective, heâs brilliant. He illustrates the best of the American Dream, and he will unify and strengthen this country.â Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stated that Senator Rubio would bring ânew voters and new voicesâ to the Republican Party.
Rubioâs campaign announced no fewer than nine big-name political endorsements on February 22 besides the ones in Miami. These individuals include former Republican presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, three U.S. senators, a sitting governor, and five congressmen, including two from Florida, Congressmen Gus Bilirakis of Palm Harbor and Jeff Miller of Chumuckla. It seemed that endorsements were coming in every hour. On February 23, Marc Short, a top official of the billionaire Koch brothers, joined the Rubio campaign. This means that several millions will flow to Rubioâs PAC Conservative Solutions.
On February 21, 2016, Senator Marco Rubio said on Sunday on ABC Newsâ This Week the following: âWe feel real good about Florida, especially now that the race has narrowed. Obviously, I have a lot of admiration and respect for Governor Bush. We obviously shared a lot of supporters. Now that heâs suspended his campaign, I think that really boosts us â not just in Florida but in Ohio and in other key places around the country.â
Senator Dean Heller of Nevada endorsed Marco Rubio for president.
On February 21, 2016, Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, who had sided with Jeb Bush, campaigned for Senator Rubio â two days before Nevadaâs Republican caucuses. Hollywood actor Donnie Wahlberg and founding member of the boy band New Kids on the Block also endorsed the Florida senator
Mazzei explained that some of the financiers were also making the jump in favor of Senator Rubio, according to Brian Ballard, a Tallahassee lobbyist. Ballard stated the following: âA lot of people were prepared to come to Marco â they kind of saw the writing on the wall â but were waiting for Jeb to get out. Thereâs really no time for people to study their navels if they want to get involved. The best thing Jebâs campaign did was raise money and build resources. Theyâre welcomed by the Marco campaign with open arms.â Ballard, who made dozens of calls, said he didnât hear hard feelings â a point Senator Rubio supporters have been making for days to keep the doors open to new checkbooks. However, Jeb Bush has not endorsed anyone yet and his aides would not say if or when he would.
Mazzei pointed out that the Cuban-American representatives from South Florida could help Senator Rubioâs campaign over the coming weeks, especially on Spanish-language radio and television. Carlos Curbelo, Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart have been careful not to bash Senator Rubio during the campaign, saying they thought Jeb Bush was more experienced but that Marco Rubio would also make a good president.
Donald Trump is the clear front runner after his victory in Nevada
After winning the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and the Nevada caucuses, Donald Trump is the clear front runner for the Republican nomination. The Nevada caucuses were disorganized as in the past. Similar to 2012, turnout was small. Approximately 15% of Nevadaâs over 400,000 registered Republicans participated. Trump won with 46%, followed by Rubio with 24%, Cruz 21%, Carson 5%, and Kasich 4%. Trump received 12 delegates, Rubio 6 and Cruz 6.
Currently Donald Trump has 79 delegates, Ted Cruz 16, Marco Rubio 15, John Kasich 5, and Ben Carson 3. The total number of delegates needed to be nominated is 1,237. Donald Trump goes into Super Tuesday with a great deal of momentum with three consecutive wins in different parts of the nation. On March 1, 2016, known as Super Tuesday, 11 states will hold primaries and caucuses. Unless Kasich and Carson end their campaigns and the field of candidate is reduced to three, it will be difficult for some non-Trump candidate to emerge. However, it appears that neither Kasich nor Carson is ready to quit. Both are still clinging to their deluded dreams of winning the nomination.
Trump questioned Rubioâs eligibility to run for president as he did earlier with Cruz
Donald Trump is now attacking Senator Marco Rubio by claiming that he may not be a United States citizen since when he was born in Miami, Florida both of his parents were not citizens. Donald Trump said in a Republican debate that Senator Ted Cruz was a great person and he wanted him to be his vice president on his ticket. However, as soon as Ted Cruzâs poll numbers in the Iowa caucuses surpassed his numbers, Trump questioned, and has continuously questioned, Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s ability to legally run for president.
Trump even said that Ted Cruz was an âanchor babyâ in spite of the fact that the Texas senator mother was born in the United States when Cruz was born in Canada. âAnchor babiesâ are those whose foreign-born mothers come to the United States to have their babies born in this nation. On February 20, 2016, realizing that Marco Rubio is a threat to his nomination, the real estate billionaire questioned Senator Marco Rubio’s eligibility and suggested he is not a citizen.
While appearing on ABC’s This Week on February 21, George Stephanopoulos asked Trump why he tweeted and retweeted this outrageous claim, Trump simply replied, “Because I’m not sure. I mean, let people make their own determination. I know Ted is being now â I think he’s being sued by somebody having nothing to do with me, by the way.” “You’re really not sure that Marco Rubio is eligible to run for president? You’re really not sure?” Stephanopoulos asked. “I don’t know. I really â I’ve never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he’s not. And I retweeted it. I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and I retweet things, and we start dialogue and it’s very interesting,” Trump continued.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida on May 28, 1971 and his parents had come to the United States from Cuba in the 1950s. Trump said that he is not sure that Rubio is eligible to run for president. Terrible!
Senator Marco Rubio, who also appeared on ABC’s This Week, brushed off Trump’s latest claims and noted that this is a “game” Trump plays. Trumpâs supporters are calling Senator Rubio âMr. Amnesty.â While it is true that Senator Rubio supported immigration reform with the so-called âGang of Eight,â he has now changed his opinion on the immigration issue.
Donald Trump has been a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton for a long time. He visited them frequently in the White House. Now he criticizes his former friends, the Clintons.
Trump has played golf with Bill Clinton. Trump is close to both Hillary and Bill Clinton and has contributed money to them in the past. The Clintons came to his wedding as he said during the first Republican presidential candidatesâ debate. Ed Kline, a prominent investigating journalist and writer, said that Trump met with Bill Clinton and asked him if he should run for president as a Republican. Clinton said yes.
Donald Trump has changed his positions multiple times on many issues such as abortion, partial-birth abortion, gay rights in the military, the Cuban embargo and recognizing Cuba diplomatically, among others. Trump, after saying he wants to repeal ObamaCare, he praised Obamaâs individual a heathcare mandate. Additionally, Donald Trump has been a Democrat, an independent, and now a Republican.
Why is Trump winning even though he is not the best candidate in the Republican Party?
Nate Jackson wrote an article titled âNevadaâs High Stakes Caucusâ which was published in the website The Patriot Post on February 23, 2016. He predicted accurately the results of the Nevada caucuses by stating that it would likely to be a repeat of the South Carolinaâs. Jackson predicted correctly that in a state famous for gambling, casino mogul Donald Trump will win, followed by Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz fighting it out for second place. John Kasich and Ben Carson will follow with a distant fourth and fifth. Trumpâs business connections to the state in addition to his overall draw are likely to help him win in Nevada.
Jackson believes that Trump continues to win for the following reasons: âFirst because heâs tapping into an entirely justified swell of frustration among voters created by Barack Obama and left insufficiently addressed by the GOP establishment⌠Heâll make great deals. Heâll knock heads together. Heâll upend Washington, DC. Heâll make America great again.â
Jackson then asked what is there not to like. A lot, actually he said. The reporter pointed out that a constantly self-contradicting narcissistic liberal with New York values is not the answer to our nationâs questions or problems. Trump is leading because of the still-large and divided field of opponents. The Republican presidential race began with an unheard 17 candidates, and five still remain. Yet only one of them gets 24/7 media coverage. Trumpâs appeal runs deep (though not wide), leaving the rest of the field to divide up two-thirds of the votes. However, Trumpâs opponents are divided. The latest incident involves one of Senator Ted Cruzâs top aides posting a video of Rubio making comments about the Bible with a (deliberate) mis-transcription of his remarks at the bottom. Cruz had to fire his campaign official.
Jackson wrote that Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio are both outstanding conservatives. If Trump had not run, they might be jostling for first place, not second. Instead, theyâre only hurting each other, and the end result might be âa party led by a man who thinks its last president was a war criminal (referring to George W. Bush).â He feels that may be what Republicans deserve, but our nation needs better.
Jackson concluded his article by stating the following: âLimited-government constitutional conservatism is the best â indeed, the only â way to make American great again. We must get back to being governed by Rule of Law, and thus enjoying the fruits of real Liberty. Rubio and Cruz are each able to carry that torch. Trump simply wonât, no matter how many are willing to roll the dice on him. Unless the two senators pick up their game, Trump will continue to collect all the chips.â
The March Republican Primaries and Caucuses
Beginning on Super Tuesday on March 1, 2016, where 11 states will have primaries and caucuses and through March 22, 2016, a very large numbers of delegates will be awarded to the Republican presidential candidates. Donald Trump is leading because of the still-large and divided field of four Trump opponents. If some of them do not end their race, it will favor Trump, especially in a winner-take-all state like Florida on March 15.
Below is the schedule of the March Republican Primaries and Caucuses:
Senator Marco Rubioâs immigration policy
Both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have accused incorrectly Senator Marco Rubio of supporting amnesty for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. What are the Florida senatorâs current views on immigration?
Senator Rubio has consistently advocated fixing Americaâs immigration system, beginning with securing our border, enforcing immigration laws in the workplace, and implementing effective visa tracking systems. He believes that every sovereign nation has the right to set its immigration laws and enforce them. The Florida senator knows first-hand that enforcing our immigration laws is not being anti-immigrant.
Senator Rubio has stated that starting on Day One of his presidency, he will be focused on immigration security by implementing the following policies:
- Cancel President Obamaâs unconstitutional executive orders
- Eliminate federal funding for sanctuary cities
- Deport criminal illegal aliens
- Hire 20,000 new Border Patrol agents
- Finish all 700 miles of walls on our southern border
- Implement an entry-exit visa tracking system
- Implement a mandatory eVerify system
- Install $4 billion in new cameras and sensors on the border
Senator Rubio is aware on the importance of immigration security in light of the threat from sophisticated terrorist groups, such as the Islamic State and other terror groups, which are attempting to exploit our legal immigrant system or cross our borders illegally. That means, for instance, that the United States cannot and should not accept refugees from Syria unless it is possible to vet them. This principle will govern Marco Rubioâs approach to immigration security more generally: if we do not know who you are and why you are coming, you are not getting into America.
Senator Rubio laid out his overall views of the issue in his 2015 book, American Dreams. Here is what he wrote:
âWinning the global competition for investment and innovation will require us to win the global competition for talent. We simply cannot remain competitive in the twenty-first century if we are unable to attract and keep the most talented people in the world.
For as long as there has been an America, we have benefited from the infusion of entrepreneurs, innovators, workers and dreamers who have come to this country from other lands. But today, at a time when so many working-class and middle-class families are struggling, it can fairly be asked: Is it possible to advocate continued immigration while at the same time fighting for an agenda to lift up the working and middle classes? Arenât these two things at odds with each other? Well, the answer is yesâif we continue on the path weâre on.
To begin with, our immigration system itself is chaotic. Entire sectors of our southern border are not secure, creating not just an immigration problem but a serious humanitarian and national security one as well. Last summerâs crisis of thousands of unaccompanied minors entering this country proves that both our borders and our immigration system can be overwhelmed very quickly. In addition, many of our immigration laws are simply not enforced or unenforceable. For example, a significant percentage of those here illegally arrived legally, but then overstayed visas. We do not know who most of them are or where they are.
Our immigration system, designed primarily to reunite families, is an outdated relic of the last century. This system worked for much of the twentieth century, when we had no shortage of low-skill, middle-income jobs and the government safety net was still fairly limited. But today we have low to nonexistent growth, a shortage of good jobs and a massive web of needs-based programs.
No nation on earth is more generous when it comes to immigration than America. Each year about one million people permanently immigrate here legally. But when people hear that we have over twelve million people here illegally, they feel as if we are being taken advantage of. They see how hard it is to find and keep a steady and well-paying job, and they worry that more people will mean more competition for already scarce work. Thatâs not nativism. Thatâs human nature.
It does not have to be this way. We can have an America in which a thriving middle class coexists with continued, orderly, legal immigration.
We must begin by reigniting economic growth and opportunity in this nation. When our economy is growing and thriving, employment isnât a zero-sum game. A new Americanâs gain does not have to be an existing Americanâs loss. If that were true, every time we hand out a high school or college diploma to one person we should hand an unemployment check to someone else. In fact, the opposite is true.
Thatâs why, just as in all the other conservative reforms discussed in this book, having an immigration system that works for our country begins with economic growth. Indeed, instead of being an impediment to equal opportunity and widely shared prosperity, the right immigration system is a critical component of economic growth. One study by former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin found that if we modernized our immigration system from a family-based one to one focused on merit and productivity, we could grow the economy by almost a full percentage point in the near term and raise per capita growth by over $1,500.
Our current system is damaging our economy. Each year our colleges and universities graduate foreign students who are among the best and the brightest in the whole world. Instead of putting them to work here, innovating products and creating jobs, we send them back to China and India to compete against us. This makes no sense. If one of our college graduates is a world-class basketball player, there is little doubt he will wind up staying to play in the NBA. But if he or she is a world-class scientist, we make them leave!
Making our legal immigration system a merit-based system that encourages innovators will have broad benefits for our economy. Studies show, for example, that 40 percent of American Fortune 500 firms were started by immigrants. Whatâs more, roughly half of the most successful start-ups in Silicon Valley were started by people who werenât born in this country. And since 2000âdespite the restrictions we have on merit-based immigrationâover a third of the American Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, medicine and physics have been immigrants. This kind of scientific and entrepreneurial activity generates jobs across the income spectrumâfrom corner-suite executives to construction workers and IT engineers. Just the kind of jobs that help Americans rise to the middle class and beyond.
Transitioning to a merit-based, high-skilled immigration system would also help immigrants assimilate more quickly and easily into American economic and civil life. As reform conservative authors Yuval Levin and Reihan Salam have written, a merit-based systemâin conjunction with formal civic education requirements, such as a test on American history and government before being granted a green cardâwould have the effect of allowing immigrants to integrate more successfully into American communities and reduce the isolation and poverty of many of todayâs immigrant communities.
The benefits of a merit-based legal immigration system are widely (although not universally) accepted in America. So why, then, has nothing been done about it? The reason is our illegal immigration problem. We will never have the votes needed in Congress to modernize any part of our immigration system until the issue of illegal immigration is adequately dealt with first.
A significant percentage of Americans simply donât trust either party in Washington to address other aspects of immigration reform before illegal immigration has been brought under control, and for good reason. The immigration reform law of 1986 legalized more than three million people who were here illegally, but the enforcement measures were never fully implemented.
For years President Obama, his allies in Congress and many immigration reform supporters have told us that the border was âas secure as ever.â This fallacy was dramatically exposed when portions of our southern border were essentially overrun in the early part of 2014. Then there are the numerous examples of President Obama simply ignoring, suspending, rewriting and violating the law through executive action. All of these things have left many to conclude that, no matter what enforcement mechanisms are written into law, this administration will simply ignore them. The result is a stalemate on an issue of critical importance.
So what is the way forward? First, we must make the argument that reform is needed at all. I have heard some argue that all we need to do is enforce the laws we have already. But that is not accurate. On the enforcement side, we need additional investment in electronic monitoring and personnel. Building more fencing alone will not be enough to address illegal crossings. We also need to give employers a reliable way to check the legal status of the people they hire. We need to invest in an entry and exit tracking system to prevent visa overstays. All of this would require reform.
How do we achieve this reform, given the current stalemate? We must begin by acknowledging that, considering our recent experience with massive pieces of legislation, achieving comprehensive reform of anything in a single bill is simply not realistic. Having tried that approach, I know this to be true firsthand. The fear that such massive pieces of legislation include some clever loophole or unintended consequence makes it even harder to achieve. The only way we are going to be able to break this impasse and make progress on this issue is in a sequential and piecemeal way, with a series of bills that build upon one another until ultimately we have put in place the kind of immigration system our nation needs.
The first step must be enforcement measures that are effective and verifiable. Such measures would include securing the most vulnerable and most trafficked sectors of the southern border, mandatory E-Verify and the full implementation of an entry-exit tracking system. The second step is to modernize our legal immigration system toward a merit-based one. That would mean reassigning existing visas away from family-based immigration and toward work- and skill-based immigration, passing reforms for high-tech visas, as well as creating a limited guest worker program for seasonal workers in the agricultural sector to reduce the incentive for these workers to come here illegally in the future.
Once both of these reforms have been passed, then I believe the conditions will be in place to address the most politically sensitive aspect of immigration reform: what to do with more than twelve million people currently here illegally. On the one hand, calls to grant amnesty to twelve million people are unrealistic and quite frankly irresponsible. On the other hand, not a single opponent of the Senate bill I helped author proposed that we try to round up and deport twelve million human beings. So how do we deal with this dilemma? I believe that if the enforcement measures are in place, there exists a path forward that would obtain a significant majority in Congress and the support of a majority of Americans across the political spectrum.
It consists of three parts. First, those here illegally must come forward and be registered. If they have committed serious crimes or have not been here long enough, they will have to leave. With the new E-Verify system in place, they are going to find it difficult to find a job in any case.
Second, those who qualify would be allowed to apply for a temporary nonimmigrant visa. To obtain it they will have to pay an application fee and a fine, undergo a background check and learn English. Once they receive this work permit, they would be allowed to work legally and travel. To keep it, they will have to pay taxes. They would not qualify for government programs like Obamacare, welfare or food stamps. And if they commit a crime while in this status, they would lose their permit.
Third and finally, those who qualify for a nonimmigrant visa will have to remain in this status for at least a decade. After that, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency if they so choose. Many who qualify for this status will choose to remain in it indefinitely. But those who choose to seek permanent residency would have to do it the way anyone else would, not through any special pathway.
This three-step plan is not only the best way to reform our immigration system, it is, in my opinion, the only approach that has any chance of success. An overwhelming majority of Americans in both parties would support this sort of incremental approach. Of course, there will be detractors. Some will continue to call for less immigration and more deportations. On the left, some will continue to demand an all-at-once-or-nothing-at-all approach. Just like saving Medicare and Social Security, immigration reform is a powerful political issue. Some on the right know it needs to be done, but they want someone else to do it. Some on the left have concluded that having the issue is more politically valuable than solving the problem. Groups on both sides use it to raise money.
In the end, immigration reform is fundamentally about reforming government and restoring the American peopleâs faith in the ability of their government to do basic things right. I donât believe this challenge will be fully met until we have new leaders in Washington who support both the rule of law and the job-creating potential of the free market. Until then, the best way to rebuild trust and reform our broken immigration system is through incremental steps both to fix our immigration system and to realize the full potential of our country.
Why? Because the American Dream is not small. Itâs not about entitlement. Itâs about opportunity. It is not about parceling out prosperity to the few. It is about a striving, growing prosperity for anyone willing to work hard and to dream. Conservatives have always been the keeper of this flame. We have always been the believers in a growing, striving America. It is a tragedy that today we find ourselves being portrayed as pessimists about Americaâs potential rather than the optimists we have always been. We will miss a great opportunity to reclaim the true meaning of our movementâand, much more important, to restore the true potential of our countryâif we fail to act.â
Can Senator Rubio win the Republican presidential nomination?
Erick Erickson thinks, as this writer and many others, that Senator Rubio could be the Republican Party nominee. However, the path to the nomination will be very difficult unless Carson and Kasich suspend their campaign. While many in the media have been reporting that Trump will get the nomination, there is still a long way to go.
They fail to understand that most of the supporters of Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio are very angry at Donald Trumpâs attacks on the eligibility of these two highly intelligent presidential candidates and the many insults that they have received from the billionaire front runner. The constant insults of the New York City Republican front runner businessman towards all Republican presidential candidates have created bitterness among Republican voters and this may not fare well for Donald Trump in the future. This is especially true if in July 2016 none of the candidates go into the Convention in Cleveland without the necessary number of 1,237 delegates. In a so-called âbroken conventionâ if after the first ballot no one wins, all the delegates are free to switch sides.
It is clear that Donald Trump has the support of 35% to 40% of the Republican base. Donald Trump indicated these individuals will support him âeven if he kills someone on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.â No matter what happens in the future these individuals will continue to support Donald Trump in spite of his very liberal past, how insane and ill-informed his comments are and whom he insults or the lack of a detailed plan on how he is going to make America great again. Many voters from both political parties are very angry and disillusion at the federal government and this has helped both Trump and the communist Bernie Sanders.
Conclusion
The question that needs to be answer by the angry and frustrated Republican voter is the following: Who is the best candidate that can defeat either the corrupt Hillary Clinton or the communist Bernie Sanders? Most polls indicate that it is Senator Marco Rubio. It is one thing to win the nomination and another to win the presidential election. It is too early to say who the Republican presidential candidate will be. As indicated the race needs to be further narrowed, Senator Rubio thinks that it will help him not just in Florida, but in Ohio and in other key places around the country.
It is important to remember that all Republicans should support whoever is nominated for president in July in Cleveland. If Donald Trump or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz wins the nomination, the Republican Party must unite and support the nominee. Any of the three Republican presidential candidate would be far better to lead the nation that the corrupt Hillary Clinton or the communist Bernie Sanders.
