Back to Videos Jeff Sessions: Without Ted Cruz, Amnesty Would Have Passed In 2013

[EC]

Sen. Jeff Sessions gave a full-throated defense of Sen. Ted Cruz at an event Friday in Daphne, Alabama. Cruz is facing attacks from Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and others over technical issues regarding amendments to a 2013 immigation reform bill which never passed.

"People need to remember this, because this election is going to decide, the crowd who pushed that bill," Sessions said. "Will they be in the White House, and allowed to push their agenda, or will we have somebody else?"

"Remember after the 2006 battle, people started sending bricks to Congress, to build a wall with... The switchboards were shutdown, millions of Americans were calling. And when we finally had a vote, only 46 voted for it. The people spoke and the Congress, although it was dicey, they listened."

"In 2013 they spent a billion and a half dollars to promote this legislation, the political consultants, they had pollsters hired to spin the numbers, they had special interest groups, they met for months, the gang of eight, they were determined, it was a near on thing, it was a worse bill than the 2007 bill. It gave amnesty first... We voted more than once to build a fence, do we have a fence?"

"So it came before the Senate, and the gang of eight met every day, they also had been meeting for months with the special interests and activists, the la Raza group, the ACLU, and businesses who want more and more cheap labor."

"They had a scheme -- a plan to vote down every amendment no matter what the amendment was. They did it because they said they had acheived a delegate balance between enforcement, and they had the perfect bill... Every amendment was voted down by every Democrat and a number of Republicans. it was a tense."

"It was that close to being passed... and I think I can say this with integrity. Without the vigorous opposition of Ted Cruz, this bill likely would have passed."

Video at link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/20/jeff_sessions_without_ted_cruz_amnesty_would_have_passed_in_2013.html

[libertybele]

Exactly.  Rubio's attacking Cruz was nothing more than a bold faced lie.

[Fishrrman]

There aren't very many "good guys" in the Senate any more, but Jeff Sessions is one of the few left.

Whether Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz wins the nomination, I expect Senator Sessions to be closely advising either of them.

Or perhaps both of them on the same ticket!

[EC]

Sessions is one of (if not the only one!) the most universally respected members of Congress on here. Honestly don't think I've seen a bad word about him from anyone.

Figured when he weighs in on an important subject - it's worth reporting!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization." - Sen . Ted Cruz, GOP debate 12/15/15

As proof of the claim that Cruz once supported legalization, the Rubio campaign pointed to an amendment Cruz proposed in 2013 that would have stripped the path to citizenship provision from the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” Senate immigration bill.

In arguing for the amendment at the time, Cruz noted that even with that provision eliminated, other portions of the Senate bill that provide legal resident status would remain, so that in effect his amendment would deny citizenship but allow legalization.

Cruz, May 21, 2013: They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR [Lawful Permanent Resident] status as well so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principal objective, to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen, but what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship so that there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.

Cruz sounded awfully convincing in his speech that this was the position he was advocating.

Cruz, May 21, 2013: And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment —  and I think everyone here views it is quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment —  in my view that decision will make it much much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representatives. I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together. And this amendment, I believe if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically. And so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment.

And then this:

Cruz, May 21, 2013: Now I would suggest to all of those who passionately want to see this program fixed, that saying it’s all-or-nothing if there’s no path to citizenship, quote, there is no reform, tying immigration reform hostage to a path to citizenship is not a strategy to pass a bill. It’s a strategy to create partisan division. It’s a strategy that may well result in more political battles. But it’s not a strategy to fix the problem and so I would urge everyone on this committee to roll up our sleeves and fix the problem in a humane way that secures the border, gets serious about fixing that problem, that expands and improves legal immigration and that does not unfairly treat legal immigrants by removing a path to citizenship but allowing as this legislation does a legal status for those who are here illegally. That would be reform that a great many people across this country, both Republican and Democrat, would embrace and I would urge the committee to consider the amendment.

The Cruz campaign now argues that Senator Cruz offered up his amendment to "prove a point", yet they have no proof of that.

So it leaves only one question left unanswered...

Was Cruz lying then, or is he lying now?

[alicewonders]

There aren't very many "good guys" in the Senate any more, but Jeff Sessions is one of the few left.

Whether Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz wins the nomination, I expect Senator Sessions to be closely advising either of them.

Or perhaps both of them on the same ticket!

 

[mystery-ak]

Nice to see ya here Luis...but I believe Cruz and Sessions ...and to tell you the truth I really don't care about this so called *issue*.

Maybe if Rubio would show up in the Senate and participate in his elected duties he might know what's going on there.