Medical marijuana advocates up in arms over Jeff Sessions
The head of a medical marijuana advocacy group is criticizing President-elect Donald Trump’s pick of Jeff Sessions for U.S. Attorney General. Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, said in an email Friday that the Republican Sessions “has criticized the morality of cannabis users and has stated that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol.” Sessions, a former federal prosecutor, once “rebutted (President) Obama’s observation that marijuana is safer than alcohol by citing a renowned expert on substance abuse: ‘Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to it and it is not harmless,’” according to Forbes. On the other hand, Sherer said, Trump “repeatedly said he supports medical cannabis and that he believes states should be able to set their own policies in this area.” The president-elect “needs to reassure the more than 300 million Americans living under some sort of medical cannabis law that his attorney general will honor his campaign pledge to respect state medical cannabis programs,” Sherer said. “Plain and simple, medical cannabis is a critical therapy used by millions of patients to alleviate symptoms of epilepsy, chemotherapy, HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, and more,” she added. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized medical marijuana under state law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A ballot initiative giving Floridians a state constitutional right to medical pot passed earlier this month with 71 percent of the vote. But marijuana is still outlawed by the federal government. The Obama administration has given states a pass, saying federal prosecutors should not charge those — particularly “the seriously ill and their caregivers” — who distribute and use medical marijuana under a state law.
Martin Dyckman: With ‘colossal liar’ Donald Trump, nightmares could become reality
Donald Trump has audacious proposals to wall off Mexico and bar Muslim immigrants, but he hasn’t said how he would stop people from sneaking around the barriers or overstaying visas. How might he manage that? Let’s surmise one way. He could be planning to implant every lawful resident with an identification chip like those the veterinarian offers to your dog or cat. The process is relatively painless and doesn’t cost much. Newborns and legitimate visitors would be first. Others would have their turn in order to renew their drivers’ licenses, receive a tax refund, or show up to vote. Strategically placed surveillance devices would detect people without chips to be held for questioning. “We have no choice,” he would say. Stop. Roll back. This is fiction. I have absolutely no evidence that anything of the sort has occurred even to Trump. Identity chips have been the fantasy only of some folks on the far right who enjoy suspecting that their own government is out to get them. They’re probably huge Trump fans. They’re susceptible to believing anything bad about their country’s leadership, and that’s what he trades on. They’d better be careful, though. With Trump, one of their nightmares could become reality. As Trump himself would say, who knows? Stop. Roll back. I say again, this is fiction. But it’s no more false, fanciful or outrageous than the paranoid fables that Trump persistently passes off as casually as you or I might say, “How’s it going today?” After the slaughter at Orlando, Trump had the gall to imply that President Obama was somehow responsible. Proof? “There’s something going on,” Trump said. That’s not proof. He prepared for his campaign by flogging the birther nonsense even after all but a few certifiable lunatics had accepted the redundant evidence of Barack Obama’s native-born citizenship. He has been digging into his party’s dry-as-dust Benghazi well by charging that Hillary Clinton was asleep rather than answering the phone when the American consulate was under attack. That’s a takeoff on her campaign question, “Who do you want in the White House when the phone rings at 3 a.m.?” The trouble with Trump’s attempt to exploit Benghazi in that regard is that while the assault took place at nighttime in Libya, it was full daylight in the United States. The secretary of state was not napping. After verifying that she was in her Washington office, PolitiFact rated Trump’s claim “false.” Pressed repeatedly on the insinuation, Trump finally admitted on NBC News that it might not be true. “It happened all during the day and was going on for a long period of time — it was going on for a long period of time and she was asleep at the wheel, whether she was sleeping or not, who knows if she was sleeping?” he said. Who knows? If such speculative claptrap is legitimate politicking, here are a few other possibilities: Is Trump insane? Who knows? Does he maintain a secret harem somewhere? Who knows? Does he have a fortune stashed in Russian banks, and is that why he’s refusing to divulge his income tax returns? Who knows? Trump continues to remind us that the Republican Party is about to nominate, for the most important office in the world, someone who doesn’t care even in the slightest whether there’s any truth to what he says. He is a deliberate liar who’s as eager to deceive everyone in the same way he took advantage of people expecting to learn something useful from the so-called Trump University. The lesson that most learned was to not be swindled again. And when Trump accuses Clinton of being the most corrupt presidential candidate ever, she must know what it’s like to be called ugly by a frog. Trump should look in the mirror. He is as corrupt, if not more so, than any individual who has ever run for any office in the United States. To tell lies and willfully repeat them after they have been exposed is a profound form of corruption. To lure hard-working Americans into seminars on the premise that they will learn to be rich and then stiff them for ever-costlier upgrades they can’t afford is a profound form of corruption. To habitually take corporations into bankruptcy, enriching oneself while leaving creditors and investors with little or nothing, is corruption. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, once can be the failure of good intentions. But at the old saying goes, “Fool me once, your fault. Fool me twice, my fault.” The presidency of the United States — the leadership of the free world — is not on the order of a gambling casino or a golf course. We don’t dare be fooled even once. Especially not by so colossal a liar as Donald Trump. ___ Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the newspaper now known as the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in suburban Asheville, North Carolina.
Luther Strange to State Board of Education: Ignore Obama’s transgender bathroom rules
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange sent a letter to the State Board of Education in response to many questions from Alabama’s school systems on the ramifications of President Obama‘s recent executive actions requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use the restrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their preferred gender. In the letter, Strange advised the school board to simply ignore the president’s directive until the issue is taken up and settled in federal court. “Although the (federal guidance) letter states that it ‘does not add requirements to applicable law,’ it clearly purports to change the law by redefining the word ‘sex’ in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to mean ‘gender identity,’” wrote Attorney General Strange. “…Title IX is about discrimination ‘on the basis of sex,’ not gender identity.” AG Strange filed suit on behalf of the state against the Obama administration last week, joining 10 other states in pushing back against the executive order. “The Obama administration has taken government overreach to an unprecedented level, directly challenging the personal privacy of America’s school children while threatening to withhold funds from schools which refuse to accept this form of coercion,” said Strange in a press release announcing the lawsuit. “President Obama does not have legal grounds to rewrite the law. Congress was absolutely clear that federal law allows schools to have separate facilities based on the ‘sex’ of the individual, not their gender preference. This disturbing attempt to transform America’s classrooms into laboratories for the Obama administration’s social experiments will not stand up to the test of law.” The issue has become increasingly heated in the weeks following President Obama’s order, with everyone from presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump to Alabama Today’s own Apryl Marie Fogel weighing in on the subject. Find the entire text of the letter to the State Board of Education below. Dear Members of the Board of Education: My Office has received numerous inquiries from educators and others about the “significant guidance letter” issued by the United States Department of Education and Department of Justice on May 13, 2016. Although the letter states that it “does not add requirements to applicable law,” it clearly purports to change the law by redefining the word “sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to mean “gender identity.” It is my understanding that principals and teachers in Alabama have considerable discretion in how to accommodate transgendered students. The question of how to accommodate a transgendered student is presently resolved on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the student’s parents, teachers, and principals. But it appears that the most frequent accommodation is to encourage the student to use a single-occupancy bathroom. Unfortunately, that commonsense practice would be inconsistent with the “significant guidance letter,” which states that “a school may not require transgender students . . . to use individual-user facilities.” In my opinion, the guidance letter is based on a legally erroneous interpretation of Title IX. Title IX forbids disparate treatment “on the basis of sex.” 20 U.S.C. §1681(a). But Title IX provides that “nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit any education institution . . . from maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes.” 20 U.S.C. § 1686. Similarly, the 1975 regulation that implements Title IX expressly authorizes “provid[ing] separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.” 33 C.F.R. § 106.33. In other words, Title IX is about discrimination “on the basis of sex,” not gender identity. Unlike subjective gender identity, sex is an objective biological reality. The American Psychological Association defines “sex” as “a person’s biological status” based on indicators such as “sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” Gender, on the other hand, “connotes cultural or attitudinal characteristics distinctive to the sexes, as opposed to their physical characteristics.” Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas & Elec Co., 77 F.3d 745, 749 n.1 (4th Cir. 1996). To redefine “sex” as “gender identity,” the guidance letter erroneously relies on judicial decisions that are distinguishable and unpersuasive. Judicial decisions in which transgender plaintiffs have been allowed to pursue discrimination claims have involved penalizing the transgendered person for failing to look, act, or dress the way “real” men or women are culturally expected to. Most of these cases did not even mention bathroom usage, and none of them turned on bathroom-related claims. The guidance letter ignores, however, the numerous courts that have held that schools may provide separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex differences. E.g., Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1228 (9th Cir. 1994); R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV Sch. Dist., 477 S.W.3d 185, 187 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015); Johnston v. Univ. of Pittsburgh of Com. Sys. of Higher Educ., 97 F. Supp. 3d 657, 670 (W.D. Pa. 2015); Doe v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 206-CV-1074-JCM-RJJ, 2008 WL 4372872 at * 4 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2008). Because the guidance letter is based on an erroneous view of Title IX, I believe the threat that schools will lose federal funding for failing to comply with the guidance is ultimately an empty one. On May 25, I filed suit on behalf of Alabama, along with officials from ten other States, to prevent the Department of Justice and Department of Education from enforcing the guidance letter. This lawsuit will determine whether the Department of Justice and Department of Education have the authority to implement the policy announced in the guidance. I have attached a copy of our complaint to this letter. Until the lawsuit is resolved, I would encourage educators to simply ignore the guidance letter. Sincerely, Luther Strange Attorney General
Luther Strange adds Alabama to 11-state fight against Obama’s bathroom regulations
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange added Alabama to an 11-state lawsuit against President Obama‘s order mandating public schools across the country allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their preferred gender expression. “The Obama administration has taken government overreach to an unprecedented level, directly challenging the personal privacy of America’s school children while threatening to withhold funds from schools which refuse to accept this form of coercion” said AG Strange in a press release Wednesday. “President Obama does not have legal grounds to rewrite the law. Congress was absolutely clear that federal law allows schools to have separate facilities based on the ‘sex’ of the individual, not their gender preference. This disturbing attempt to transform America’s classrooms into laboratories for the Obama administration’s social experiments will not stand up to the test of law.” The issue has become increasingly heated in the weeks following President Obama’s order, with everyone from presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump to Alabama Today’s own Apryl Marie Fogel weighing in on the subject. Earlier this month AG Strange called the new policy “just one more example of the kind of federal overreach that we have come to expect from this White House.”
Bradley Byrne: Defense bill blocks attempt to cut Mobile shipyard
Southwest Alabama has a proud military tradition. Our area is home to a large number of veterans. The Coast Guard has a strong presence here. Important military vessels are constructed up and down the Gulf Coast. These are all things we take great pride in. That’s why it was so frustrating last December when Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced his plans to cut the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program from 52 total ships to just 40. The LCS is the Navy vessel built at Austal USA in Mobile. Over 4,000 men and women are directly employed by the shipyard. Two different versions of the LCS are currently built by Austal in Mobile and Marinette Marine in Wisconsin. The Secretary also proposed eliminating one of the versions entirely in a “downselect” to a single builder. Navy officials testified before Congress that this would result in one of the shipyards closing entirely. I immediately went to work to make sure his efforts would not be successful. When the President’s budget was released and included the proposed cuts, I doubled down in my efforts. Ultimately, it is the decision of Congress, not a lame-duck President and a lame-duck Secretary of Defense. Let me be clear up front: I don’t support the LCS program simply because it is built in our area. I support the program because the Navy has made clear time and time again they like the LCS, and they need the ship in order to fulfill their mission. If these ships weren’t critical to the Navy, then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. So, I set out to stop these proposed cuts. In Congress, I serve on the House Armed Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over our nation’s entire military. Each year, the Committee must pass legislation known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This is the bill that sets policy and authorizes funding for military operations and programs. As part of his efforts to cut the program, President Obama’s budget only requested funding for two Littoral Combat Ships this year, instead of the required three ships. My goal was [to] make sure the NDAA included full funding for three ships while also stopping the cuts from moving forward. I’m pleased to report that our efforts were successful, and the NDAA includes funding for three ships. I also introduced an amendment to prevent the Pentagon from following through with their plans to eliminate one of the two builders. My amendment was adopted without any opposition. Ultimately, the NDAA passed the full Armed Services Committee early Thursday morning after more than fifteen hours of debate. In a sign of the truly bipartisan nature of our committee, the bill passed by a vote of 60 to 2. This was a resounding victory for all the men and women who work at the Austal shipyard in Mobile. This means both Republicans and Democrats agree that President Obama is wrong for trying to cut the LCS program, which is so important to the Navy. More challenges may arise, but I promise to keep fighting for the LCS, the Navy, and the people who work at that shipyard. Most importantly, I promise to keep fighting for Southwest Alabama and our proud military traditions. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Bradley Byrne: We still don’t have a strategy to fight ISIS
For over a year now, I have been pointing out that the Obama Administration lacks a clear strategy to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This is the brutal terrorist organization that holds significant territory in the Middle East and claims responsibility for attacks in Brussels, Paris, and San Bernardino, California. When I visited the Middle East a few years ago, ISIS was gaining power and influence. In each country, I heard from American allies who were worried about ISIS and the lack of leadership from the United States. No one expected the United States to lead the fight alone, but they looked to us for guidance. Instead of leading, the President called ISIS a “JV team” and refused to acknowledge that our actions in Syria and Iraq were contributing to ISIS’s growth. At the same time, Syria was engaged in a violent civil war and Iraq’s military was falling apart. The United States has since started air strikes intended to disrupt ISIS operations and kill ISIS leadership. A few other countries have joined those efforts, but we still lack the large-scale support from U.S. allies that is needed to defeat ISIS. Don’t get me wrong: a number of American service members are doing a valiant job to defeat the enemy, but Administration has not given them a winning strategy. In other words, it doesn’t matter how great the athletes are on a football team if the coach does not have a game plan on how to win the game. That’s the challenge facing our military today. With this in mind, Congress included a provision in the annual National Defense Authorization Act last year that required the Obama Administration to submit a plan outlining their strategy for the Middle East and to defeat ISIS. The law couldn’t have been clearer. It said the report should be submitted to Congress “not later than February 15, 2016.” Well, February 15th came and passed without a plan being submitted to Congress. A few weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who was responsible for submitting the report, testified before the Armed Services Committee about his annual budget request. I used the hearing to ask Secretary Carter why he had failed to submit the report on time as required by law. When an average American violates the law, there are consequences. The same should apply to leaders in the federal government. No one, regardless of their political position, should ever be above the law. I asked the Secretary where the report was and if he agreed the law was broken. Secretary Carter failed to answer my questions and simply said the report’s release was “imminent.” Well, two days later and over a month late, the report was submitted to Congress. It was only seven pages long and lacked a clear strategy. It reminded me of a kid who forgot to do their homework, so they recklessly threw something together at the last minute. Either the Obama Administration didn’t take the request from Congress seriously or they actually don’t have a strategy to defeat ISIS and combat Islamic extremism in the Middle East. I fear that both of those are true. Only the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the military, can put forward a strategy for our military. So far, President Obama has failed to do that and ISIS continues to grow. In Congress, it is our job to continue holding the President and his advisors to the fire until they follow the law. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will continue doing just that. The safety and security of the American people require it. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Bradley Byrne: We must rein in overreach at the Department of Labor
A big problem with our country today is that the government and federal bureaucrats always seem to think they know what is best. This is flawed logic because government was created to serve the people, not the other way around. Unfortunately, government agencies seem to forget that. This is certainly true when it comes to the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent federal agency responsible for setting policies related to labor practices and unions. The NLRB was formed in 1935, but has seen its power increase in recent years. The Department of Labor and the NLRB exist for the purpose of protecting American workers. Unfortunately, they have abused their powers in an effort to exert more control over businesses and workers. The Obama Administration has used the Department of Labor and the NLRB to upend decades of legal precedent by issuing aggressive decisions and regulations. Sadly, these actions have put the interests of big labor bosses ahead of what is best for hardworking Americans. These actions are especially challenging to small and medium sized businesses who lack the money and resources to devote to compliance with the patchwork of federal laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. I hear far too often from small businesses right here in Southwest Alabama who have been negatively impacted by the Obama Administration’s labor policy. As a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I have been working to fight back against this overreach and abuse. The Committee has held numerous hearings on labor issues, including a field hearing last August in Mobile. We have also passed legislation that would block some of the most onerous proposals from moving forward, but many of our bills have been vetoed by President Obama. So, we must find ways to work around the President’s veto pen. One of the most powerful tools we have in Congress is the power of the purse. Almost all federal agencies and programs require funding from Congress. If the Obama Administration isn’t following the law or is overreaching, we should cut or withhold funding to the related agency. With this in mind, I recently sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for writing the annual funding bills, asking that they address four major labor issues in this year’s funding legislation. I was honored to have 72 of my Republican colleagues from every corner of the United States sign my letter to show strong support for reining in overreach by the Department of Labor and the NLRB. That shouldn’t be where we stop though. We must continue pushing for standalone legislation to protect worker rights and ensure fairness in the workplace. I am especially proud to support the Employee Rights Act. The Employee Rights Act would make wholesale reforms to bring our nation’s labor laws up to date. Among the many reforms, this bill would guarantee secret ballot votes on any initial decision to join a union, require unions to get positive consent from members before using union fees for political purposes, and protect employees against union intimidation or retaliation. An appropriate union-employee relationship is critical to having a strong economy. We should always ensure that hardworking Americans and small business owners, not big union bosses, are deciding what is best for their business. I promise you this: I will continue fighting every day against overreaches by the Obama Administration and keep working to protect American workers. That is what you elected me to do. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Carly Fiorina says she is the leader the world needs in a time of terror
If you’ve followed any of the stump speeches of the 15 Republican candidates still standing in the race for the presidential nomination, you know that everyone of them spends considerable time criticizing what they call the fecklessness of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton‘s foreign policy. So in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris apparently committed by the Islamic State on Friday, most of the candidates who appeared at the Republican Party of Florida’s Sunshine Summit on Saturday in Orlando had a target rich environment in which to attack. Speaking in her staccato style that has won her acclaim on the campaign trail, Carly Fiorina delivered an intense message of U.S. exceptionalism and boasted extensively about her credentials to lead the nation (and the world) in the continuing war on Islamic terrorism. “Our most pressing and immediate national security challenge is radical Islamic terrorism around the world, and here at home, both lone wolves, and packs of wolves,” Fiorina said to a cheering crowd. “ISIS must be confronted and it must be destroyed and we must call it what it is.” “No, Mrs. Clinton. No, Mr. Obama. Climate change is not our most pressing national security challenge,” she commanded, again to whoops and cheers throughout the hotel ballroom. No candidate on Saturday elicited such enthusiasm. Listing important European and Middle Eastern allies by name who she says are fighting ISIS on the ground, Fiorina promised it would be a new day for them if she was elected president. “All, every single one of them has asked the United States of America for support. For weapons. For material. For intelligence sharing. Mostly, this administration has said no. I. Will. Say. Yes.” As the former head of Hewlett-Packard has said in the debates and on the campaign trail, her first two phone calls would be to “my good friend, Bibi Netanyahu,” to tell him that the U.S. will standby Israel always and forever. Her second call will be to the Supreme Leader of Iran (who she said may not take the call). He’ll get the message, she says, which is to say, new president, new nuclear deal. That wasn’t the end of her boasting about her national security cred. “I understand the world, and who’s in it. I have operated around the world for decades. In business, in charity, and in policy. I have held the highest security clearances available to a civilian. I have advised the CIA, the NSA, departments of Defense, Secretary of State, Homeland Security. We need a president who will speak. He will see. Who will act on the truth. She must understand,” as the crowd erupted. “She must understand how truly exceptional this nation is, and call evil by its name.” “Others will not call it Islamic terrorism, ” she added. “I will, and I have the courage to lead.” She concluded by invoking Margaret Thatcher‘s comment that she wasn’t ready to manage the decline of a great nation. “We’ve been managing the decline of this great nation for far. Too. Long. Now.” All in all, it was another impressive performance. Yet so far, the robust fundraising and poll numbers haven’t followed suit.
John Kasich says NATO should invoke Article 5 in wake of Paris attacks
Saying it was not a day for politics as usual, Ohio Governor John Kasich still got partisan on Saturday at the Sunshine Summit in Orlando on Saturday afternoon. His entire speech was centered around the battle against terrorism in the wake of the attacks in Paris on Friday night, “I don’t know if this is the time for political criticism or the blame game, but I must say, that we as a nation, the United States of America, has not shown leadership. We just have not shown leadership. We’ve had an unwillingness to lead,” he said, referring to the unnamed Obama administration official who once told the New Yorker that the U.S. meant to ‘lead from behind.’ “If the U.S. were to continue to lead from behind, we will leave the world a much more dangerous place,” Kasich continued. He then suggested that NATO should invoke Article 5, which says that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all members (which would include the U.S.). Kasich said this a time for the U.S. to stand behind the French, and work together on intelligence operations. “It’s only through effective intelligence that we can begin to learn of threats, and there’s no doubt in my mind, that some of our intelligence cooperation has thwarted attackers that we have not even heard of.” He also said there needed to be a concentrated effort to win the battle of ideas with Islamic terrorists, invoking the use of Radio Free Europe being broadcast into the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, and more recently, using communications to get into North Korea. “I believe that the war on ideas can be won, based on our Jewish and Christian principals, and those moderate Muslim friends that we have to communicate the message that this kind of nihilistic, murderist attitude is not going to help civilization. It is completely and totally wrong. So I believe it’s a good organizing tool and good method to get joint effort.” Kasich — as everyone knows who’s watched him in the debates — was the chairman of the House Budget Committee the last time the U.S. government balanced the budget, back in 1997. He was asked if he could balance the budget and fight a war on terrorism without raising taxes. He said that his balanced budget plan boosts military spending, and freezes every other form of spending. He says his plan would end up raising growth by 3.9 percent. He later elaborated with reporters that a coalition of foreign armies should be formed to “destroy ISIS. ” However, he later admitted that he was critical of President Obama’s decision to put 50 advisers in Syria, fearing it could get the U.S. involved in a civil war there. “I recognize that the headquarters of the ISIS military is there and that they need to be destroyed.” How to balance that seeming contradiction? “Foreign policy is complicated,” he admitted.
Ted Cruz’ attacks on immigration puzzle Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio says he and Ted Cruz have similar stances on immigration, which is why the Texas senator’s shots at his record on that volatile subject the past few days have surprised him. “I’m puzzled and quite frankly surprised by Ted’s attacks, since Ted’s position on immigration is not that much different than mine,” Rubio told a crowd of reporters in Orlando at the Republican Party of Florida’s Sunshine Summit. “He’s a supporter of legalizing people who were in this country illegally,” the Florida senator said at a news conference immediately after he spoke at the event. “If he’s changed that position, then he certainly has the right to change his position on that issue, but he should be clear about that.” Rubio then said that on other immigration issues Cruz has gone further than he has in trying to accommodate undocumented immigrants. “He wanted to double the number of green cards. He wanted a 500 percent increase in the number of HB-1 visas, so everybody running for president on the Republican side, in one way or shape, supports some form or fashion the legalization of people who are in this country illegally.” Rubio said the question now is what’s the most responsible way to deal with the issue. He then repeated his stance since he began distancing himself from his support as one of the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan Senate group who wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in summer 2013, but that former House Speaker John Boehner never brought before the House. Rubio’s stance is that there needs to be tighter border security to get the illegal immigration situation under control before there can be any discussion about what to do with the undocumented. He blames the migratory crises of the summer of 2014 and President Barack Obama‘s executive actions a year ago in trying to shield millions from deportation as being the major obstacles against the current Congress working on immigration reform. “The biggest lesson from 2015 for me was how little trust there is in the federal government to enforce the law. Once you prove it to people that it’s working, than I think you’re going to have the support and political space that you need to move forward on modernization and ultimately on dealing realistically with those who are in this country for a significant period of time,” which Rubio says should be about 10 years. For his part, Cruz isn’t backing down one bit in the verbal battle, telling conservative talk show radio host Mike Gallagher earlier Friday, “From Day One I led the fight against the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, stood shoulder to shoulder with Jeff Sessions … and we defeated it.”
