QUESTION: Did You Know Rubio’s ‘Gang Of 8’ Bill Would’ve Opened The Floodgates To Islamic Refugees?

qmeme_1456066239439_671

Did you know this about the Establishment’s golden boy, Rubio? It looks like he isn’t so far off from Obama after all.

Here’s a question an incisive debate moderator ought to ask Marco Rubio: are you happy Senators Sessions and Cruz helped defeat your Gang of 8 immigration bill?

One of the more obscure yet destructive provisions of the Gang of 8 bill I wrote about in 2013 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.”  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.

In addition, 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.

Read more: Conservative Review

Not only that, but did you know that Marco Rubio’s deputy campaign manager is also a gay marriage activist?

CHARLESTON, South Carolina, February 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A pivotal member of Marco Rubio’s campaign actively encouraged the Supreme Court to impose gay “marriage” on the entire nation by judicial fiat.

Senator Rubio’s deputy campaign manager, Rich Beeson, signed a legal brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to redefine marriage in last summer’s Obergefell v. Hodgescase.

The amicus curiae brief, which was signed by 300 Republican operatives whose names spill over 24 pages, argued that having the court discover a nationwide right to same-sex “marriage” served “conservative values.”

The state marriage protection amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman “run afoul of our constitutional order by submitting a fundamental right to legislative or popular referendum,” it stated. However, the original intent of the Constitution did not include a right to same-sex “marriage,” as states legally prohibited homosexuality until the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision.

Read more: Life Site News

Share if your choice is B!

About the author: Doug Giles

Doug Giles is the Big Dawg at ClashDaily.com and the Co-Owner of The Safari Cigar Company. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. And check out his NEW BOOK, Pussification: The Effeminization Of The American Male.

View all articles by Doug Giles

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily