Multiple reports ranging from PBS, to the New York Times, to The Washington Post, to exclusive reporting in Breitbart News have documented House Freedom Caucus founder Mick Mulvaney’s central role in Paul Ryan and Luis Gutierrez’s campaign to push Marco Rubio’s amnesty agenda through the House of Representatives.
In response, Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz is now speaking out against Mulvaney and warning his South Carolina constituents that Mulvaney—who delivered Ryan his pivotal endorsement for Speaker—is actively working against their interests.
“It’s disturbing how Mulvaney has appointed himself spokesman for conservatives given his support for one of the most destructive policies of our time,” Horowitz told Breitbart News exclusively.
Conservative Review is a media organization geared towards grassroots conservative voters and is responsible for crafting the Liberty Scorecard which “grades members of Congress using long-term voting records.” Although Mulvaney has a 93 percent rating, his Liberty Score does not reflect his position on open borders.
That’s because, according to a recent PBS documentary, the sudden expulsion of Eric Cantor as House Majority Leader at the hands of populist economics professor Dave Brat foiled Mulvaney’s amnesty effort, and prevented a vote on amnesty from ever taking place in the House of Representatives. The documentary explains that if not for Brat’s electoral upset, a majority of the House Republican majority would have supported the Ryan-Gutierrez-Mulvaney immigration plan.
Horowitz explains that Mulvaney’s support for open-borders places him squarely on the opposite side of the conservative movement on the issue of supreme importance to the Republican electorate.
“While conservatives were fighting the Gang of Eight bill and Obama’s amnesty, the worst piece of legislation aside from Obamacare, Mulvaney was working with Ryan and Gutierrez to codify Obama’s lawlessness, just like his senior senator, Lindsey Graham,” Horowitz said.
Under current immigration policy, every single day the United States brings in a population of immigrants that could fill a metropolitan high school. Every three years, the United States imports an immigrant population that is the size of Los Angeles. As a result of our nation’s five-decade long green card gusher, the U.S. foreign-born population is currently at a record high of 42.4 million, and grows larger still with every passing day. Yet Mulvaney, Rubio and Ryan have pushed to expand immigration even more—against the wishes of more than 9 in 10 Republican voters who want lower immigration than the Census Bureau projects.
Had Rubio’s La Raza-backed immigration agenda been enacted, the U.S. would have added 33 million new foreign nationals on green cards in the span of a single decade. That is a population of immigrants that is more than three times the size of the number of Romney Republican primary voters in 2012.
Rush Limbaugh accused the House Freedom Caucus of having “played” the American people by permitting the installment of Paul Ryan as Speaker. Limbaugh explains that while the Republican electorate opposed Republican leadership because it pushed ideas and policies that are unpopular with the base, the House Freedom Caucus opposed House leadership not based on substantive policies and ideology, but based on personalities and procedural matters.
Ironically, the leadership shake-up that began with the ejection of Cantor–due to his fatal support for expanding immigration—may culminate with a group of open-borders “conservatives” crowning as House Speaker a man, whose open borders ideology is far more extreme than Boehner, Cantor or McCarthy. “Open borders seeps out of every pore of [Ryan’s] being,” according to NumbersUSA President Roy Beck.
When news broke that Republican voters were burning up the Congressional phone lines, pleading their representatives in the House Freedom Caucus not to support Ryan, Mulvaney dismissed their frustrations— saying that making Ryan the most powerful Republican in America is “a good step for the conservative movement.”
“Look, I imagine that there’s theoretically a chance that [we] all went from being radical extremist crazies to Washington sellouts in 12 hours,” Mulvaney said. “But maybe a more likely narrative is that we really think that this is a good step for the conservative movement. And it’s up to us to try to explain that to people, and that’s what we’ve been doing.”
Mulvaney has used his town hall meetings, in English and Spanish, to deliver similar lectures to voters, urging them to join with the progressive immigration push. This reveals one of the key distinctions between Democrat and GOP lawmakers. Whereas Democrat lawmakers fight solely for their progressive base—and would never be heard telling an illegal immigrant to consider the perspective of a South Carolina Republican whose ancestors fought in every war since the Revolution—Republicans like Ryan and Mulvaney appeal to Republican voters to consider and advance the interests of foreign citizens and illegals during a time of record-breaking immigration.
As Senator Jeff Sessions has said:
The people who should benefit from my actions [as an elected official] are the American people. That’s who should be first. Some [lawmakers] seem to think they represent groups, they seem to think we represent the whole world, they think we represent business groups, and activist groups and La Raza or the Chamber of Commerce, and we’re losing sight of who we represent.
“GOP voters are entitled to have their representatives represent them–not act as opposing counsel,” Sessions said on Tuesday, “Whether it’s spending, debt, crime, immigration or trade it is time for us to start fighting for what our voters want–instead of demeaning their just concerns about the future of our country.”
Under a Ryan-led Congress, however, conservatives warn that popular immigration bills backed by Sen. Sessions, Reps. Mo Brooks, Dave Brat, Steve King, Lamar Smith and Brian Babin are not likely to see the light of day. Rush Limbaugh predicted that if Ryan is Speaker and Marco Rubio is President, “then in the first 12 months of the Rubio… administration, first 12-to-18 months, the donor-class agenda is implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they want. That is the objective here.”
Mulvaney’s office has not responded to a request for comment.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.