All four radio hosts would came around to believe that the comprehensive immigration reforms Senator Rubio was proposing were sound public policies and would comprehensively fix our broken immigration system.

Some of these radio-talk titans, especially Laura and Rush, questioned the need to focus on the issue of immigration at all, but all of them came to understand that a lot of factually inaccurate information being circulated around by the left and the right, were just that, factually inaccurate.

Ultimately, and sadly, the legislation was doomed to the hyper politics surrounding the divisive issue of immigration reform. And so we continue to have a broken immigration system that continues to grant what amounts to de facto "amnesty" to over 11 million people living here illegally. This is the status quo.

The immigration reform bill that Senator Rubio signed onto, and would later get crucified politically for supporting, would have been a tremendous improvement over what we have today, and would have made our nation not just safer, but more prosperous economically. Stay tuned for a future column where I will lay out the facts on why this is the case.

To his credit, Senator Ted Cruz authored amendments to S-744 that would've tightened up the language in the bill by addressing some of the flaws dealing primarily with border security, as well as legal immigration, via expanded H1B visas, and increasing the number of green cards. Those amendments failed on a party line vote in a Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee of which Sen. Cruz is a member.

It's reasonable to assume had Sen. Cruz' amendments been adopted, and included in the underlying immigration reform bill, Cruz would have voted for S-744 and wouldn't be able to play the sort of political game he played at the GOP debate as it relates to granting “legal status” to those who are here illegally.  Sen. Cruz was prepared to vote for S-744 and said so on the floor of the U.S. Senate in June of 2013. You can watch his speech, as I have, on YouTube.

Those amendments and what they represented in terms of Cruz' support for, or opposition to, S-744, were at the heart of Cruz and Rubio's pointed exchange in Las Vegas. As I said, in June of 2013 Senator Cruz stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and said these words: "I support comprehensive immigration reform", and then went on to explain why he supports more immigration in the United States. A position that is now sacrilegious in the age of Trump, and the aftermath of Paris, and San Bernardino.

Today, from Ann Coulter, to Laura Ingraham, to Sean Hannity, to Mark Levin, Ted Cruz is seen as a “purist” on immigration, and Sen. Rubio is somehow considered "weak” on immigration, or in “favor” of amnesty...Rubio is not, nor has he ever been, in favor of amnesty. S-744 did not grant anyone here illegally amnesty. It is utterly dishonest to suggest as much, and Sen. Cruz knows this to be true.

It's fascinating to me that someone is able to hide behind the legislative machinery in the United States Senate to obfuscate what they actually stand for on any given issue...which often times allows them to be for and against a piece of legislation simultaneously by cleverly manipulating the Senate rules as it relates to offering amendments. Democrats do it, Republicans do it.  In other words, politicians do it.

Mark Levin said of Sen. Rubio in January of 2013 that he was a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"...because he was simply motivated by wanting to do the right thing. That was then, this is now. And politics, as the old saying goes, ain't bean bag.