Marco Rubio · Immigration · the 2013 Gang of Eight bill · updated August 31, 2026
As a Gang of Eight author, Marco Rubio drew one careful line in 2013: security measures before permanent status, not before provisional legal status. His votes on S. 744 track that line. The broader 'security first' impression many listeners took away is a separate question, and this page keeps the two apart.
The bill
The chronology
His words, from the record
S. 744 spent June 2013 on the Senate floor, with amendments trying to reorder its stages before the final vote on June 27. The quotes below are how Rubio described the deal to Spanish and English audiences that month, what his office said on the days he voted no, his floor speech the day the border deal was adopted, and how he talked about the bill in the years after it died.
2013-06-09 · Al Punto
On Univision's Al Punto, in Spanish, before the amendment votes; quoted by PolitiFact:
Nobody is talking here about preventing legalization. Legalization will take place... Legalization is not conditional.
PolitiFact · quoted via PolitiFact
2013-06-12 · Sean Hannity's radio show
On Sean Hannity's radio show three days later; quoted by the Washington Examiner:
probably should have been more artful in the use of terms
Washington Examiner · quoted via Washington Examiner
2013-06-14 · Interview posted by his office
In an interview his office posted, on the green-card conditions:
All those things must happen before anyone who has violated our immigration laws can possibly apply for permanent status.
2013-06-18 · Press release on the Thune and Vitter votes
His office's release the day he voted against the Thune and Vitter amendments:
However, his amendment does not detail a specific border plan. Therefore, I opposed his amendment and instead continue to work with my Republican colleagues to arrive at a new measure that improves on the significant border security measures already in the bill.
2013-06-26 · Senate floor
On the floor June 26, the day the Corker-Hoeven border deal was adopted:
must happen before those in the country illegally can apply for permanent status
2013-06-26 · Senate floor
Same floor speech, on the sequence the final bill wrote:
they cannot even apply for permanent status until the fence is built, the Border Patrol agents are hired, and the border security technology, E-Verify, and the tracking system are fully in place
2015-09-16 · Republican presidential debate
Two years later, in a Republican presidential debate:
We cannot deal with all three of these problems in one massive piece of legislation. I learned that. We tried it that way.
2016-03-03 · Republican presidential debate
Campaigning in 2016:
When I'm president it will not be dealt with the way it was done in the Senate. It will be done first and foremost by bringing illegal immigration under control
2013-10-26 · Statement by spokesman Alex Conant
His spokesman, four months after the House shelved the bill; quoted via Breitbart:
At this point, the most realistic way to make progress on immigration would be through a series of individual bills, ... Any effort to use a limited bill as a ruse to trigger a conference that would then produce a comprehensive bill would be counterproductive.
Read the source · quoted via Breitbart
His votes, from the record
The architecture
The bill created a three-stage path with a different security requirement at each stage. He helped write it: the Congressional Research Service lists him as one of the eight senators, four from each party, who negotiated the bill before it was introduced.
Before applications could open: the government had to submit its border-security and fencing plans to Congress and give notice it had begun carrying them out. Begun, not finished. The bill's words: applications could start once the Secretary submitted the "Notice of Commencement of implementation" of the border strategy and the fencing strategy.
A new legal status: live and work in the country lawfully, valid six years and renewable. Not a green card, and not citizenship.
Before moving up from provisional status: the government had to certify the border plan was deployed and operational, 700 miles of pedestrian fencing built, E-Verify running for every employer, and the electronic entry-exit system in place at air and sea ports. The heavy requirements sat here. Two groups were exempt from these requirements: people brought to the country as children (the bill's section 245D(b)) and farm workers granted "blue card" status. The bill's words: the wait applied "except for aliens granted blue card status ... or described in section 245D(b)".
Years later still, through the normal naturalization process.
Source: the trigger section of S. 744 as passed by the Senate, and the Congressional Research Service summary confirming the two exemptions.
Findings
Measured against his exact words, his votes are consistent, and consistently placed: at every decision point, he voted to keep the security requirements on the green-card stage and off the provisional-status stage. He voted down each amendment that moved them earlier, and voted for the version that made the later requirements tougher.
His stated reasons at the time say the same thing. On Thune: he supported the fencing goal but the amendment "does not detail a specific border plan". On Vitter: he supported the entry-exit goal but the amendment "delays the process of submitting illegal immigrants to background checks and the imposition of fines". The fuller version of the finding: he opposed making completion of particular security measures a requirement before provisional legalization, while agreeing with the measures themselves and preferring them as requirements for permanent status.
The other side of each vote also said its reason plainly. Senator Grassley, whose amendment died in the first key vote: "as we read the details of the bill, it's clear that the approach taken is legalize first, enforce later. My amendment would fundamentally change that."
PolitiFact, checking the Spanish-versus-English dispute that month, found he described the same structure to both audiences with different emphasis. Three claims should be kept apart: that he secretly promised security before any legalization to one audience, which the transcripts undercut; that he promised security before permanent residence, which his votes support; and that his phrasing likely left many listeners with the broader impression, which is plausible but interpretive. His own words two weeks in: he "probably should have been more artful in the use of terms".
Strength: within this one episode, very strong. The wording is his own, on the record, and the five key votes are the exact moments the Senate decided the question his sentence raises. The full vote list below shows nothing was cherry-picked.
Watch out: one episode is not a habit. Careful wording is also what good lawyers and good legislators do; the same record is consistent with "he chose his words honestly and precisely", and the dispute over his framing was argued in real time, not discovered later. Anything this page infers beyond the 2013 votes is weaker than what it shows inside them.
His later reversal was a change in sequence, not an adoption of the 2013 amendments he had opposed. By 2016 he wanted enforcement done and proven before a broader bill, the broader sequence that he had rejected when several 2013 amendments tried, in different ways, to place enforcement conditions ahead of provisional legal status. Those amendments differed from each other and from his 2016 position; the record supports "he reversed the order", not "he came around to Grassley, Thune, or Vitter".
Terms
The full record
| Date | Roll call | What was voted on | Rubio | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-06-11 | 146 | Vote to end debate on whether to begin considering S. 744. Needed 60 votes. | Voted yes | Passed 82-15 |
| 2013-06-11 | 147 | Vote to begin considering S. 744. | Voted yes | Passed 84-15 |
| 2013-06-13 | 148 | Vote on whether to set aside an amendment to S. 744: To prohibit the granting of registered provisional immigrant status until the Secretary has maintained effective control of the borders for 6 months. | Voted yes | Passed 57-43 |
| 2013-06-18 | 151 | Amendment to S. 744: To require the completion of the 350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing described in section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 before registered provisional immigrant status may be granted and to require the completion of 700 miles of such fencing before the status of registered provisional immigrants may be adjusted to permanent resident status. | Voted no | Failed 39-54 |
| 2013-06-18 | 152 | Amendment to S. 744: To prohibit the temporary grant of legal status to, or adjustment to citizenship status of, any individual who is unlawfully present in the United States until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the US-VISIT System (a biometric border check-in and check-out system first required by Congress in 1996) has been fully implemented at every land, sea, and airport of entry and Congress passes a joint resolution, under fast track procedures, stating that such integrated entry and exit data system has been sufficiently implemented. | Voted no | Failed 36-58 |
| 2013-06-18 | 153 | Amendment to S. 744: To modify the Border Oversight Task Force to include tribal government officials. | Voted yes | Passed 94-0 |
| 2013-06-19 | 154 | Vote on whether to set aside an amendment to S. 744: To provide for enhanced border security, including strong border security metrics and congressional votes on border security and for other purposes. | Voted yes | Passed 61-37 |
| 2013-06-19 | 155 | Amendment to S. 744: To provide for common sense limitations on salaries for contractor executives and employees involved in border security. | Voted no | Passed 72-26 |
| 2013-06-19 | 156 | Amendment to S. 744: To require fast-track congressional approval when the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies Congress of the implementation of the border security strategies and certifies that the strategies are substantially operational. | Voted no | Failed 39-59 |
| 2013-06-19 | 157 | Amendment to S. 744: To include a representative from the Southwestern State of Nevada on the Southern Border Security Commission. | Voted yes | Passed 89-9 |
| 2013-06-20 | 159 | Vote on whether to set aside an amendment to S. 744: Requiring Enforcement, Security and safety while Upgrading Lawful Trade and travel Simultaneously (RESULTS). | Voted no | Passed 54-43 |
| 2013-06-24 | 160 | Vote to end debate and move toward a final vote on Leahy Amendment 1183 As Modified. Needed 60 votes. | Voted yes | Passed 67-27 |
| 2013-06-26 | 162 | Vote on whether to waive a Senate budget rule for S. 744. | Voted yes | Passed 68-30 |
| 2013-06-26 | 163 | Amendment to S. 744: To strengthen border security and enforcement. | Voted yes | Passed 69-29 |
| 2013-06-26 | 164 | Vote to end debate and move toward a final vote on the Committee-Reported Substitute Amendment to S.744. Needed 60 votes. | Voted yes | Passed 67-31 |
| 2013-06-27 | 166 | Amendment to S. 744 (Senate record gives no summary). | Voted yes | Passed 68-32 |
| 2013-06-27 | 167 | Vote to end debate and move toward a final vote on S. 744. Needed 60 votes. | Voted yes | Passed 68-32 |
| 2013-06-27 | 168 | Final vote on S. 744. | Voted yes | Passed 68-32 |
Roll calls 146, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 160, 162, 164, 167 needed 60 votes to end debate and move toward a final vote.
Sources
Everything this page rests on. We keep a dated copy of each one.