Many who watched the team of Sessions and Cruz battle against amnesty in 2013 scratch their heads over why Sessions decided to endorse Donald Trump. Here’s a possible explanation.


On August 18, 2015 I wrote an article lauding Donald Trump’s excellent immigration policy paper, which is on his website. Since Breitbart had reported that Trump consulted with Sen. Jeff Sessions on immigration, it was obvious the policy paper had been drafted by someone on the Sessions team.


In retrospect, this collaboration was likely Sen. Sessions’s motivation to later endorse Mr. Trump. More about that later.


I summarized the plan’s many good points, noting that it made “a forcible and principled bid for the votes of Blacks, Hispanics and women,” by defending them against illegals’ theft of their jobs.


Since then, I was puzzled that Trump mentioned his policy paper at no debate, failed to pointedly tell those groups, “Behold: my policy plan fights for you.”


To the contrary: in an interview with Dana Bash, aired July 29, 2015 Trump said of illegals:


“I love the idea of immigration, but it’s got to be legal immigration. Now, a lot of these people are helping us, whether it’s the grapes or whether it’s jobs…. There are jobs that a lot of people don’t want to do. I want to move them out. I want to move them back in and let them be legal. But they have to be in here legally.”


This was in direct conflict with his written policy, which would come out about two weeks later, on August 16th. It said, under the heading “Requirement to hire American workers first,” that “Too many visas, like the H-1B, have no such requirement…. we need companies to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed.”


It also said, under the heading, “Immigration moderation,” that:


“Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers.”


Then how could you deport and bring back 11 million illegal aliens (less the relatively few criminals) and let them work?


OK: so that was a couple weeks before he released his written policy plan; maybe he hadn’t seen the finished product yet and was still opining off the cuff.


But no: he simultaneously released the written plan, while an interview repeating his touch-back amnesty plan aired on national television. Breitbart reported that on the August 16, 2015 episode of “Meet the Press,” Trump told Chuck Todd:


“We have some good people, we have some very good people here, we have a lot of really good people. They’re illegal. Now, you either have a country or not. We go out, and we’re going to try and bring them back rapidly, the good ones. Rapidly. You know the word ‘expedited’?” and later: “The good people are going to be able to come back, but they’re going to come back legally.”


NBC News reported that he released his written plan on August 16th also; it said the polar opposite.


Even a month after he’d released his written immigration policy, Mr. Trump was still declaring the opposite of the policy paper:


CNS News reported that, during the September 16, 2015 debate, “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said … that his immigration plan would allow illegal immigrants who are removed from the U.S. to return…“They’re going to go out, and they’ll come back if they deserve to come back…” [Criminals were to be excluded.]


So, you’ll forgive this writer if he had some doubt whether Donald Trump will really implement his written immigration policy.


But, on January 25, 2016 The Washington Post reported that the Trump campaign hired Stephen Miller, former top aide of Sen. Sessions; Miller had “guided Sessions through countless interviews as the senator opposed the ‘Gang of Eight’ [amnesty bill] and the push for comprehensive-immigration reform by many Republicans,” said the Post. Ted Cruz partnered with Sessions in that fight.


The aide would be “drafting white papers and assisting the candidate with debate preparations,” the Post wrote. WaPo also said that Sessions asked Miller to “work with Trump’s campaign as it thought through its immigration position.”


Bingo: Miller is obviously the guy who wrote Trump’s immigration policy plan, and Trump’s hiring Miller is a sign he actually will carry out the written plan. Or is it?


Maybe Trump would’ve continued to say he’d quickly bring back the good ones till Election Day, but during the February 25, 2016 debate, he finally got caught: Wolf Blitzer asked him this:


“Mr. Trump, you’ve called for a deportation force to remove the 11 million undocumented immigrants from the United States. You’ve also promised to let what you call, ‘the good ones,’ come back in. Your words, ‘the good ones,’ after they’ve been deported.


“Senator Cruz would not allow them to come back in. He says that’s the biggest difference between the two of you. He calls your plan amnesty. Is it?”


After first falsely accusing Sen. Cruz of being “in charge of amnesty,” then accurately stating that immigration would not be “a big subject,” were it not for him, Trump replied this to the question:


“We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out. They will come back – some will come back, the best, through a process. They have to come back legally. They have to come back through a process, and it may not be a very quick process, but I think that’s very fair, and very fine.


“They’re going to get in line with other people. The best of them will come back, but they’re going to come back through a process.”


Since there’s 4.4 million Mexicans already on that line – waiting up to 12 years for legal residency – it surely will not be a very quick process, unless he plans to greatly enlarge the quota for legal entrants from Mexico.


One can only wonder why Trump so persistently said he’d bring them back quickly, which would be amnesty, thus risking the popularity that his deportation plan had brought him. There’s no question most of GOP voters support deportation of illegal aliens. A distinct possibility is, bringing them quickly back is his true intention. But if so, why hire the Sessions aide, Stephen Miller? The plot thickens.


On February 23rd, the Daily Caller interviewed Miller, who outlined in some detail, how they were going to deport the illegals, tighten up visas, eliminate birthright citizenship, reduce legal immigration. All the Jeff Sessions enforcement dreams seemed about to crystalize into reality.


“Americans for the first time in their lives will wake up in a country where their immigration laws are enforced,” Miller told the Daily Caller, “That’s a powerful thing. People have been waiting decades for that chance, and now they have it by casting a vote for Donald Trump.”


It’s worth noting that the Daily Caller has become a shameless dumping ground for Trump dirty trickster Roger Stone’s smears of Ted and Heidi Cruz; they’ve published at least four such pieces, masquerading as articles. “Who Is the Real Ted Cruz” is particularly laden with untruths. This puts DC in the sad category of Infowars.


So, what does all this tell us about Donald Trump’s real immigration plans? Let’s examine the timeline, and let’s postulate that Tricky Roger Stone helped orchestrate this immigration doubletalk into a political weapon.


The weekend of August 15, 2015: Trump releases his immigration policy paper, likely written by Sessions aide Stephen Miller.


January 27, 2016: Trump hires Stephen Miller, “trusted aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.” Jeff Sessions’s heart soars: his long-fought battle against illegal immigration will at last be won.


February 23, 2016: The Daily Caller interviews Miller, who describes the Trump plan in detail. Note: Trump still never mentions his written policy or Miller, to this writer’s knowledge.


February 28, 2016: Senator Jeff Sessions endorses Donald Trump, by now hopelessly convinced that Trump will carry out the Sessions immigration plan.


Politico described Sessions as “a tea party idol who helps validate the New York City billionaire with the conservative grassroots,” and described the endorsement as “a major blow to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, whose success may hinge on winning those Tea Party and evangelical voters – and who has so often cited Sessions as an ally in his fight against the 2013 immigration reform effort.”


Two days later was Super Tuesday, where Donald Trump did very well indeed.


Theory: Trump suckered in Jeff Sessions with an elaborate scheme involving his aide designing a personalized policy paper (for free), to which Trump apparently never refers, resulting in a Sessions endorsement that greatly helped Trump and harmed Cruz.


More likely than not, Trump will carry out his “bring back the good ones” plan, not his written plan. Or maybe neither.