In last night's GOP debate, it seems that both Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio got into a match dealing with support for amnesty.

Megyn Kelly began by showing a series of video clips of Rubio condemning amnesty for illegals before he was in office and then later joining with the Gang of 8 to push for that very thing.

The video evidence began with Rubio stating in 2009 that he never has and never will "support legalization amnesty to folks who have entered or stayed in this country illegally."

Then, in a video from October 2010, Rubio said, "An earned path to citizenship is basically amnesty. That's what they call it… It is unfair to the people who have legally entered this country to create an alternative pathway for individuals who entered illegally and knowingly did so."

The videos continued to show Rubio stating this case and in October 2009, he said that if amnesty was granted, the American people would never believe in legal immigration again.

He was then confronted over the legislation he helped sponsor with the Gang of 8, in which there was a path to citizenship, or we commonly call it "amnesty."

"Haven't you already proven you can't be trusted on this issue?" Kelly asked.

Rubio attempted an explanation, but it was clear he was using the very language that he said he opposed.

"This issue does need to be solved," he said. "They've been talking about this issue for 30 years. And nothing ever happens. And I'm going to tell you exactly how we're going to deal with it when I am president."

"Number one, we're going to keep ISIS out of America," Rubio added. "If we don't know who you are or why you're coming, you will not get into the United States. Number two, we are going to enforce our immigration laws. I am the son and the grandson of immigrants and I know securing our border is not anti-immigrant and we will do it."

In my opinion, Rubio is engaging in nothing more than Bill Clinton did when he said, "It depends on what the meaning of is, is."

Kelly then moved on to Cruz.

"When Sen. Rubio proposed that bill creating a path to citizenship, you proposed an amendment. It would have allowed for legalization, but not citizenship."

Though Cruz denied that assertion, Kelly continued, "Pressed last month on why you supported legalization, you claimed that you didn't,…" She referenced that Cruz has attempted to say that it was a "poison pill" to make sure the bill didn't pass.

However, she played a clip from 2013 in which Cruz said, "I don't want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass."

He then added regarding his amendment, "I believe if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically."

He even went on to say that he sought "common ground" in his amendment as a "solution."

Then in June 2013, he chastised the Senate for politicking.

"If the proponents of this bill actually demonstrate a commitment to… actually fixing this problem, to finding a middle ground, that would fix the problem and also allow for those 11 million people who are here illegally, a legal status with citizenship off the table," Cruz said.

When given the chance to respond, Cruz said that the amendment he proposed didn't have one word about legalization and it took citizenship off the table for illegals. However, the bill that he sought to attach the amendment to did include citizenship and legalization.

While Cruz did offer multiple amendments, in what he says were attempts to "fix the problems" with the bill, he did clearly state above that he sought a legal status for illegals, but no citizenship.

He pointed to support from Jeff Sessions and Steve King and a plan on his website he has to fix the immigration problem.

However, like everything else, it's going to cost money. It's going to cost money to build the wall. It's going to cost money to "triple the border patrol." That's growing government, not shrinking it. And where is this money coming from? We're $19 trillion in debt!

This only led to back and forth between Cruz and Rubio over the issue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, neither of these men are constitutionally eligible. All of the rest, to me, is smoke and mirrors.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.