Republican by Conviction, Not Permission
Why the McCain-Rubio Tradition Still Matters
I wrote this article before President Donald Trump’s recent criticism of Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar over immigration. I dedicate it to her because her willingness to defend comprehensive reform and independent judgment reflects an important part of the political identity I describe here.
###
Somewhere along the way, “Republican” became a word too many Republicans decided needed a gatekeeper. The accusation is familiar: support the wrong immigration bill, work with the wrong Democrat, question the wrong faction, and someone reaches for the same four letters: RINO. I reject that habit because it confuses political identity with political obedience. A party capable of governing the United States cannot function as an ideological monoculture. It must be a coalition. The real question is whether disagreement can exist inside a shared commitment to conservative principles, constitutional government, national strength, and responsible reform.
That is why I describe myself as a McCain-Rubio Republican. John McCain’s “maverick” reputation was not built on abandoning the Republican Party. It was built on exercising judgment within it. In 2005, McCain joined Senator Edward Kennedy and a bipartisan group in introducing the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, legislation combining border-security provisions with broader immigration reform. Eight years later, McCain and Marco Rubio sat together in the bipartisan group of eight senators who negotiated the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The Senate passed that measure 68–32. That history matters because it establishes something our political vocabulary often forgets: negotiating across party lines has long existed inside the Republican tradition.
My paralegal training makes me especially skeptical of labels used as substitutes for evidence. If “RINO” is an accusation, what exactly are the elements of the offense? Is a Republican no longer a Republican because he favors an earned legal process for certain undocumented immigrants? Does support for rehabilitation erase a commitment to public safety? Does negotiating with Democrats invalidate conservative positions on energy, small business, national defense, or constitutional limits? A serious political argument should examine the record, identify the policy, read the legislation, test the principle, and evaluate the consequences. Calling someone a RINO does none of those things.
Immigration is the clearest example of why this distinction matters to me. I am strongly pro-immigration and strongly committed to the rule of law. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. I believe the United States should control its borders, enforce meaningful standards, protect workers, and maintain public safety. I also believe Congress has a responsibility to address an immigration system widely regarded as dysfunctional. The 2025 Dignity Act, introduced by Republican Representative María Elvira Salazar and Democratic Representative Veronica Escobar, addresses border security, asylum reform, employment rules, and legal status for qualifying undocumented immigrants within one framework. Republicans can debate its provisions vigorously. What should not follow automatically is the conclusion that considering such a proposal makes someone insufficiently Republican.
That distinction is central to Anchor 250 and to my broader political philosophy. My priorities include immigration, energy, justice reform, small business, and mental health, but the principle connecting them is consistent: conserve what is good, reform what is broken, and restore what has been lost. I can favor law and order while believing rehabilitation should have meaning beyond punishment. I can defend secure borders while supporting an immigration system that recognizes work, family, responsibility, and human dignity. I can favor limited government without pretending government has no legitimate responsibilities. Those are policy judgments, not tests of tribal loyalty.
A big-tent Republican Party does not require agreement without limits. Some compromises should be rejected. Some bills deserve a no vote. Bipartisanship is not inherently virtuous, and legislative negotiation is not a substitute for principle. But governing requires more than opposition. In a constitutional republic, durable legislation often requires persuasion, coalition-building, amendment, and cooperation with people we may oppose in the next election.
That is the Republican tradition I claim. McCain called his independence maverick politics. Rubio’s 2013 immigration work demonstrated that conservative lawmakers could enter difficult bipartisan negotiations without surrendering their political identity. I do not need either man to have been right about everything to recognize the value of that tradition. I want a Republican Party confident enough to contain disagreement, serious enough to read the legislation, and disciplined enough to distinguish principle from posture. If that makes me difficult to place inside someone else’s purity test, so be it. I am not interested in being Republican by permission. I am interested in being Republican by conviction. McCain called it being a maverick. I call it remembering that governing is part of the job.
