Posted on 08/20/2015 1:18:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
David Freddoso’s right that this is, in fact, consistent with what Cruz has been telling reporters this week.
Well, part of it is, at least. Cruz yesterday:
“Absolutely,” Cruz replied. “We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally.”
When pressed on whether a change to the Constitution to end birthright citizenship would be realistic, Cruz said: “I think it is possible, but any constitutional amendment by its nature is difficult to achieve.”
If you heard the quote in the first paragraph but not the one in the second, you might think the clip below is a gotcha. Aha — so Cruz wants to change the policy after admitting that it’s in the Constitution! Well, yes, but so what? He went on to say that it would need to be changed by constitutional amendment. That’s … normally how it works when one tries to change constitutional policies, isn’t it?
Two things make this newsy and neither has to do with Cruz changing his stance on what the Fourteenth Amendment says, since he hasn’t. One: This is a rare case of Cruz being at odds in his reading of the Constitution with other prominent legally trained grassroots conservatives. Mark Levin most notably has made the case at length that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t mandate birthright citizenship for illegals. Ann Coulter has too. That’s not an insignificant disagreement either given what it means for the future of the issue. If you agree with Cruz then you’re surely more inclined to also agree with what he said in 2011 about this being largely a waste of time. You’re not going to get three-quarters of the states and two-thirds of Congress to revisit this subject when pollsters keep warning both parties that the Latino vote will eventually decide national elections. It’s a nonstarter. If you agree with Levin and Coulter then we’re only six Senate seats and one presidential victory away (in theory) from redefining birthright citizenship via federal statute. That’s still unlikely given the political considerations but it’s a lot more likely than a constitutional amendment is. It could be forced onto the radar of the next Republican administration if it catches fire among the base.
Two: Cruz has reversed himself on one point. Four years ago he said conservatives shouldn’t spend much time on this given the futility of trying to pass an amendment. Four years later, in the thick of a primary campaign, suddenly Cruz thinks we “absolutely” should try to end the policy and that it’s “possible” we’ll succeed, albeit difficult. What changed? Any theories, Trump fans?
I’d post a thread about all the “flip-flops” of Scott Walker, but Jim would have to have a special fifth fundraiser to pay for the bandwidth.
LMAO!!
...don’t forget about all the DT flip flops. I mean, you can’t say that around here, but hell, it’s also a big file.
That’s the best post of the year! (-:
On this issue, i can deal with a flip flop. He needs to be on the right side now. The 14th amendment was never intended to give citizenship to aliens, illegal or legal. It didn’t even give it to Indians. Congress gave it to Indians later.
Nah, you can click right here for the video without giving hits to some right wankers what stole it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ab7XPocA0Y
Flip flops are not all bad, especially when one realizes one held a wrong stance in the past.
This is one of those times.
He did not carefully consider this issue in 2011, but had the time to consider it today.
I don’t think he is fully on board the right interpretation though because (correct me if I am wrong ), he is on board a constitutional amendment to the 14th, which I don’t think is really necessary if you interpret it correctly.
Quite frankly at this point, we need to get these things done by any means necessary. We do need to emulate the left on that. If conservatives get the White House in 2016 and keep control of Congress, radically changing immigration law MUST be done. Cogent arguments will have to be made and we must fall in to support them, period. The polices must be changed and implemented effectively or you can stick a fork in America. We can’t be stopped from saving America by self-righteous stands on procedural issues.
Don Trump is a horse of a different hue:
How To Correctly Admire Donald Trump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326836/posts
Who cares? At the time, Cruz didn’t think it was probably worth the fight, IMO. Look where we were. We had the Chicken Littles in Congress. And we were busy with Obamacare.
But Trump has changed the entire debate and we are now talking about things like massive walls, deportations, anchor babies, and more. Instead of the typical nuanced BS lingo.
Flip flops are not all bad, especially when one realizes one held a wrong stance in the past.
This is one of those times.
He did not carefully consider this issue in 2011, but had the time to consider it today.
However, I don’t think he is fully on board the right interpretation though because (correct me if I am wrong ), he is for a constitutional amendment to the 14th, which I don’t think is really necessary if you interpret it correctly.
As a part of Cruz’s immigration policy that has been available since his Senate run, Number 8. “End Birthright Citizenship-move the U.S. in line with most other nations and stop the policy of giving automatic citizenship at birth to children when both parents are illegal aliens.”
I was a democrat once... lots of us were...
People obsessed with ‘flip flops’ are usually democrats... and the press. Of course when the press talks about democrats flip flopping they call is ‘growing’ or evolving’.
Anyhow it’s a bore. Something small minds love - the kind of people who were so much more concerned about what the cover of their school report looked like that what was in it.
As a part of Cruz’s immigration policy that has been available since his Senate run, Number 8. “End Birthright Citizenship-move the U.S. in line with most other nations and stop the policy of giving automatic citizenship at birth to children when both parents are illegal aliens.”
Come on, you’re above that kind of stuff (leave it for Nick). Besides, we’d need a new server for the biggest flip of all - when Reagan changed parties.
RE: As a part of Cruz’s immigration policy that has been available since his Senate run, Number 8. “End Birthright Citizenship-move the U.S. in line with most other nations and stop the policy of giving automatic citizenship at birth to children when both parents are illegal aliens.”
_________________________
I know that, the question is HOW does he intend to have that goal achieved? Via RE-INTERPRETATION Of the 14th Amendment using original intent, or via a TEDIOUS Constitutional Amendment process to CLARIFY it?
My impression was that he was for the latter.... I personally believe it is not necessary.
The only problem with re-interpreting it the right way is we’ll have a HUGE political fight in our hands and I don’t even think you’ll get enough support from Republicans.
Then there will be a mass class action suit by Hispanics even if we achieve this via Congressional decision, which will go eventually to the SCOTUS, where we will have the usual 4 liberals and maybe Kennedy or Roberts siding with the illegals.
It’s not an easy process if you think about it. we have a LOOOONG ROAD AHEAD regardless of who wins.
Reagan ran a Hollywood actors union and thus got to see all the slime and muck that is communism. His conversion made perfect sense.
People learn by experience. Cruz has got it right now on this issue....so it’s all good.
Burn him at the stake....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.