Posted on 11/12/2015 12:49:07 PM PST by VinL
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said the November 2016 general election will turn on the question of amnesty for undocumented immigrants in November, and described himself as the lone candidate able to unite various factions of conservative Republicans.
At a press conference after officially registering for the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Cruz said that “millions†of Republicans will stay home in November if they believe the GOP nominee is soft on immigration, particularly working-class voters who he says would see amnesty for undocumented immigrants as a threat to their ability to find well-paying work.
“There is a real socioeconomic divide,†Mr. Cruz said. He contrasted himself with “elites in Washington†who look to illegal immigrants as a pool of cheap labor, driving down labor prices in the process.
Running with a hard line on immigration will also help to attract Reagan Democrats who would support presumed Democratic Hillary Clinton, Mr. Cruz said.
“I will stand with the working men and women and that’s how I think we will win the general election.. we run a populist campaign,†Mr. Cruz said. “We run that against the bipartisan corruption of Washington that Hillary Clinton embodies.â€
The Texas senator derided his Republican rivals...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
He followed it up with the "info-mercial" appearance with Laura declaring no TPP, no increase in H1B, and no amnesty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQwLD-yj_fE
AS this article seems to illustrate, Cruz is transitioning into campaign mode- and is defining the terms of the debate.
He’s behind the guy who will build a wall, charge Mexico for said wall and deport en masse.
If both candidates are pro-Amnesty, the big government liberal from the liberal party will defeat Jeb/Rubio/Whoever - too many conservatives will vote third party or even stay home.
If it’s pro-Amnesty v. pro-freedom, there are still a little over 50% of voters who believe in the rule of law, with enough of a buffer to cover the margin of fraud.
In the end, will the Republicans just demagogue the issue saying tough words like my member of Congress, the current crop of Congress members then go back to Washington after the election and do Amnesty anyway.
Trump had ID’ed the issue and here’s my candidate Ted Cruz bringing it up. But will Obama and Congress do it in a lame duck session before the next President even takes the oath?
Paul Ryan is perfectly capable of that, I have no doubt.
Cruz is right on this one...
After saying "I am the only candidate running who has been a consistent conservative,..." he doesn't really have to name names now does he?
I disagree that it will turn on amnesty. Amnesty will be an important factor but I don’t think it’ll be the deciding one. The economy and job prospects will.
I believe I said that after I heard Trump’s first comments on illegal aliens. This is the winning issue!
Amnesty is only one part of the question. The other part is stopping the continuing invasion which will eliminate the problem going forward. American voters are tired of supporting (through welfare, etc.) the deadbeats coming into the country looking for a free ride. Western Europe is facing the same question with the invasion of military aged male "refugees" from "Syria".
The economy and job prospects will.
I don't think 0bama's economy will be a plus for the 2016 democrat candidate.
If anything it will be a huge minus for citizens voting their billfold/pocket book.
We need to stop supporting our Chamber of Commerce organizations in the US as well, until their position on illegal aliens and building the wall reflects the views of the majority of US citizens.
There is no such thing as a quote, Hispanic race, unquote. That term has been applied to those from individual South American countries some of which have governments hostile to US and actually claim parts of this country as theirs, and others which are friendly. They are composed of various races as are we, with the difference being their primary common language is Spanish.
This destructive utopian Mexican open border approach of even considering granting those who enter the US illegally through it. Entitlement to all benefits beyond those of what we give to our citizens destroys the value of an American citizenship. It is being promoted by the name callers mostly in socialist circles such as the democrat party as well some republicans who use such terms as nativist promoting racial division .
What we should be doing is taking a very very hard look at our relationship with Mexico along with trade and its myriad misstreatment of Americans as 3rd class citizens and its claims on American territory . While we are expected to allow Mexican citizens enter to our country illegally and offer them preferential treatment over our citizens including allowing them to purchase land in their own name and and even voting privledges which they cannot do if they choose to retire in Mexico.
The leading Republican candidates and that includes Trump may mention some of this but thus far have refused to identify the problem let alone properly redress it by suggesting or implementing reciprocity.
In her show Laura and Cruz during the debate have come closest to that approach. We should be questioning our State Department about what has to be non reported complaints by American citizens to American consulates in Mexico who are putting up with this 3rd class citizen treatment by the Mexicans and their government.
He followed it up with the "info-mercial" appearance with Laura declaring no TPP, no increase in H1B, and no amnesty.Cruz Senate website:
In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the "Gang of 8" bill that would strengthen border security, expand green card opportunities, increase high-skilled "H1B" visasWould he propose amendments to a bill he had no intention of voting for?
Was he lying then or is he lying now?
He's a lying fraud.
Based on you pouting post and tagline, I'm guessing that Cruz pushed you on the playground and stole your favorite marble.
I must say, I thought the same thing and agree with you.
It will certainly take Cruz at least a day or two to wrestle that trophy, on the subject of illegal invasion, away from one DONALD J. TRUMP, who owns that subject lock, stock and barrel, and has plopped on top of it, covering it very well with both balls.
Trump has staked his presidential run on it.
Check out Sundance on the subject of the TPP as it relates to our economy, jobs and illegal immigration. TPP depends on a union of South America with the North.
And it really better focus on much more than that!
I like Cruz. He is among my top 4 choices, but...
He is using a weasel word that has no clear unambiguous meaning (He must be a good attorney.) < /s>
What needs to be focused on is not so simple.
It can be described as three interrelated issues :
1) The word "citizenship" must be settled once and for all. It was not defined unambiguously at the time the Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment does not discuss "citizenship by invasion" at all.
2) Should our immigration laws be repealed?
2a) If the immigration laws are NOT repealed, should they be allowed to be ignored with impunity by anyone without serious and certain consequences?
3) "Amnesty" needs to be defined as narrowly and clearly as possible in formal legislation created by and passed by the Congress.
My related comments :
It is astounding that the nation has existed formally for 224 years and these question have not been settled. Supreme Court decisions cannot be considered permanent "law" unless the SC decision is either confirmed by legislation (The House has the final say) or overturned by another subsequent SC decision.)
The same can be said of the "Natural born citizen" issue. The text of the Constitution seems clear, according for the common interpretation of the English language of the time.
So going postal on the word "amnesty" is a fool's errand.
Ted is young enough to run again. And if Trump is as smart as I believe him to be, Ted will move up under a Trump presidency. I see him as a Supreme.
We don’t know if Ted is interested in the Supreme Court at the tender age of 42.
While Ted has cut his teeth on law and is a brilliant academic, with auto-memory, he seems to seek out the rough and tumble and uses his gifts to propel his action. Does he even like law, because he is proficient at law, I’m not so certain as everybody else assumes to be, about Ted.
He would like to be in charge. He would like some power and be in charge. He is elegant in speaking skills. What he wants is to be president.
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.