Posted on 12/17/2015 7:40:06 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
At election, the repub vote will probably be so split that Hillary will be our next President.Especially if Trump is just pulling a Ross Perot on us.
Does that go for all the decorated and disabled vets that are "stink-potters" too?
How do you measure patriotism...by whether somebody supports Cruz?
Baffling.
He could have done so as late as yesterday, without cost.
Now this will be in the news for awhile, and it's not favorable.
It does not help Rubio, but it hurts Cruz.
You seem to be using ‘legalization’ as a synonym for citizenship which is not what Cruz articulated.
What post were you reading? It's not mine.
I’m referring to your article which makes multiple references to ‘legalization.’
>> He is claiming he never supported legalization
Perhaps Cruz made that claim, but I never heard nor read it. But Cruz has supported the legalization of the illegals, but not for the sake of citizenship.
Because, obviously, I haven't debated it one thousand times already :p. The lame distractions and malignant misinformation is irrelevant for the thread, and has been dealt with many times elsewhere.
As far as I can tell, there's a lot of folks who measure it by whether one is a Cruz supporter or not.
Impossible, because my article literally spends 99 percent of the time distinguishing between the pathway to citizenship and the legalization that Cruz supported.
The legalization of what?
Excellent analysis. Great job. Thanks for your effort.
As you rightly point out, we wouldn’t even be discussing deportations as a viable policy option if Trump hadn’t gotten into the race. That is clear to anyone looking at this objectively.
Your article demonstrates why we are indebted to Trump for making deportations a politically viable approach to the illegal immigrant problem.
A year ago, even the strongest conservative voices in the senate - Sessions, Lee, and Cruz had conceded to the left, that you can’t deport illegals. Why? Well you just can’t. It was accepted wisdom, and no one wanted to risk their political future by challenging this assumption. It was too toxic and was viewed as not having any chance of turning out well.
Then Trump came along and turned conventional wisdom on its head. He’s the one that had the guts to say the unthinkable and not back down. He took all the incoming that the lesser politicians were unable ann/or unwilling to take, and changed the unthinkable into a politically viable policy. And this goes completely over the heads of the Trump bashers.
Lengthy explanation of your position. Thanks for sharing. Glaring fault: no comprehension of Senate procedure.
Example: Cruz, Lee, Sessions could not offer amendments to remove underlying legalization because that would be re-writing the base structure of the bill. The only way to do that in a markup (which is what we call the sessions during which the parent committee amends and re-writes bills) is to offer what is called a “sponsors amendment.” That gets its name, as you may have guessed, from amendments offered by a bill’s sponsoring Senators. As neither Cruz, nor Sessions, nor Lee were sponsors, no such amendment altering the fundamentals could be offered by them.
Therefore, the best those three stalwart conservative members of the Judiciary Committee could do was offer a long list of amendments doomed to failure to have a record of just how awful the bill was. Examples included the Cruz pathway to citizenship amendment, and a Sessions bill changing legal immigration quotas.
Again, this is procedural minutiae that quite often makes lay men’s eyes glaze over. If immigration reform champion Sessions, rock-solid conservative Lee, and FReepers with years of experience are telling you exactly why your argument doesn’t hold water, perhaps it’s time you listen.
exactly
He offered a poison pill amendment to kill amnesty and it’s being used against him by the pro-amnesty crowd.
pathetic
Interesting that you make the claim that Trump brought deportation back into the lime lite.
Here’s Cruz in 2014 fighting against deportation relief, aka DREAM Act.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5792886
Trump on deportation in 2012: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/09/2012-flashback-donald-trump-said-gop-was-too-mean-spirited-towards-illegal-immigrants/
Trying to explain complicated legislative nuances to the Trumpet crowd is a losing proposition. OF course these folks have more credibility than Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Sessions, and Mark Levin /s
Which begs the question why they would bother to try, if they were opposed to do something that could not be taken out of the bill. All that said, all of Cruz's stated support for this bill, the rhetoric that was being used at that time, the evidence from Rush's show, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that legalization in and of itself was not a matter of debate, but was an accepted given. In Cruz's case, he openly advocated for it, not just during the fight, but after that, as my first link in my post demonstrates.
FReepers with years of experience
FReepers with "years of experience" aren't all that they're cracked up to be.
They bothered to try because, as Rush, Cruz, and Sessions have explained, by offering these amendments, they exposed that the Gang of 8 wanted nothing less than amnesty. Also, as you have pointed out, all three Senators have stated a true desire for immigration reform—but not amnesty based reform. They want border security, a moratorium on H1B’s, and deportations. Doing nothing, not even trying to have the needs of their constituencies met, isn’t what they were elected to do. As Cruz said during that committee session “Border security is not a trivial matter to the people of Texas.”
I’m sorry that you think my years of service to the Republic are not “all they’re cracked up to be”.
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.