Trump Exposes Another Difference Between Cruz, Perry

The attention-grabbing candidacy of Donald Trump is again bringing out differences between the two White House hopefuls from Texas.

The bombastic billionaire put the GOP field on the spot Sunday with the release of a plan to deal with illegal immigration that calls for an end to birthright citizenship. In effect, that would require changing the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born in the United States even if their parents are in the country illegally.

Where exactly former Gov. Rick Perry stands on Trump's birthright citizenship position was unclear Wednesday. But over the past few days, Perry has voiced increasing skepticism of scuttling birthright citizenship, setting up a sharp contrast — at least in tone — with his home-state senator.

Asked about getting rid of birthright citizenship in a radio interview Wednesday, Ted Cruz was explicit in his support for Trump's stance: "Absolutely. We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally."

More broadly, Cruz boasted he has spearheaded Senate legislation that addresses "virtually every element" of Trump's plan, including tripling the size of the U.S. Border Patrol. On birthright citizenship, Cruz said he has been pushing to end it "from my very first days running for the Senate" in 2011.

Perry has been harder to nail down on Trump's plan, mostly addressing it with his go-to line that the federal government must secure the border before taking up any further reforms to the immigration system. Visiting the Iowa State Fair on Wednesday, Perry repeated the argument in response to a series of questions about Trump's plan.

"If you secure the border, then these anchor babies and these birthright citizenship issues go away," Perry said Wednesday during an interview on Fox News, using a term for children born in the United States to parents in the country illegally.

In media appearances, Perry has emphasized how unrealistic it would be to revise the Fourteenth Amendment, pointing out how long it took to adopt the most recent amendment — the 27th. Cruz has also nodded to the improbability of tweaking the Constitution, saying in a Wednesday interview with conservative radio host Michael Medved that "any constitutional amendment by its nature is difficult to achieve."

Both Texans have already adopted polarized approaches to Trump, who has sat atop national polls for most of the summer. Perry has fashioned himself as the leading anti-Trump voice in the Republican field, while Cruz has avoided any direct attacks on the real estate mogul amid repeated pledges against "Republican-on-Republican violence."

GEE, I wonder if his CORRECT POSITION on the “PROGRESSIVE” PERVERTED 14th AMENDMENT has anything to do with Trump’s rise in the polls? I just PRAY he’s SINCERE!!!

A prime technique for bringing down an existing social order is to OVERLOAD and OVERWHELM the governmental systems, creating economic and social chaos. What’s going on today is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and the Cloward-Piven Strategy named for the Marxist maniac couple who tutored obazo on its finer points. Because we have NOT sent home 20 million illegals, WE NOW HAVE THE FISCAL BANKRUPTCY AND ARE CLOSING IN ON THE SOCIAL CHAOS. BOTH parties have been applying those methods but obozo, who studied those methods under Bill Ayers and later became a devotee of Cloward-Piven strategy while a so-called “community organizer,” is using ALL the gadgets in the radical toolkit. If it continues much longer, YOUR kids are doomed to life as serfs in a nation that will more resemble Nazi Germany or the old USSR than the America the Founders ATTEMPTED to leave us.

My niece was an OB/GYN who took her pre-med at HAAAAVVAAAAADDD! Needless to say, she emerged from that experience a LIBERAL. (She stopped catching babies and went into research when her malpractice premiums ultimately began to exceed her annual earnings.)

Upon completing her medical training at yet another liberal university, she interned at a hospital near the border in “Kahlifonia.”

It was there that a mystical transformation took place: She began to connect the heavy deductions from the slave wage GROSS EARNINGS for which she busted her butt for as many as 72 virtually sleepless hours with the taxis and jalopies regularly sliding to the curb in front of the ER.

Many of them contained pregnant illegals who won the race to deliver their babies HERE. She caught many of those “anchor babies” who, under the current — and COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS —interpretation of the 14th Amendment were IMMEDIATELY NEW AMERICANS. The mother – who, obviously, could not care for the child if she were back in her native land — could not be deported now even if the INS and the political bosses WANTED her deported (which, because these illegals can generally be counted on to vote the liberal line, they DO NOT). And as the mother of a new US citizen, the woman could remain here for about as long as she cared to – and that was usually for life.

(NOTE: I’ll post several links to more information on the 14th Amendment at the end of my little rant. It’s a fascinating and disturbing story.

Most of those patients were welfare recipients and the deliveries were charity cases: The bill for the hospital’s – and HER services – were routinely spread over the bills of those who DO pay. And what the other users of those facilities don’t cover went back to the taxpayers.

And since my family member was now a taxpayer, they were costing HER.

And while she may not exactly be a libertarian, today she has come a long way from Harvard.

And just so the bleeders who might see this don’t think me some sort of ethnocentric bigot, I submit this problem is MORE than just about illegals.

Before my oldest daughter was born at University Hospital in Cleveland in 1967, I sat in the main lobby as welfare mother-to-be after welfare mother-to-be waddled through the door to the maternity ER for THEIR free deliveries.

Before WE could take OUR daughter home, I had to cough up over 3 grand. And that was a great deal of dough in 1967, especially for a guy who’d just finished a 4 year turn in the USAF.

As I wrote the check, I remembered the magazine article I’d recently read by a hospital administrator from Massachusetts who admitted that all US hospitals practiced a form of medical Marxism, spreading the costs of care for indigents over the bills of those who DO pay for care. Given the move to socialism here, it probably will never be otherwise: Not counting Byzantine complexity and confusion, government produces – and has — NOTHING unless it first takes it from some PERSON. SOMEBODY ALWAYS PAYS.

The illegals have been using the emergency rooms of our hospitals for their health-care, almost always at no charge to them. That cost is either spread over other users or the taxpayers. We have seen a national epidemic of hospital closings due to their insolvency, much of it caused by the burden of trying to render care to PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN’T EVEN BE HERE, denying care to native-born citizens who normally pay their bills and their taxes. And, I submit, the drain the illegals impose on the welfare system is a major reason for our national insolvency and the impending social chaos. (Thank you grubby leftist, power-hungry RINO politicians and bureaucrats!)

Look, I have a big enough problem paying for the 3rd and 4th generation slackers and welfare bums who were BORN here.

It’s long past time we stopped paying for those who were not.

PS: Sadly, we lost my niece to cancer in May of 2011 – at age 50!
************************************************
AFTER RANT POST:
For a short, Reader’s Digest version of the ORIGINAL intent of the 14th Amendment, go here: http://pocusa.info/NLArchive22_14thAmndt.html . For a more comprehensive explanation of the events surrounding the amendment, go here: http://www.14thamendment.us/index.html )

“The Amendment does not guarantee anything of the sort”

Correct!

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2139082/posts

Using native Americans as a reference to show that “born on soil” does not always confer “natural born Citizen” status:

“After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to ‘{All} persons BORN or naturalized in the United States,’ that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of OTHER sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” (emphases mine)

http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm

STE=Q

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.