Posted on 01/19/2015 8:03:28 PM PST by SoConPubbie
Ted Cruz is the only possible Republican candidate who understands the problem with amnesty.
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” – Voltaire
Even though we just came off an election that seemed to last an eternity, we are approaching 2016 more quickly than we realize. Unlike the last two presidential election cycles, the Republican field is stacked in 2016. There are several solid contenders for the nomination, as well as a parade of horribles who would lose to presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately, despite a deep bench of qualified conservatives who appear to have their heads on straight, there seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding among them regarding one key issue: amnesty, and a pathway to citizenship. Ben Shapiro recently wrote up a handy little guide which shows us just where each of the Republican front-runners stand on the issue of amnesty—specifically a “pathway to citizenship.” Here are some quotes from the men themselves:
“I do believe that those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance, just like anybody else, to get in line and to become a citizen if they would like to do so.” – Mitt Romney
“…there already is a process for how people become citizens. The main difference is I wouldn’t have people be forced to go home. You’d just get in line. But you get in the same line everyone is in.” – Rand Paul
“I tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship. You shouldn’t ignore the law or ignore those who break it. But by the same token, I think it’s a little disingenuous when I hear people say they should experience the full weight of the law in every respect with no pathway…” – Mike Huckabee
“For people waiting to come in our country legally, we’ve got to make sure that they get in first, that they get their status first, because they’ve been following the rules and playing by the rules. After that, if there is a way to set up a process so that you enable people to come in and have a legal pathway to do that, that’s something we’ve got to embrace.” – Scott Walker
“…of course allow [illegal immigrants] to have a pathway to citizenship. That’s the only humane and reasonable thing to do.” – Ben Carson
Now, there are certainly other presidential contenders, but my point is clear. There is a pervasive sentiment that, regardless of the method, and the time frame, we should eventually allow those who came here illegally to become citizens.
The left contends that even if we grant citizenship, amnestied illegals would not be allowed to vote. They tell us that it’s crazy to worry about something like that. However, as the DNC’s Donna Brazile said early last year: “I don’t think you can create two classes of citizens in this society, one with legal status and the right to vote, and one without.”
The wheels are always in motion, and to believe otherwise is foolish. The left wants illegals to be granted the right to vote because they will–in large part–vote Democrat. The Democrats want 11 million new voters who are dependent on government handouts, and grateful to those who give them those handouts. That way, a conservative candidate will never again win a national election. Because of the makeup of illegal immigrants, they tend to be low-skill, low-wage workers, who would be much more likely to rely on the federal government for subsistence. Why would they ever vote for a Party that wants to reform social safety nets?
Republicans are either foolish enough to think that if they support amnesty, they will get a chunk of those future votes, or they are too stupid to see what’s really going on. Either way, their idiocy is causing them to side with the left on a “pathway to citizenship.”
There is one candidate, however, that understands what’s happening, and that candidate is Ted Cruz. As Shapiro points out in his article:
“The Texas senator has been outspoken in his belief that the border must be enforced and that illegal immigrants should not be given a pathway to citizenship. Last year, he was instrumental in killing a Republican bill pushing comprehensive immigration reform.”
In 2013, Senator Cruz himself said as much:
“In my opinion, if we allow those who are here illegally to be put on a path to citizenship, that is incredibly unfair to those who follow the rules…”
Not only is it unfair to those who have come here legally to grant illegal immigrants citizenship, it would be the death knell of the conservative movement. During the 2012 election cycle, Newt Gingrich proposed a rather brilliant idea. He proposed that we deport all illegals who have committed serious criminal offenses, and allow the rest to stay. However, those who stay would never be given citizenship, and therefore, would never have the right to vote. This proposal should satisfy the bleeding-heart liberals who just want families to stay intact, and who simply want illegals to have a better life in the United States, right? Unlikely.
The left has an agenda, and that agenda is to get more votes, and more power. It’s a simple goal, but one that goes unnoticed, even by many conservatives. Ted Cruz knows what’s going on behind the curtain, and given that, he’s the only one we should support in 2016. If we select a “pathway to citizenship” candidate, we will have lost before the election has even taken place
Free Republic doesn’t like the argument that Cruz’ bona fides are sketchy. I will say again... Can we not find one person in the country who is a natural born citizen to run for president? Why is this a challenge?
Born a citizen by statute, is not the same as natural born... by a long shot. The U.S. can pass a law tomorrow that makes every person born in Australia automatically a US citizen. That DOES NOT make them “natural born” citizens.
KC is absolutely correct.
There was no need for GOPB to be "naturalized". He was born an American citizen.
The source of the confusion might be the paperwork involved in registering the foreign birth of an American citizen. It is incumbent on the parents to notify the American Embassy or a Consulate of the birth. The Embassy or Consulate then issues a registration of the birth, stating that the child is an American citizen and subject to all the benefits thereof.
I have heard people born in this circumstance refer to these documents as their "naturalization papers", but that's not what they are. They are his "citizenship papers".
I think the Dems would have big balls to claim Obo who we never saw one report card, a real birth cert., his health records.
Cruz can and should lay out his records, so should every Republican and ask the current POTUS to do the same or STFU.
The media should be held to finally vetting Obo
Sketchy, eh? I would say non-existent.
We have the current fraud in progress aided and abetted by those who (DO) know better but they have taken the money to not speak up.
This leads to all kinds of wrong ideas, in my opinion.
The powers behind the current fraud are fighting on every front to make it ‘established’ law that it is OK to have a usurper.
It makes me cranky.
More accurately, it would not make them "citizens at birth".
U.S. citizenship law recognizes only two varieties of citizenship -- there are "citizens-at-birth" and naturalized citizens".
In your example, the Australians would be "naturalized citizens". Thus, the example is irrelevant.
I went and found the certificate and it does say ‘Citizenship’ instead of ‘Naturalization’.
Reading into the document is interesting though and I am going to try to post a picture do you can see it but it says;
‘... is now a US citizen...’ which I contend it would not if I was previously a US citizen.
I am unable at this time to get FR to let me paste some lines or a picture. I will try to get that figured out.
Taking away welfare will discourage a lot of them. The problem might take care of itself. After all, what kind of freeloaders would risk their lives to come to a country that won’t coddle them?
. . . and then he swore me in as a United Sates Citizen.
* * *
Actually, it sounds like the judge screwed up. I know, he was a judge and I’m just a loudmouth on the Internet, but I still think he screwed up. If you had citizenship rights by way of your father’s American citizenship, then you did not NEED to be *sworn in* as an American. You already had that citizenship. If you did not actually have the right of American citizenship by way of your father’s citizenship, then by what right did the judge swear you in??? Why did you not have to go through the usual path that applicants for citizenship take???
It sounds to me like the judge was just applying the principle of “belt and suspenders” by swearing you in — to make sure you weren’t further hassled — but that you already had the right of American citizenship. If this is so, you are a born American citizen, not a naturalized one.
Your logic is puerile. Natural born OBVIOUSLY had a MEANING prior to its use in the Constitution. The framers did NOT use imaginary words to build a national social compact.
Unbelievable. Please don’t reproduce.
I would never call anyone, even Ted Cruz, the only option. But right now he’s the best option by a wide margin.
It isn't a challenge. Let's run Ted Cruz.
What makes a person “born a citizen by statute”?
Why I’m even taking the time here... This is not hard, it’s actually easy, so maybe even you can get it. . You’re right, meanings of words change. But what is more important? That when we actually KNOW what was meant when a contract was created that we stay true to that spirit? Or, that when words change we go back and CHANGE the actual intended meaning? Does that make sense to you? Now, natural-born actually DID mean something in the late 1800’s. It’s meaning was known to everyone who created the social compact called the Constitution. If we now go back, and make it mean something different, then the contract is null and void. It makes NO SENSE to change the MEANING of a contract. If you don’t like the Constitution it was designed to be changed in a multiple of different ways.
Now, if you don’t agree with the above, then there is no need to go any further. Why? Because there is no sensible perch on which logic and reason can land in your mind. So why should I have a discussion with you? But, if you agree that the meaning used by the framers was important, then all that we need to do is discover what the word meant at that time (and still means today by the way).
Bouvier’s and Black’s law dictionaries are the tools that lawyers use to discover the actual meanings of legal terms. Regardless of the slow progression of word meanings changing, they cannot therefore be used contemporaneously to rewrite history, meaning, law, contracts, and even constitutions.
Natural-born was the term used, for a REASON. Why? Why not just say, for instance.. CITIZEN? It was because the founders did NOT want just a citizen to be president. They wanted someone who had NATURAL allegiance to a country. Therefore they wanted someone who not only was a citizen, but he or she would also be born of citizens, and born in the country he or she would call home. These circumstances imbue natural citizenship that cannot be modified by statutes. And these circumstances ALSO create a person with natural affinity for the country of their birth.
The proof that this is important IS Obama, regardless of where he was actually born. His affinity is questionable because of his actions. And it is clear that his actions are the result of the things WE KNOW. Father, NOT an American. NOT born in the busom of the country. Raised in Indonesia. These we KNOW for sure. And these are enough to divide loyalties.
So... I love Ted Cruz. But Ted Cruz cannot legally be President. Why we would want to push him forward is mindlessly foolish considering the possibilities.
Ever notice when the “Talking Heads” talk about 2016 possibles, they never mention Ted Cruz? I wonder why?
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.