Haven't you heard? We conservatives are all Barbara Jordan Populists now, Komrad. Screw the Constitution.
Bend your knee to the new conservative champion.
Posted on 04/30/2015 8:56:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Via the Weekly Standard, he’s not saying anything here that he hasn’t said before. He supports immigration reform, but not comprehensive immigration reform — only a piecemeal security-first approach will work, the same view now taken by Marco Rubio. But Cruz fans who haven’t paid attention to him on this issue may assume, incorrectly but understandably, that he naturally takes the most conservative position that an electable Republican presidential candidate can take. Not so: It’s Scott Walker(!) who’s staked out the right side of the field by demanding that American wages be a variable when considering target numbers for legal immigrants, hinting that maybe legal immigration levels need to drop rather than rise. Walker’s defenders argue that he’s not saying anything controversial there; of course you’d want to know how a certain level of immigration will affect what American workers are paid. His break from the rest of the field is a matter of emphasis, not a matter of introducing something new into the debate.
Fair enough, but it’s interesting to watch Ted Cruz, Mr. True Conservative, talk about this subject at length and not provide the same emphasis. Watch below from around 44:00 to 50:00 and then again at 1:29:00 to 1:36:00. In 13 or so minutes, wages don’t come up. On the contrary, Cruz’s emphasis is on the fact that he wants more legal immigration, at least among better educated immigrants who might qualify for an H-1B visa. It’s interesting that a guy known for having his finger on the pulse of grassroots conservative/tea party sentiment isn’t following Walker’s lead but rather stressing his own relative moderation on the issue. There are obvious political reasons for that — he’s addressing the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here, and as one of the few GOP candidates who opposes a path to citizenship, he needs a way to show general-election voters that he’s no Tancredo when it comes to immigration. But it’s telling that he’s not worried about Walker getting to his right on the hottest hot-button of the GOP primaries. Maybe he figures that, between his stellar tea-party track record on all manner of policy plus Walker’s conspicuous flip-flopping on immigration (which still includes support for a path to citizenship), he can afford to place his emphasis on being pro-immigration — so long as it’s legal. Or maybe Cruz suspects that Walker’s wink-wink at reducing legal immigration levels actually isn’t a position that an “electable” Republican can take. He wouldn’t be alone in that belief, if so.
Try to watch both immigration Q&As below as they’re both worth your time. Cruz spends most of his answers accusing Democrats of being the main obstacle to reform because of their fanatic, self-interested insistence on citizenship for illegals, a criticism that’s valid but also ironic given that Cruz himself continues to support some kind of legal status for illegals and surely knows that that will lead to demands for citizenship eventually. (He notes in passing at around 1:31:00 that his amendment to the Gang of Eight bill didn’t attempt to eliminate work permits for illegals, just citizenship.) Anyway, your exit question: Is this comment, from elsewhere in yesterday’s Q&A, really the best way to pander to a racial group?.......Continued
Haven't you heard? We conservatives are all Barbara Jordan Populists now, Komrad. Screw the Constitution.
Bend your knee to the new conservative champion.
I disagree with Ted
Legal immigration is out of hand as well
Since 65 it’s been biased against whites
Just check voting and entitlement stats
One million primary applicants per year then chain legalization on top of that
Mostly from developing nations
It’s a platitude
Amen
No candidate is perfect
Mix Walker and Cruz
Brats and Beans
I see where you are coming from. What it all boils down to is whose job is in peril. If it is yours, well than immigration is bad. If it is the other poorer guy’s job, well screw him, who cares. My advice, form your own computer company than you will not have to worry about LEGAL Indian immigrants taking your job.
Word.
Bump
Because he’s a better liar?
You know I’m really GD aggravated. WTH do you base someone being a “troll” on. Is it donating monthly to FR and Cruz? Is it supporting our troops? Is it supporting the constutoin? Or is it disagreeing on an issue or two with some grouchy freepers who didn’t like your opinion. Be out with it. Who are the OTHERS and what led you up to that opinion.
Friggin GD childish it borders on absurd.
By the way, I hate to inform people, but a private employer’s jobs are not another form of welfare. You serve at the pleasure of the owner. If you make him money, fine and dandy. If you don’t, out the door you go. That is reality, as stark as I can make it.
I guess it’s not a cut and dry issue. And to disclose facts, the india graphics department closed after two years due to GROSS incompetence. That’s worked out good lol.
I’m not the only republican to think like this and I didn’t know these guys couldn’t vote right away, so that is my fault.
I still don’t see how an overflowing numbers of legal immigrants who put people on the public dole helps the country but am open to hear reason. Have a good one :)
You’re right
What you describe is precisely why we are a mere shadow of our halcyon days
It’s human nature sadly
Authoritarian cliques stamping out dissent
However crip is hardly the most egregious offender
The tales I could tell
But I’m busy
Be careful though
Stay away from tuna
Well said!
You have a choice. You could have some illegal squatters break into your house, crowd your family, use up your food, etc. Or you can invite just as many in-laws to come and live with you and make life just as difficult. Yes, the in-laws aren’t as bad as the squatters, because at least they were invited. But your life is still difficult and crowded. It would still be better without them.
This is an interesting history about a Democrat, Emanuel Celler, who served in the United States House of Representatives for almost 50 years, from March 1923 to January 1973 (specialties: judiciary and immigration), who fought against restricting immigration, was a target of Joseph McCarthy, was involved in drafting the 1964 Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act. Then feminism happened and he was ousted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Celler
Then ya have other frauds calling for more "legal" immigration, as if that is something America wants or needs.
Look at the big picture. Millions enter illegally routinely and they tell us it's impossible to deport 30 million of them. So people like Cruz demand more foreigners, to simply enter legally.
As the audience of ignorant fools applaud, somehow believing millions more people jamming in will improve their lives. It's pathetic.
Anyone calling for more immigration of ANY type will never get my vote.
Remember: This is not the 1990s, in that much of the technical capability that was native to America has been exported. If wages rise here too high, Gates, Zuckerberg, et al. will merely relocate abroad while expecting the American taxpayer to protect them. So there is now an upper limit to how much wages can rise here without forcing that consequence. The sooner we can do something about job killing regulations, the less attractive relocation will be, as bureaucracy now costs many companies more than does the labor differential.
Meanwhile, importing skilled workers brings both talent and capital here and preserves the motive to invest here as opposed to elsewhere. These will be taxpayers not deluded by the American educational system, and are thus more likely to become conservatives. Effectively, what I think Cruz is contemplating is using immigration as a political weapon much the way the Slave Party does importing serfs and dependents. Whether he is right or whether the zero-sum model assumed in the article you site is correct I don't think anybody really knows.
Many more Americans support reducing legal immigration than support increasing it. Support for reduction often enjoys majority or at least plurality support. It is a very mainstream position, much more so than that favored by the WSJ, professional ethnic grievance groups, the Democratic party, and pro-mass immigration Republicans.
An ‘electable’ Republican could easily hold this position. In fact, it could be a huge plus for him. It should be considering the popularity of that view with Americans.
That’s not to say it would be easy. Supporting a reduction in legal immigration, though popular with the people, would be very unpopular with the media and the GOP donor class. A candidate espousing such views would be mercilessly savaged by the press, and may be abandoned financially by the business wing of the party.
So it is tricky, but it’s worth a real try. The alternative is to allow unending mass immigration to import ever more future Democrats and demographically destroy any hope of small government conservatism.
Walker is far from perfect on immigration, and may not be sincere. But why isn’t Cruz fair game for his liberal position in support of unending (and increasing) mass legal immigration?
I don’t care what you election season trolls think.
Go talk to someone who respects you.
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.