Posted on 08/26/2015 10:37:19 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Last night on Donald Trump's least favorite Fox News program, The Kelly File, GOP contender Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) also went after the suddenly controversial interviewer, complaining that a question she kept pressing him on—whether he'd deport the U.S.-citizen children of illegal immigrants, as Donald Trump would—is "the question every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask." Sick burn!
Anyway, the question—which Cruz, to his discredit, refused to answer—is an important one for those many 2016 GOP candidates (Trump, Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, etc.) who have come out against the birthright citizenship established by the plain text of the 14th amendment. We get that you wish to change the existing rules somehow (Trump and Ron Paul, to name two people, think you can do so without a constitutional amendment), but what to do about the estimated 4 million American-citizen kids having at least one illegal-immigrant parent? Given the rapid Trumpification of the 2016 nominating process, and Cruz's demonstrated readiness to strip U.S. citizenship in other contexts, the issue of forcibly expelling Americans from their native country—regardless of how appalling—is a live one, demanding clarification.
Here's a detail that rarely gets brought up during nonsense-filled immigration debates: President Barack Obama has been a much bigger deporter-in-chief than George W. Bush. The Department of Homeland Security issued 2 million deportations during Bush's tenure; Obama blew through that number in Year Five of his presidency:
The administration has since made a sharp policy turn, triggering some of the heated debate we've seen over the past year, but there's no guarantee that his late-breaking deportation slowdown would be carried on by the next Democratic president, particularly if it's restrictionist Bernie Sanders.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Once the anchor babies turn 18, they can sponsor a spouse. Once they turn 21, they can sponsor all their relatives including their parents.
It’s illegal to deport (exile) U.S. citizens.
What idiot asked such a question?!
We don’t need a wall on both borders.
When you leave your house do you lock only the front door and leave the back door open?
She wanted a knee-jerk reaction that could be used against republicans in the future.
He immediately recognized what she was up to, and did not oblige.
He then attempted to redirect her back to the actual issue-by discussing what agreement does exist between both sides i.e. building some sort of wall- and that they need to start actually doing that ,(as opposed to talking about it), and then go from there to decide as a nation, within Constitutional means, what should be done with those here illegally and their children.
It was a good answer.
Mexico is a Third World country. The vast majority of illegal aliens are coming from Mexico and Central America. Canada is a developed country with a standard of living similar to ours. They have control of their borders and immigration system.
It would be dumb to construct a wall on our Northern border or to devote the same resoures to control it. In fact, Canada has more to fear from being invaded by the illegals transiting the US. We can't control our Southern border nor do we track and deport visa overstays who comprise 40% of our illegal population.
It was a "good answer" if you wanted to hide the fact that you have stated that you want to legalize those here illegally. Cruz supports amnesty, but he tries to hide it.
I like Ted Cruz but he is not going to deport anybody. I think he would try to secure the border and then a path to legalization for the ones who are here. He also wants to increase the H1-B visas by 500%. I don’t understand the visa deal at all.
I also think that Ted Cruz believes birthright citizenship is part of the 14th amendment which I personally do not agree with. The Supremes have never ruled on it.
Quite right. It is completely within congresses powers to prioritize which immigrants get to the front of the line(Or in line at all).
Right now, immediate relatives go to the front of the line (thanks to Ted Kennedy and the immigration act of 1965). It was never like that before.
How about we again prioritize immigrants that might actually contribute something to the nation instead of old and busted immediate relatives.
It’s a nonsense question. The illegal parents can choose to take their US citizen children home, or they can choose to allow a legal relative (if any) to raise their children here. It’s the parents’ decision, just like breaking the law to enter our country was the parents’ decision, and the parents are responsible for the quandary they created.
No, he doesn't support amnesty. That's a lie.
Re-read the title of this thread:
Ted Cruz Evades Important Question:
Would You Deport U.S. Citizens? (Does this even make sense?)
MK wanted a simplistic answer, (that could be used to damage repubs), to a complex question/issue.
Cruz gave a good answer and outlined some of what will be required for Americans to begin to adress it.
False claim.
Also of note from that article:
Despite his fiery rhetoric regarding Mexican immigrants, real estate mogul Donald Trump hasn’t said many specifics about what he’d do regarding the illegal immigrants already here. He has said this year that he would support a “merit-based” system for some illegal immigrants earning their right to stay, echoing comments he made in 2011.
No it is not politically correct. Terrorists can cross the Canadian border also. We need to secure the borders not a border. We have lots of illegals cross the Northern border as well they just happen to not be Canadian.
Doing half the job is stupid. Close the Southern border and guess what. More people will sneak across the Northern border. No ways near as many but it will still increase and then we have to start the whole stupid fight again. Secure ALL the borders now and be done with it.
there is no issue of deporting US citizens.
when the illegal mother and hangers on are deported what becomes of the kid?
The mom takes it with her and that is not deportation
the new law should be that an illegal cannot take a citizen with her on deportation
>> Right now, immediate relatives go to the front of the line (thanks to Ted Kennedy and the immigration act of 1965). It was never like that before <<
I don’t want to absolve Ted Kennedy of any blame. But the story I used to hear around DC was that the “immediate relatives” provision was nearest and dearest to the heart of the Italo-American Congressman, Peter Rodino from Newark NJ.
Rodino was the all-powerful Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for years, and some would say he was the number one “Congressional go-to guy” on immigration during many of those years. I have the impression that allowing Italo-Americans to import brothers, sisters and parents from the Old Country was his top priority when it came to immigration law.
Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration
What Mr. Cruz has tried to articulate in both word and deed is a middle ground. It got no support from Democrats in Washington, but it goes further than many on the far right want to go by offering leniency to undocumented immigrants here already: A path to legal status, but not to citizenship. A green card with no right to naturalization.
Immigration-reform legislation from the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight passed that chamber in June and includes a 13-year path to citizenship. Mr. Cruz pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would have, among other things, eliminated the citizenship component.
Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.
“The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Mr. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.
Mr. Cruz said recent polling indicated that people outside Washington support some reform, including legal status without citizenship. He said he was against naturalization because it rewarded lawbreakers and was unfair to legal immigrants. It also perpetuates illegal crossings, he added.
Besides barring citizenship while instituting some level of legalization for those here already, Mr. Cruz has proposed increasing the number of green cards awarded annually, to 1.35 million from 675,000. He also wants to eliminate the per-country limit that he said left applicants from countries like Mexico, China and India hamstrung when they tried to gain legal entry to this country.
Would You Deport U.S. Citizens? (Does this even make sense?) MK wanted a simplistic answer, (that could be used to damage repubs), to a complex question/issue.
He could have answered yes he would deport the parents and if there was no legal guardian or US relative able to take care of the children, they would have to go with them. Moreover, he should have said that children should remain with their parents.
How do you define "lots?" Put a number on it. What you may not know is that we have a policy of harmonization with the Canadians on immigration laws and procedures. We also share closely information on terrorism. We have our own people at Canadian airports to process people coming into the US.
We don't need a wall between the US and Canada and it is nonsensical to suggest one. I believe in profiling when it comes to figuring out whom to screen. We use it at our entry points. It also applies to countries. Canada is not Mexico.
Should we also build a wall between Alaska and Canada?
Doing half the job is stupid. Close the Southern border and guess what. More people will sneak across the Northern border. No ways near as many but it will still increase and then we have to start the whole stupid fight again. Secure ALL the borders now and be done with it.
How are they going to get into Canada? Do you think Canada would allow all these illegal aliens to come to Canada and act as a transit point? Canada has some tough rules on who gets a visa, tourist or immigrant, and enforces them. Again, it is called harmonization. We work with Canada to ensure that their rules are similar to ours. They don't want terrorists in their country either.
His answer was the best one for the question. He does not support amnesty as you state in your post.
McCain used to say that his plan was not amnesty because you had to pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line.
If you believe that legalization is not amnesty, then you are easily fooled. Legalization will cost us $6.3 trillion if there are only 12 million illegal aliens.
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.