Sorry for taking so long to get to this. I have a number of writing assignments these days, not to mention research for same. So I have patched this together with my apologies for the lack of the usual organizational effort, particularly a comparative table on candidate immigration plans, which somebody should assemble.
It is no secret that I don't trust Donald Trump. I regarded him as a spoiler in conservative politics as early as April 2011 (with a hat tip to TheRightGuy for the tag line). As you will note, Trump is doing EXACTLY as then predicted, because it was obvious even then that he was a shill for the Clintons, leading conservatives over the cliff telling them what they want to hear.
He even says so:
I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal, 1987. So in sum, I believe Trump's candidacy was always meant to be a screw job depriving conservatives of media oxygen and making them look like gullible fools in general. Hopefully, it's not working. I don't believe a word he says.
Personally, I think the distinction between Cruz and Trump insofar as the GOPe is concerned is that they HATE Trump but they FEAR Cruz, and for good reason. Ted Cruz will build a DOJ that will go after corporate corruption and enforce antitrust law (I can hear the screaming from K Street from here in California). Trump on the other hand, LOVES government favors for big business (such as Kelo). He is unlikely to do anything about the corruption and bureaucracy killing this economy, as he and his kind have made a big deal of taking advantage of it for decades. What the GOPe hates in Trump is that he will take care of his friends and doesn't give a crap about their K Street friends.
Anybody familiar with the history of wild swings in immigration law understands that the big problems in the last century began with Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The Slave Party goal has obviously been demographic: Democrats import third whirled voters to be future dependents and ignorant of the Constitution and its principles, thus staying in power to sell favors to the fabulously rich while sticking the upper middle class with the bill. Worse, court decisions made a mockery of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause to and for the same effect with a bogus interpretation of what it is to be "subject to the jurisdiction." Worse yet, the cost of taxation to support these dependents and their kids has forced the middle class to curtail the size of their own families, making the children of immigrants and welfare cases the majority in many public schools, dragging down children of better established families wherever aliens and immigrants predominate. In some schools in Silicon Valley for example, one can find over ten languages spoken in a single classroom. NOBODY can learn in an environment like that. Worse, the clash of cultures leads to yet more government to settle the resulting disputes. The never ending result is a cycle of more ignorance, lower earning ability, more crime, more imprisonment, more unionized police, more welfare case workers, more prison guards, remedial educators... more government unions beholden to Democrats. Yes, when Democrats say, "Diversity is OUR strength," they aren't talking about anybody but themselves.
No one who remembers the California of the early 1960s has failed to note the disaster that has become Los Angeles and what that invasion has meant to the State as a whole.
Hence, to fail to evaluate the various immigration proposals among Republican candidates in terms of their demographic and consequent political effects is insane. As conservatives, there are but three candidates with a solid evaluation of their proposals from NumbersUSA: Trump, Cruz, and Santorum. Santorum isn't going anywhere, so let's compare Cruz' and Trump's for the practical effects of their proposals.
As you admitted, Trump's proposal is to deport them all and allow only "the good ones" back in on an expedited basis. The more one reads what Trump has to say the more one realizes this will be a VERY expedited step over the border and back for the majority of current illegals, wall or no wall. Current illegal aliens will become LEGAL immigrants or "guest workers," which is not at all clear in his plan. Nevertheless, the practical effect is equivalent to amnesty, with the difference that it will take a little longer, and cost a little more for the minimally effective background checks, but with the benefit of screening out known violent criminals. In any event, it is very unlikely there will be any penalties commensurate for the costs these people have imposed upon us for having overstayed their visas or worse. Trump's supporters say that this will only apply to the law-abiding, but one has to ask: which laws? So let's for a moment consider the range of laws usually broken by illegal aliens with families.
Most have fraudulent Social Security numbers, under which they apply for an impressive array of goodies, from disability to SSI, every one of which involves the crime of making false statements to a public official. Many live in homes with numerous families in the dwelling, often exceeding the limits allowed by local laws. Many carry diseases and their homes routinely violate public health standards. They clog emergency rooms for routine care. They drive cars without insurance. They skip the country when they have accidents and stiff the victims. Their kids cost us far more than the actual and outrageous dollar value of public "education," particularly because anchor babies are usually eligible for affirmative action placement (seeing as they were so downtrodden) and that's presuming said "children" don't become drug dealing gang-bangers instead. Further, the availability of low-wage workers displaces native-born citizens even in management positions, particularly because so few Americans speak Spanish with which to direct the illegals. It has been so long that these people have predominated in those kinds of jobs that there is actually an institutional language barrier against the English speaking applicant.
So nobody needs to tell me the problems the demography of illegals have posed; they are legion. They have destroyed my once beloved, admired, and idyllic California and turned it into a degenerating cesspool of crime and corruption. It is a continuing and unfolding tragedy.
Trump proposes to deport all illegals, supposedly forcibly, but he has never offered HOW he's going to accomplish that in any credible sense (I want you to imagine the amount of force he would need to sort out the barrios of LA). He clearly uses the prospect of an expedited return as an inducement to self-deport, equivalent to the bill offered by Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2007 and rejected as equivalent to amnesty, which it was. So why is Trump's plan acceptable now? People are more desperate, noting that these illegals have been here so long as to have produced hordes of anchor babies who are starting to vote. Adding the rest with an amnesty would spell the end of the Republic. Yet anybody who thinks there won't be a restraining order in a heartbeat on Trump's mass deportations, well... they've apparently never seen SPLC or MALDEF lawyers in action. So what will he do then?
If Trump ignores the black-robed tyrants he will have offered the next Slave Party president a terrible precedent. Consider the recent 5th Circuit appellate decision in that context; our next Commander Xero would just ignore it and issue citizenship papers (along with voter registration forms). If on the other hand, he shrugs his shoulders and abides by the court, we will go back to the status quo ante we have now, with no benefit at all to electing this former Democrat. And please don't tell me "so was Reagan;" you know better.
So the net effect of Trump's plan, even if in the unlikely event it is actually implemented, is to blow off the systemic fraud in the name of supplying low-wage workers to his milieu of corporate employers. As I have said many times, given that Trump is in the business of building and operating casinos, hotels, and golf courses, the bulk of jobs he creates are for dishwashers, maids, groundskeepers, low-skill construction laborers... If anyone here thinks for one second he's going to commit financial suicide... So no, his plan is amnesty in all but name, and worse if the courts shut him down. Everything I've heard on this forum to the contrary is nothing more than wishful thinking unsupported by reality.
By contrast Cruz doesn't propose mass deportation, which has many people justifiably concerned that he plans an amnesty (as if such would be measurably worse). Yet the principal feature of what he proposes is to make life for illegals in America difficult, thus forcing them to leave on their own with NO promise of any kind of return, much less an expedited one with legal status. Cruz' first step will be to enforce existing laws, which virtually ALL of us agree are for the most part acceptable legislation that has never been enforced. Cruz SAYS he will 'find and deport criminal immigrants,' (whatever that means) and I agree, what constitutes "criminal" is as big a point of subjectivity (just as it is with Trump). Hence, there is no difference between the two candidates on that metric in terms of demographic consequences other than that under Trump illegal aliens will have been rewarded by becoming legal to work here, which I would hardly call an improvement.
Cruz' point of "criminalize visa overstays" is problematic in that regard in that it is already illegal to overstay a visa but not defined as a chargeable crime. The biggest difference is that Cruz does not propose means to "legalize" illegals as Trump clearly does.
One legitimately has to ask why Cruz never talks about mass deportations and avoids the question when asked in debates. Many here presume he therefore doesn't mean for illegals to leave. I think there is another explanation beyond that unsupported assertion: To state such flatly without ambiguity would be to give his RINO/crat enemies a weapon against him. So I see it as tactical. Let's face it, Cruz knows he will face the same media character assassination that Reagan did and worse: "warmonger, racist, elitist, uncaring, enemy of the poor..." it will go on, and on, and on. We all know it. So why give them a scenario in which they can fantasize armored columns of Federal SWAT teams entering various barrios and rounding them up into camps amid a hail of bullets, with resulting deaths of innocents. Film at 11:00. Why give them that now? Besides, it’s unnecessary, as you will see when I get to that later.
Now the strangest thing about both plans is that neither candidate proposes to use Congress' power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts to prevent MALDEF et al from derailing the legal deportation process. The correct solution is for Congress to take jurisdiction over all matters related to aliens away from the Federal courts and set up an administrative system with which to confirm citizenship or its lack prior to initiating the deportation process. The courts should have NOTHING to say about deportations; their jurisdiction pertains to American citizens.
Unlike Trump, Cruz has promised to curtail legal immigration until employment conditions have improved. Trump has made vague promises to favor Americans in his policies but has not explained what he means. Cruz has dropped his commitment to triple H-1B visas and has promised a moratorium on H-1B visas pursuant to an investigation at the end of which it would appear that he intends to actually penalize past abuses of the program and make future abuse a criminal act (see above re fear v. hate). He promises to end chain migration and will bias future refugee programs toward people who are actually persecuted. There will be no more of the racist "diversity visas." All are moving in the right direction. Trump proposes unconstitutional wage controls on H-1B visas and is not at all specific about how he proposes to promote hiring of American workers.
One feature I applaud in Cruz' plan is that he does not propose to make e-Verify mandatory nationally as Trump does. Mandatory e-Verify is clearly an unconstitutional search and a usurpation of the power to control EVERY employment agreement. It is ripe for the kind of abuses that make the current IRS scandals look like a tea party. Cruz DOES propose to make e-Verify mandatory for federal employment and or contracting, which is within his Constitutional authority as an employer. He gets the Constitutional distinction.
Another feature of Cruz' plan is that he proposes stripping the tax benefits of hiring illegals, something Trump does not. Yet as a big employer of low skilled labor Trump simply has to know better. It's a red flag that I believe indicates his real intentions.
Both candidates plan to enforce the public charge doctrine, the lack of which is a major cause of visa overstays. Both candidates support an impenetrable border with adequate staffing. There is no difference there.
As I linked above, I think Cruz' legal take on 14th Amendment birthright citizenship is wrong in that he does not understand the 19th Century meaning of the term "subject to the jurisdiction" correctly, although it looks as if he's moderating that position to 'birthright citizenship is a questionable distortion of what was meant to be a temporal application to former slaves only' (as opposed to 'as regards to the children of foreigners, the Constitution prohibits birthright citizenship'). However, his is both a very common misunderstanding and is likely to be the holding by the current SCOTUS-bogus. I am hoping that Cruz may come to change that position, as his promise to 'do what I can statutorially' may fail and his backup position of 'if that doesn't go through I will support a Constitutional amendment' is likely to be without effect. I do think his predispositions and current plan are headed in the right direction and that as he does the legal research, being an originalist, his position will come around to mine, namely that the 14th Amendment PROHIBITED children of aliens from becoming citizens by birth; they would have to go through the usual naturalization process for immigrants. We'll see. I don't see Trump actually wrestling with the content of the issue but instead punting to his hired experts, whoever they may be.
Both candidates will triple ICE enforcement, which I do not propose to do (I will get to my proposed means to increase detainment pursuant to deportation without more LEOs). In my opinion, we don't need what is supposed to be a temporary situation building another massive government union expecting full retirement benefits (think of what the prison guards union has done in California). Both candidates will increase the number of administrative judges to handle the temporary workload.
Both candidates will take multiple measures to eliminate sanctuary cities.
The net effects of Trump's program is to cleanse the illegal population of violent criminals and legalize the rest (whatever that means) to welcome much of the current horde back in as long as they only broke some of our laws; i.e., those HE regards as less important, which he has not elaborated. The net effects of Cruz' program are to drive out illegals with no "operation touchback" while curtailing the influx of future Democrats and dependents (but I repeat myself).
Guess which plan leads to more Democrats? Trump's, because his program readmits current illegals without regard to the labor market and on an expedited basis as "legal" to be followed by a "big beautiful door" in whatever wall he intends to build. Cruz will only readmit immigrants if the labor market warrants and they go through the usual process. Whatever form of "legal," whether immigrant or temporary guest worker, Trump has not made clear. Cruz emphasizes employing existing laws to slowly chase them out, permanently, while simultaneously regulating LEGAL immigration according to the real underlying unemployment rate.
To me, the critical issue with Cruz re deportations is families with violent young males, drug dealers, MS-13 types, etc. That Cruz does not say he will conduct sweeps of some sort should be concerning to some, but allow me to say that there may well be a better way to get the bulk of them out of the country without the need to assemble an army to invade large parts of LA or its equivalent. I don't think any of us wants the death of whatever innocents (particularly small children) that may be among them. Hang on, I'll get to that.
I have been critical more than once about Trump being a HUGE employer of groundskeepers, maids, busboys, and construction laborers, and have actually had FReepers in all seriousness accuse me of being some kind of an elitist, as if I think such work is beneath Americans. This is an incredibly offensive charge to me. I was merely stating a fact of Trump's obvious motives for what I think he will do. Contrary to that bogus and unsupported assertion, I have said more than once I want Americans doing those jobs, although I do realize the herculean task of moving that many of the aging unemployed to the places where those jobs are. As to any condescension about doing that kind of work, I have personally done far more odious work than any of those jobs (and if any of you think that crawling on your belly cleaning the bilge of a rolling boat full of fumes and seawater with your chest pinned between the floorboards above and the ribs below doesn't count as "odious"... or having to sleep in a room full of toluene fumes... or scraping toxic boat bottom paint until your eyes wouldn't open for thirty minutes the next day... or drilling out bolts with a corded drill and no ground-fault protection... etc. isn't more unpleasant and dangerous than changing sheets or washing dishes, well.. then whoever thinks that can go to hell).
Yet illegals are not only preferred for low-skill jobs, they get high-skill high-hazard jobs too because the employers avoid the workman's comp insurance costs and push those off onto taxpayers. A classic is tree trimming. Guess what? In fact, yesterday I was forty feet up an oak tree overhanging a public road. I was hanging on the underside of a leaning tree with a rotten stump. No, there was nobody to stop traffic below me to keep them from running over the body. Yes, the tree was 18" in diameter where I parted it 15' up to turn it into a gin pole for getting out the logs. Anybody who would accuse me of being too elitist to get my hands can cram it sideways for leveling such an unsupported accusation against a FReeper of fifteen years for the mere benefit of political posturing (I don't mean you D1). But I digress.
So now we get to what I do think should be done, but first I would like to explain the primary problem with Trump's supporters: They want a savior. They expect HIM to fix it. Except that WE made this problem. How? We keep expecting "the government" to protect us, effectively forgetting that this was to be SELF-GOVERNMENT, a "government of the people," namely us. Pray tell, haven't we learned the fallacy of that expectation? When we expect "the government" to do it, the more we give it because it fails, the more power it gains OVER us. Isn't that what we are seeing?
Among the functions of government is law enforcement. For the first 100 years of this country's history, there were NO police. Guess who did that work? Guess who brought criminals to trial? Guess who sat in judgment.
Accordingly, what I propose NOBODY proposes, in that it adheres to the Constitutional principle that ALL law enforcement was to be the responsibility, no, the DUTY of the people, as embodied by the national unorganized militia and this goes directly to what the Second Amendment is really about, in that whatever army we were to have was to be comprised of the Feds coordinating the State militias under the President as CIC, with the State militias to be comprised of the entire adult male population.
'Oh, but we can't do THAT' (say the real elitists and dependents), 'How would we handle that fancy equipment?'
Said militia was to be capable of functioning as a "regular" army (as professional soldiers in the British army were called at the time), in that we should get regular practice (what "well regulated" means in the Second Amendment). In other words, to hell with a tripled unionized Border Patrol.
'Oh but who has the time?!?!?!' How much time are we spending earning the money to pay the taxes to support said "professionals"? Hence, as far as I am concerned, the people we have now performing police work should be instead training and validating the performance of public volunteers in those functions, much like we used to do with civil defense (which is what this is).
Hence, what we need for dispatching illegals should be so effective that there would be no need for it to be permanent. With the whole militia in force, Congress should do what I have been advocating for over five years: simply issue a bounty for the arrest and detainment of illegal aliens, with heavy penalties for false arrest and harassment of citizens and legal aliens.
This IS within the scope of Article I Section 8. A bounty on an alien criminal is equivalent to a Constitutional letter of Marque against an enemy of the United States per Clause 11, a Constitutionally enumerated power. While such a letter of Marque would name said enemy, it was up to the people as a militia to figure out who that was individually... Barbary Pirates didn't wear uniforms. Sayyyy, that does sound familiar...
Both of the following quotes are from Wikipedia:
In the days of fighting sail, a letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a letter of marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled. In addition to the term lettre de marque, the French sometimes used the term lettre de course for their letters of marque. "Letter of marque" was sometimes used to describe the vessel used: a "letter of marque" generally refers to a lumbering square-rigged cargo carrier that might pick up a prize if the opportunity arose. A "privateer" was a fast and weatherly fore-and-aft-rigged vessel heavily armed and heavily crewed, intended exclusively for fighting. A "letter of marque and reprisal" would include permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.
Wouldn't that be good enough to deal with drug dealers and coyotes? "Oh, but that's archaic!" There is modern precedent for use of a letter of marque:
In December 1941 and the first months of 1942, Goodyear commercial L class blimp Resolute operating out of Moffett Field in Sunnyvale, California, flew anti-submarine patrols. As the civilian crew was armed with a rifle, many thought this made the ship a privateer, and that she and sister commercial blimps were operated under letter of marque until the Navy took over operation. Without congressional authorization, the Navy would not have been able to legally issue any letters of marque.
So, here's the "deportation" element of my plan which is built upon the principle of 'allow the people to get them out of the country':
Step 1: Push legislation stripping jurisdiction over ALL matters regarding aliens (including violent crimes) out of the hands of Federal courts. There is no Constitutional equal protection for aliens. None. There should be no reasonable doubt standard, no free attorneys, no protection from search, or self incrimination... none of it. Aliens should have a very good reason for wanting to earn their citizenship. Without this step in whatever form it takes, any promise of mass deportations is without substance. Step 2: For every alien in the US who entered legally and obtained a visa, put the following data online: their photo, country of origin, last known address, stated purpose of entry, place of entry, entry date, and visa, green card, etc. expiration date... Aliens have no expectation of Fourth Amendment protections.
Step 2: Put a bounty on illegals with a letter of marque and reprisal. You'll find that in Article I, Section 8. Institute any necessary additional laws that criminalize harassing a legal alien or citizen with heavy penalties for false arrest.
Step 4: Put instructional materials on the web to teach the people how to make a legal arrest: standards of evidence, procedural requirements, humane treatment, how to stay safe... the whole bit.
Step 5: Effect online testing for certification as a Deputy Marshall toward supporting citizens in effecting Steps 2-3.
Note that the standards of evidence for citizens gathering evidence as part of their daily lives is very different for a civilian than for a professional law enforcement officer who must obtain a search warrant. If I go to work as a carpenter, and I know one of the subs is making hires of likely illegals, I may come to know the latter personally, who their kids are, where they go to school. My kids might know theirs, etc. All constitute evidence for probable cause for an arrest warrant. Meanwhile the existence of those heavy penalties for false arrest and harassment would temper the desire to move on heresay or rumor and provide a check on wishful thinking. Should there be too many such abuses, simply raise the penalties until they fall to an acceptable level.
Besides its legal advantages of gathering intelligence (that HUMINT the military keeps begging for), a militia system does not comprise a unionized Federal workforce looking toward retirement. It is by its nature incidental or temporary. As the demand for detaining illegals drops, those people can go back to what they were doing with minimal transition and no unemployment compensation.
Perhaps more importantly, taking civilian law enforcement off life support would get millions of citizens to confront the stupidity of many of the laws police must enforce. That outrage would get them supporting candidates who would make real changes. Further, it would END the sense of helplessness so many people feel about the threat of overwhelm of which illegals remind them. Finally, it would instill a sense of community and respect for one's fellow citizen-warrior willing to take personal risks as a protector and friend. Nobody's going to get rich doing this; it's about compensating them for the risks they'll be taking.
As to whether it would work, I would say extirpating hundreds of millions of passenger pigeons is a fairly good indication of the efficacy of bounties. :-) Note: the system works just as effectively for detecting and incarcerating or deporting Muslim terrorists as it does for illegal aliens. Put the people back into the business of law enforcement!
Note: There was not a single unconstitutional violation of any citizen's privacy or UNALIENABLE right to free association (aka "work"). There were no traps for sole proprietors (such as contractors) who couldn't handle the paperwork or the electronics of e-Verify.
For those who cannot take that risk and cannot afford the cost of compliance under IRCA, there are already companies marketing legal employees. Under this system, those companies would need insurance to deal with the cost of a mistake. The market would quickly find the equilibrium between the risk of error, the price of premiums, and the cost of validation. With people posing as illegals to collect a bounty, they'd be wise to do so.
It beats e-Verify, which is effectively asking the Federal government for permission to enter a private contract for work. Mandatory e-Verify is an outrage against Constitutional liberties and a gross usurpation of police powers not enumerated in Article I Section 8. Any conservative advocating it needs to go to Constitutional boot camp 101. It is a power that in the wrong hands could make the abuses of the IRS look like child's play.
There have been suggestions that a bounty system is likely to be abused and lead to harassment of legal Hispanics and employees under a legal visa. These vicious idiots either can't read what I wrote or willfully ignored what I wrote, because I have NEVER mentioned the bounty system idea without simultaneously suggesting heavy penalties for false arrest or harassment. Further, I have offered an orderly way for the national militia to function under Federal or State supervision. So I will repeat that here.
As to the rest of "my plan" in areas such as the public charge doctrine, taxation advantages of hiring illegals, or medical care, I'm with Cruz' plan as opposed to Trump's because the former shows a far better understanding of both existing law and how the government is structured. As I have said many times here, afar as I am concerned, Trump is a poseur with no intention of actually doing what he promises.
CO
Let's take a look at your comments re Trump versus Cruz on immigration. I will note that Cruz has had an epiphany on immigration in the last few months. Is it due to a real change of heart or political expediency as he sees the success that Trump is having with the issue and how it resonates with the American people?
Anybody familiar with the history of wild swings in immigration law understands that the big problems in the last century began with Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The Slave Party goal has obviously been demographic:
Yes, the 1965 Immigration Act changed the demographics of this country forever. Other landmark events included Reagan's 1986 "one-time" amnesty, Bush 41 doubling the legal immigration caps approximating now over one million legal permanent immigrants annually, and the two Obama executive amnesties beginning with the 2012 Dreamer amnesty that has legalized 580,000 Dreamers (up to the age of 30) giving them work permits and SSNs.
87% of legal permanent immigrants are minorities as defined by the USG. Since 1990 we have admitted over 35 million legal permanent immigrants, almost equal to the population of Canada. In 1970 one in 21 was foreign born; today it is less than one in 8, the highest in 105 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history.
Immigration drives 80% of our population growth. Non-hispanic whites will be a minority by 2043, compared to 63% today; and 89% in 1970. There are electoral consequences. Minorities and immigrants vote more than two to one Dem. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities. Unless we significantly reduce legal immigration, the Dems will soon be the permanent majority party.
So nobody needs to tell me the problems the demography of illegals have posed; they are legion. They have destroyed my once beloved, admired, and idyllic California and turned it into a degenerating cesspool of crime and corruption. It is a continuing and unfolding tragedy.
LEGAL immigration is far more destructive than illegal aliens. In the case of CA, both have combined to destroy the state, which has the same demographics as the US will have in 2050, if we don't decrease drastically legal immigration.
Trump's proposal is to deport them all and allow only "the good ones" back in on an expedited basis. The more one reads what Trump has to say the more one realizes this will be a VERY expedited step over the border and back for the majority of current illegals, wall or no wall. Current illegal aliens will become LEGAL immigrants or "guest workers," which is not at all clear in his plan.
Trump has never indicated how many would be allowed back in except that it will be done legally. If that is the case, the numbers could be very small given the fact that most of the lawbreakers have violated many laws including those that are felonies. Nor has Trump provided a detailed plan on how the lawbreakers will be deported. He does however support such things as mandatory e-verify, the elimination of catch and release, and a host of other measures meant to enforce our laws. Deportation is required by law for those here illegally. It goes on every day now. Under Trump and now Cruz, attrition thru enforcement will winnow down the illegal alien population. We will always have to deport people. And Trump says unequivocally that if you are here illegally, you must go. Cruz has equivocated.
There seems to be this quaint notion that we have a static population of 11 million illegal aliens. The reality is that it is constantly changing. 60% of all green cards are due to a change in status, in many cases from illegal to legal.
One legitimately has to ask why Cruz never talks about mass deportations and avoids the question when asked in debates. Many here presume he therefore doesn't mean for illegals to leave. I think there is another explanation beyond that unsupported assertion: To state such flatly without ambiguity would be to give his RINO/crat enemies a weapon against him.
Cruz is trying to have it both ways. In the past, he has supported legalization of the lawbreakers and criticized Romney's self-deportation (as has Trump in the past.) Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration Cruz parsing of words is Clintonian, hence his avoidance of defining what is amnesty.
Reporter asks Ted Cruz four times: “How do you define amnesty?â€
So no, his plan is amnesty in all but name, and worse if the courts shut him down. Everything I've heard on this forum to the contrary is nothing more than wishful thinking unsupported by reality.
The courts will have a hard time stopping the President from enforcing the law. How can they stop deportation of the 40% of the illegal population who are visa overstays? Unlike Obama who has used his power to thwart the enforcement of existing laws, Trump will be enforcing existing law that was passed by Congress. He will not be using executive orders to legalize the lawbreakers. He will enforce the laws against sanctuary cities.
Unlike Trump, Cruz has promised to curtail legal immigration until employment conditions have improved. Trump has made vague promises to favor Americans in his policies but has not explained what he means.
Cruz is not proposing to curtail legal immigration. He is proposing not to increase it. Here is what he says:
Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high. The purpose of legal immigration should be to grow the economy, not to displace American workers. Under no circumstances should legal immigration levels be adjusted upwards so long as work-force participation rates remain below historical averages.
Compare that to what Trump is proposing. Trump wants legal immigration to return to historical levels, which means 195,000 a year (1925-65) compared to 1.1 million today. From Trump's plan:
Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.
One feature I applaud in Cruz' plan is that he does not propose to make e-Verify mandatory nationally as Trump does. Mandatory e-Verify is clearly an unconstitutional search and a usurpation of the power to control EVERY employment agreement. It is ripe for the kind of abuses that make the current IRS scandals look like a tea party. Cruz DOES propose to make e-Verify mandatory for federal employment and or contracting, which is within his Constitutional authority as an employer. He gets the Constitutional distinction.
BS. The Supreme Court ruled in AZ's favor on making e-verify mandatory. We need to shut off the job magnet now. E-verify is a tool that makes it easier and quicker for the employer to ensure that he does not hire illegal aliens, which is against the law. Are you against the I-9 process which currently requires. All U.S. employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. Is it unconstitutional? Does Cruz support the elimination of the I-9 process? Cruz says in his plan that he wants to "strengthen e-verify," What does that mean?
FYI: People like Jeff Sessions and Steve King want mandatory e-verify as do NumbersUSA, FAIR, etc.
I'm with Cruz' plan as opposed to Trump's because the former shows a far better understanding of both existing law and how the government is structured.
The Trump plan was written for the most part by a staffer in Jeff Sessions' office. I know that for a fact. As someone who has been working on the immigration issue for nine years as a member (read President) of a grassroots immigration group that lobbies on the Hill, Trump has presented the best position paper of any presidential candidate in recent memory. Cruz has made a belated attempt at a knock-off of the Trump plan and it is not as good. I don't trust Cruz to deliver on immigration.
Trump was the first high profile political figure to highlight the American victims of criminal alien crime. Cruz has never done that. Cruz wanted a 500% increase in H-1B visas, one of the Cruz amendments to the Gang of 8 bill that Sessions did not support.
Phyllis Schafly, who gets it on immigration, has called Trump the "last hope" for America." She said Cruz would make a good VP or member of the Supreme Court.