Posted on 02/07/2016 8:45:29 PM PST by SoConPubbie
Yesterday I told you how Ted Cruz talked about building a wall months before Donald Trump announced his 2016 presidential candidacy.
That post was misleading, and I deeply apologize.
Because Ted Cruz was actually talking about a wall years before Trump announced.
YEARS.
Here’s Ted Cruz, July 17, 2012, during his run for the Texas Senate, supporting building a wall:
MODERATOR: Mr. Cruz. You were asked during April’s Belo Debate if you support building a fence the length of the U.S./Mexico border and here’s what you said.
MODERATOR: He supports building a wall along the entire Texas/Mexico border. Is that something that you would support? Yes, no, why? We’ll start with you, Mr. Cruz.
CRUZ: Yes. We have an illegal immigration crisis and we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. That means fences, that means walls…
[edit]
MODERATOR: [unintelligible] wall, you said you’d support a wall —
CRUZ: I said yes to that.
MODERATOR: — even if it infringes on property rights of Texans along the way.
CRUZ: Property owners should be compensated for that [edit]
MODERATOR: Is that still your position tonight, to build a fence the length of the Texas/Mexico border?
CRUZ: I think we need to use every tool humanly possible.
MODERATOR: And that is one of them?
CRUZ: Yes.
MODERATOR: Yes? OK. Do you have any idea how much it would cost?
CRUZ: I don’t know the specific cost but I can guarantee you it is far less than the cost of illegal immigration.
The moderator goes on to berate Cruz for supporting this despite the cost. Cruz sticks to his guns. That was July 17, 2012, and the debate clip used in the second debate was from April 13, 2012. Donald Trump’s latest presidential run was announced in June 2015.
This means Ted Cruz supported a wall years before Trump announced his 2016 presidential bid.
And here is Cruz again, from July 30, 2011, supporting a wall as part of a comprehensive strategy to secure the border:
QUESTIONER: Do you favor a path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the U.S., stricter border enforcement, and/or the building of a border wall or some other policy or combination of policies?
CRUZ: There were a lot of questions in that piece. Let me lay out my position on immigration, because I can state it simply and in one sentence. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration. I am categorically opposed to amnesty. And I strongly support legal immigrants who follow the rules and come here seeking to work towards the American dream.
Now with respect to securing the borders, I approach this from the perspective of someone who’s spent much of his adult life in law enforcement. It makes utterly no sense that we don’t know who’s coming into this country. We don’t know the criminal backgrounds. Our borders are largely unsecured. And particularly in a post-9/11 world, that is lunacy. I support any and all possible efforts to secure the border. That includes fences, that includes walls, that includes technology, that includes helicopters, that includes drones, that includes manpower, that includes employment verification, that includes approaching it as a law enforcement priority. And right now, neither party is serious about doing that.
With respect to a path to citizenship or amnesty, I categorically oppose it. And the reason is, I’ve spent a lifetime working to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. It is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the rule of law to reward those who break the law. And you know, one of the people it’s most unfair to are those that are following the laws. There are immigrants who wait years and even decades to come here legally. And yet what amnesty programs say is that we’re going to take those that have chosen to break the law, and we’re going to reward them rather than insist that people follow the law. I don’t think that’s fair, I don’t think that’s right, and I don’t support it.
Thanks to @mbhouse on Twitter (here and here) for the pointers.
“....Let Congress try to stand in the way of that, and you’ll see a 75% swap out of Republicans in the House within two years. ..”
I hope that’s true, but I believe Ted Cruz would have a better chance of convincing them, as he is not as nasty as Donald. Donald Trump is using very fowl language, and it’s getting worse, even with his audience that might have children, as well as religious folks, including women.
As POTUS Cruz will have much power, and Congress will listen to him more than they would to a senator. Plus, Cruz will have more likeability than Trump.
I admit, neither Ted nor Donald, will be loved by the pro-illegal immigration crowd, but that’s a good thing.
At least Ted keeps his cool, and that is always good.
Lord, I hope not!
“However, Senator Cruz would build the fence, PLUS do right on mega other issues, like pick great judges.
Ted Cruz was a Constitutional lawyer, who gaduated magna cum laud, and clerked for Justice Rehnquist.”
_
TEd CRuz has never been anything but a paid mouthpiece.
Ted Cruz picked John Roberts. Cruz is the reason we got stuck with Obamacare. Roberts was his friend, Cruz recruited and PRAiSED him!
We KNOW what kind of judges Cruz picks! NOT good ones.
BTW, Roberts also has no problem with the Kelo Decision.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3394359/posts?page=43#43
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/214989/print
The Right Stuff
John Roberts should be a quick confirm.
By Ted Cruz — July 20, 2005
Thank you for your comments.
When Ted offered up two amendments to the Gang of 8 Bill, it was in a Republican controlled sub-committee.
They rejected both of them.
Ted can’t even get his own team on the same page.
I appreciate your point of view, but I don’t agree.
Take care.
MANY, many of STRONG CONSERVATIVES, like me, trusted Roberts. We had no reason NOT to until he unconstitutionally wrote another law on Obama”care” so it would pass.
Cruz renounced Robert after that, as did the rest of we STRONG CONSERVATIVES.
NOW let’s do DONALD TRUMP. He said he would build the fence with a WIDE gate, guess that’s because he’ll let them back in, at least the nonviolent ones (hopefully).
Here’s more to support that:
“We are not talking about positions he has taken years ago before he became a Republican. In 2013, conservatives were fighting for dear life to oppose open borders, while Trump was not only supporting the Dream Act, but echoing the liberal politically correct talking points behind it. In August of 2013, he reportedly told a group of illegal aliens, “You have convinced me†of the need to pass the Dream Act.”
more: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/trumps-questionable-political-history
My dear, liberal and “moderate” Republicans are NOT Ted’s team, which is probably most of them. We need to primary them OUT of office.
Jeff Sessions also could not change their minds - too many of them.
Jeff Sessions said Ted Cruz stood with him and Mike Lee, while Rubio was with the Gang of 8.
I understand folks passionate about Donald Trump, are looking to blame Ted Cruz for everything, but a senator, who only has a few strong conservatives on his side, can’t do the impossible.
PRESIDENT Cruz will have way more power than Sen. Cruz.
In my 3rd sentence I meant to say Steve King, not Mike Lee.
You tell me Ted can work with Congress.
I remind he hasn’t been able to.
You tell me, oh but he will.
No sale.
Thank you for the correction.
Take care...
Talking and talking and talking. :-)
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.