Posted on 01/29/2016 1:14:14 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
After the Fox News-Google debate Megyn Kelly interviewed Ted Cruz. [7:40 Video begins with a 1:00 clip of the earlier debate]
Kelly continued to pursue the "amnesty" angle that she'd begun during the debate [starting at 3:41] - about his history on illegals, immigration and amnesty, but concedes:
Kelly: "I look at your record, a lot, to see: Did Ted Cruz really want legalization, or didn't he?"
"I think the record supports you - that you did not want it; it does."
"It really was a poison pill amendment."
Then there is back and forth where Kelly states that Cruz had said that he wanted the Gang of Eight bill to pass.
Sen. Cruz corrects her and states that he wants immigration reform to pass -- but he never said he wanted the Gang of Eignt bill to pass. [He directs everyone to see the 11-page, very very detailed immigration plan on website (linked in comment below)].
Cruz explains tactics: "When debating Democrats [Schumer] you use the language of Democrats to show their hypocrisy."
"Schumer talked about 'coming out of the shadows' but it wasn't about that."
"Chuck Schumer said, 'If there is no citizenship, there is no reform and we'll kill the whole thing.'"
Their interview ended this way:
Megyn Kelly: "The record supports you." [Cruz: "Anyone here illegally is permanently ineligible for citizenship."]
"It was a poison pill."
"You do have a consistent record on that; I will give you that; we did look back on it."
Good research here, thanks for presenting it.
You are buying into the mind control and being lectured to by the Establishment media lock, stock and barrel.
Then again you said Walker was going to get the nomination too.
What is the earliest date you can cite and link where Cruz offered his “poison pill” explanation. The actual Senate debate took place more two years ago.
Frontpage - Daniel Greenfield, July 26, 2015:
Donald Trump Endorses Amnesty for Illegal Aliens - Disappointing, but not surprising
[full text] “In an interview with Hannity, Trump clarified that his process involves deporting the “bad ones”, presumably criminals already in prison, building a wall, and then have some of the “outstanding” ones from the “11 million or more here” be able to reapply to come here legally through some sort of expedited process.
Again we’re not talking hard numbers here, but it’s a vast improvement over the impression left by Trump’s previous comments. I’m somewhat skeptical about it and it would be good to get some kind of impression of what numbers we’re talking about. Certainly Trump is the first to suggest mass deportation, but that would be followed by some sort of mass importation. I doubt Trump will offer hard numbers, so we’re back to trust.
By being vague about it, Trump appears to offer immigration critics mass deportation and offer illegal alien supporters amnesty. Without any actual criteria, it could be one or the other. It’s all in the details.
What does “bad” mean. What does “outstanding” mean. If we assume that anyone without a criminal record who worked steadily is outstanding, then we’re looking at a slightly smaller amnesty. If it means overachievers and a smaller percentage of extraordinary cases, then it could be a pretty good deal. Until there are more details, it’s hard to know.
Trump says of the illegal aliens, “of the good ones, of which there are many” would have to leave, but would have an expedited process of coming back.
>>>We have to bring great people into this country, okay? And I want to bring - I love the idea of immigration, but it’s got to be legal immigration. Now, a lot of these people are helping us, whether it’s the grapes, or whether it’s jobs, and sometimes it’s jobs, in all fairness, I love our country, but sometimes it’s jobs that a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I mean, there are jobs that a lot of people don’t want to do. I want to move them out, and we’re going to move them back in, and let them be legal, but they have to be in here legally....Otherwise, you don’t have a country. You don’t have a country, if people can just pour into the country illegally, you don’t have a country, but I would expedite the system.<<<
And he endorsed the DREAMERs
>>> We’re going to do something. I’ve been giving it so much thought, you know you have a - on a humanitarian basis, you have a lot of deep thought going into this, believe me. I actually have a big heart...I mean, a lot of people don’t understand that, but the DREAMers, it’s a tough situation, we’re going to do something, and one of the things we’re going to do is expedite - when somebody’s terrific, we want them back here, but they have to be legally...They’re with their parents, it depends. But, look, it sounds cold, and it sounds hard. But, we have a country, our country’s going to hell. We have to have a system where people are legally in our country.<<<
The depressing reality though that is that most of the Republican field has endorsed amnesty in one form or another. So this isn’t much of a surprise. Trump is using his own vocabulary, but he’s echoing the same amnesty talking points you could hear from Marco Rubio... or Barack Obama.
During Friday’s interview, Trump said the U.S. should take a two-step approach to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country.
>>>”Well, the first thing we do is take the bad ones - of which there are, unfortunately, quite a few,” said Trump, who owns three New Jersey golf courses and once owned three Atlantic City casinos. “We take the bad ones and get ‘em the hell out. We get ‘em out.”<<<
But he said the country should take a different approach with “the other ones” - i.e., undocumented immigrants who have “done a good job” since arriving in the U.S.
>>>I’m a very big believer in the merit system,” Trump said. “I have to tell you: Some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job. You know, in some cases, sadly, they’ve been living under the shadows. ... If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out.
“But before we do anything, we have to secure the border because the border is like having no border,” he added.<<<
I’m sure some people will be tempted to cheer this, but compare it to Obama’s own amnesty executive order.
>>>These executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay their fair share of taxes as they register to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.
Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border: The President’s actions increase the chances that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally will be caught and sent back. Continuing the surge of resources that effectively reduced the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally this summer, the President’s actions will also centralize border security command-and-control to continue to crack down on illegal immigration.
Deporting Felons, Not Families: The President’s actions focus on the deportation of people who threaten national security and public safety. He has directed immigration enforcement to place anyone suspected of terrorism, violent criminals, gang members, and recent border crossers at the top of the deportation priority list.<<<
Deporting the “bad people” first is already an Obama talking point. People may think they can trust Trump, but not Obama or any of the Republicans, but like them, Trump frontloaded rhetoric about enforcement while keeping the amnesty out back.
And “secure the border first” has been the talking point of every Republican amnesty proponent.
Marco Rubio still supports legal status and a slow road to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, but now says the government must convince Americans the border is secure before taking those steps.
Trump had already indicated support for amnesty earlier, now he’s being clearer about it.
This is in line with what CNN’s Chris Moody reported Trump saying during a press conference in Chicago at the end of June. When asked what he would do about the illegal immigrants already residing in the country once the border was secured, Trump replied, “give them a path,” according to Moody.
When The Daily Caller sought clarification at the time from the Trump campaign, a senior adviser replied with a circuitous answer that emphasized that Trump wanted to secure the border and didn’t believe in “amnesty,” but wouldn’t explicitly reject a pathway to legalization.
Nobody likes the A-word, including Rubio and Ryan who spent the better part of a year arguing that legalizing illegal aliens isn’t amnesty if they have to pay a fine. Even Obama made that argument.
The next step would be to get Trump to lay out criteria for who gets to stay and how many of them it would apply to, but good luck getting an answer. [end]
You need to start here. I’ll will begin to explain why Cruz crafted his “poison pill”:
April 2, 2013:
“President Obama is pushing a path to citizenship as a “poison pill” to prevent meaningful immigration reform, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) charged Monday.
“The part that I’ve got deep concerns about is any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally,” Cruz said during an interview with Sean Hannity. “I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.
“I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that’s really unfortunate,” continued Cruz.
The Tea Party favorite said Congress could easily pass a comprehensive immigration reform deal if Democrats, and particularly Obama, stopped demanding the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally.
Cruz’s comments came as a bipartisan group of senators indicate that it’s nearly done crafting a broad immigration bill. The so-called “Gang of Eight” hopes to unveil the legislation in April, with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday suggesting that the group could unveil legislation as early as next week.
On Monday, the White House said that it was “encouraged” by the progress the group has made. The Senate bill is likely to call for increasing border security, introduce a pathway to citizenship, and increasing visas for high-school workers. A House bipartisan group is also working on its own immigration reform plan.
But Cruz argued that the president knows a path to citizenship effectively kills any immigration reform proposal.
“If he actually really wanted to get something passed, he wouldn’t be rolling this out as a partisan attack issue,” Cruz said. “You look at the State of the Union, that was a divisive speech, that was in your face. And he knows full well that a path to citizenship won’t pass the House.”
“He knows that it’s a partisan, divisive issue and he holds everything else hostage to that wedge issue,” Cruz added.
Asked what exactly he would like to see in an immigration reform bill, Cruz said that legislation should include “tripling the border patrol” and streamlining the immigration process for legal immigrants.
“I think that it is likely that there could be some bipartisan solution to those who are here illegally if a path to citizenship were taken off the table,” Cruz continued. “But as long as the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] insist on a path to citizenship they know full well it will never pass the House of Representatives and then it’s just a political football rather than actually trying to fix the problem.”
Cruz predicted that an immigration reform plan would likely pass the Senate before being defeated in the House and said the White House was prepared to exploit that politically.
“Look, they have the votes to force something through the Senate. I think whatever mess comes out of the so-called Gang of Eight, all or virtually all of the Democrats will vote for it and it’s likely they’ll get a fair number of Republicans to vote for it to so they can probably get it through the Senate,” Cruz added. “If it includes a path to citizenship, I don’t think it’ll pass the House, and I think that’s exactly what the Obama White House wants.” [end]
Ted Cruz Files Immigration Amendment To Ban Path To Citizenship
"WASHINGTON -- Among the 300 amendments to the Senate immigration bill is one that would take away one of its central purposes: giving a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an almost certain "no" vote on the bill from the so-called gang of eight, filed an amendment on Tuesday to ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point.
The path to citizenship under the gang of eight bill is already a difficult one. It would take about 13 years and require immigrants to complete a number of requirements, such as learning English and paying hefty fines. Undocumented immigrants would first apply for provisional immigrant status, and most would be required stay in the U.S. for at least a decade before being eligible to apply for legal permanent residency. They could then eventually apply to be a U.S. citizen. But the government would have to meet certain border security benchmarks before any provisional immigrant could move into legal permanent resident status.".......
Ted Cruz Files Amendment To Deny Path To Citizenship As Senate Works On Bill
"......"The amendments filed today to strengthen border security and reform our legal immigration system will not only bring meaningful, effective improvements to our immigration system, but also have a chance of becoming law," said Cruz in a statement. "America is a nation of immigrants, built by immigrants and we need to honor that heritage by fixing our broken immigration system, while upholding the rule of law and championing legal immigration."
His amendments are among more than 300 filed by the Tuesday evening deadline. Republicans wanting tighter enforcement provisions filed a majority of the amendments, with Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, leading the pack with 77 amendments.
Supporters of the bill, mainly of the part of it that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, kept a steady drumbeat in defense of the measure though emails, websites and social media.
In a press release, America's Voice, a leading national group that advocates for more lenient immigration laws, singled out Cruz's anti-citizenship amendment as particularly worrisome.
"This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill—the popular heart of an immigration reform solution—but also turn its back on 100 years of precedent in immigration policy," said the release..........
Don't kid yourself about why Donald Trump skipped the the debate. He had his reasons. I have no idea what they were. But it looks to the world outside the Trump Universe as a childish act. There is really nothing anyone can do now to affect that view.
I think Cruz handled the "attacks" directed at him brilliantly and was helped by this debate. Would Trump have been as good? I doubt it. We'll never know.
Bottom line: If you are a Trump Fan he made a brilliant move in dodging the Silver Debate Bullet. If you are anyone else he looks like a Cry Baby.
I think we are in for a very rough ride between now and November.
Poison Pills And Deal Breakers: Senate Panel Considers 300 Amendments To Immigration Reform Bill
".......Many of the proposed amendments are aimed at undermining -- or outright eliminating -- the bill's provision for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has called citizenship a deal breaker for conservatives, filed an amendment that would ban anyone who has ever been "willfully present" in the United States without legal status from ever becoming a citizen -- basically, everyone the bill's legalization provisions are designed to help. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the Senate's leading immigration reform opponent, is more subtle in his 49 amendments, but not by much. One would require undocumented immigrants to maintain an income greater than 400% of the poverty level (about $94,000 for a family of four) for a decade straight to qualify for a green card. Another amendment would require Homeland Security officials to conduct in-person interviews with every single undocumented immigrant who applies for legal status, which could slow down implementation of the bill.
All in all, the pro-reform America's Voice counted 59 amendments in all that "limit or obstruct" the citizenship process. These tougher measures are likely to be defeated in the Senate, but they could find new life if GOP leaders in the House decide to take a more hard-line tack.
On the flip side, some Democrats have submitted measures to make the path to citizenship easier. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) filed an amendment that would let young undocumented immigrants who haven't yet entered high school into an expedited citizenship track for 'DREAMers' who obtain a diploma."...........
You’re welcome.
Thanks for the later comments as well. I copied them to my FB page (me only) for ammo later. Facebook (under “only me”) makes a handy debate book reference.
At the height of the debate, when most eyeballs are watching, MEgyn hammers Cruz.
During post debate jibber jabber, after most people turn off their TV and go to bed, MEgyn says, oh BTW Ted, you were right all along.
Spit on FOX and the MSM
She pressed the issue because she is “ me me me”. Look at how many times Kelly used the word “I” ( I think, I know...). What does “I” have to do with questioning by a moderator? HER opinions carry no weight at a debate, she can do that in HER show...but it is not in the job description of a moderator to express their opinions, only the opinions of the debaters should be on display. (Now she even looks like Rachel Maddow).
An example - there are tons of them.
June 6, 2013:
Marking Up The Immigration Bill
".....I, along with fellow immigration reform junkies, followed the markup process on the interwebs, as well as on CSPAN. It was great watching the "Gang of Eight" systematically quash every amendment brought forward with the intention of killing their Immigration bill.
Fighting off poison pill amendments from Republican members of the "Gang of Hate" was no easy feat. Ted Cruz, the Canadian- born Hispanic Senator from Texas, whined and whined incessantly, like a 3 year old, whenever his poison pill amendments were rejected.
Anti-immigration Senator Jeff Sessions from the suthern state of Alabama constantly regurgitated lies concocted by immigrant hate groups like NumbersUSA and FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). He matter-of-factly claimed that, if legalized, we, the Undocumented, would pretty much steal jobs from just about every living US citizen.
At the end of the markup, the enemies of immigration reform were defeated and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "Gang of Eight" bill with a 13-5 vote!
Next, the bill will go to the Senate floor where it will be discussed, debated upon and voted on. The general desire is for it to pass the Senate with at a 60+ vote majority. When it passes (and I have faith it will), the bill will move to the Republican-dominated House.".....
Yeah he did.
How ridiculous and petty a comment. Santorum did not go to support Trump. He went to support veterans. As my son a veteran suffers severe PTSD, I appreciate any support given veterans. It is sinking pretty low to ridicule anyone supporting them.
I'm checking more of this material online.
Remember this grilling of Ted Cruz by Bret Baer when Cruz would not accept Baer's premise, when Cruz stood firm explaining how and why he set up the poison pill, and why it succeeded?
(And from all the quotes linked above in this thread, everyone knew it was a "poison pill.")
(this is a good autopsy by Jim Geraghty)
Dec 17, 2015: Cruz: My Amendments 'Succeeded in Defeating the Rubio-Schumer Amnesty Bill'
[BIG SNIP of exchange between Baer and Cruz]
Geraghty: "............... Some are asking why make a big deal about Cruz's slipperiness here; surely no one thinks he's a closet amnesty supporter. Surely, Rubio offered a bigger and more consequential lie while defending the Gang of Eight bill in April 2013: "What I said throughout my campaign was that I was against a blanket amnesty. And I was, and this is not blanket amnesty," (No, he didn't add the 'blanket' qualifier at any point in his 2010 Senate campaign.).........."
Every article I’ve read about the Debate paints it ugly like the last one hosted by the same three.
****************************************
Dear Onyx... You’ve been reading the wrong articles, IMO. This one was probably the best because Trump wasn’t there to call people names and try to bully everyone. The seven candidates were given a chance to reply with their opinions and banter among themselves without the maniac.
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.