Posted on 02/19/2016 8:50:46 PM PST by TBP
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has praised Donald Trump for making illegal immigration a central issue of the Republican presidential race, but in an exclusive interview with ABC News, Cruz said that Trump’s immigration plan amounts to amnesty.
"So Donald Trump's position is once you deport them, it's what's called touchback. A lot of establishment Republicans had touchback," Cruz said in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. "Basically you make them fly back to their country for a minute, touch the ground, and then they come back with amnesty as citizens. Now, Donald is entitled to do that. He can advance that position, but he doesn't get to pretend that it's not amnesty if he's legalizing 12 million people [who are] here illegally."
Cruz also accused Trump of latching onto the issue of illegal immigration for political gain. Cruz said Trump was notably absent during the battle over the “Gang of Eight†immigration reform bill in 2013.
"I would note at that time, right in the middle of the fight, Donald Trump was publicly supporting amnesty. He was supporting Marco Rubio's Dream Act," Cruz said. "He was criticizing Mitt Romney for being too tough on immigration. That's where Donald Trump was in 2013. Now, when he launched his campaign for president, suddenly he discovered illegal immigration was a problem."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So only 80% of them would get amnesty? 75%? And that is a good thing?
Yes. Its Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s amendment all over again. The media focuses only on the deportation aspect (as Eric Trump complains) and Trump supporters like the media ignore the amnesty aspect.
True, but, legally, one must go through quite a process, there are caps on the numbers of legal immigrants from many countries, and, most important, Trump's paper clearly very heavily reduces the incentives to come in. It's sort of like an employer saying to a hord of job applicants "Sure, you're welcome to apply, and here's the 40 page form", but unsaid is the fact that there are only 2 positions open, and with very demanding / specific requirements.
Back in 2008-2009, I got that as a job applicant a LOT. :-(
Trump says maybe after his touchback legalization amnesty, he would consider a citizenship amnesty.
You want to see the real Ted Cruz, just go to 7 Mountain Dominionism. Please!
Let’s see Mr. Billionaire Democrat contributor who looks forward to working with Nancy Pelosi tell us again how he opposes Obamacare but supports the Mandate, said Obama was brilliant praising the trillion dollar stimulus, and supported TARP. You don’t scrutinize Trump, you misdirect and point fingers.
Trump has said numerous times that he would "expedite" them back. He has never said that they should go to the back of the quota line and wait up to 10 years which would be the normal amount of time.
Read it AND weep - http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259589/donald-trump-endorses-amnesty-illegal-aliens-daniel-greenfield
So far, no one has been able to provide me with a transcript or link to a video of a complete conversation where he said that. If he did, then it is completely contrary to his policy paper, and he should be challenged about the discrepancy.
OTOH, it may not make any real difference. See “most important...” in my post which you just quoted.
Thanks. I don’t mind reading the candidate’s websites at all. I do retain more information by hearing than reading, though, so my preference is interviews.
And keep in mind that not everyone has access to a computer, can’t afford one, and many of the elderly may not know how to operate one.
So it’s just basic for candidates to clearly articulate their positions and explain in their own words how they’ll carry out their plans any time they can get the airtime.
Of course, most interviews don’t last long, and when pressed at the end, candidates usually do say go to their website for more info.
That’s all good.
But I still prefer to hear it from their own lips for reasons stated. And there’s no reason for them not to be able to explain in their own words.
Scratch that - I saw the other post. It sounds like Trump is talking about people who have useful talents and or work in areas Americans have forgone (eg. migrant farm workers).
Still, Trump says he would expedite the system - I don’t see anything there that actually pushes former illegals ahead of other applicants, and the clear position in his paper is to reduce immigration levels.
Probably Trump should be challenged about whether former illegals actually get PREFERENCE, but I can’t imagine ANYONE supporting that, short of the immigrant being some sort of high level scientist or engineer, or a true refugee.
They attacked Dr. Ben Carson pretty hard there for awhile when he was running in 2nd place, on a number of issues. The Military Academy for example, as they tried to do a gotcha on him that he had never had an appointment to a Military Academy, which of course is not what he had said. Then there was the statement he made about the vitamin supplement that he supposedly was getting paid for, as well as, other issues I have forgotten now.
The rest have been far enough behind that the press really hasn't focus on then much, and saw little reason to waste much time and expense on anyway. Besides they most likely thought they would boring subjects attracting less readership. While they did garner some examination, it was superficial lasting for a very brief period. After all, Donald Trump was more news worthy and brought in more readership. Since nobody is going to capture the imagination of everyone, it included detractors as well. So be it good or be it bad more people were interested in what was being said about Donald. Good, no make that excellent, for business.
I was in fact a Ted Cruz supporter who thought Trump was a joke when he first announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination.
But as I started to pay attention to him I became more impressed with him. His willingness to take on the establishment was welcomed. Not only the Republican Party establishment, but the news establishment as well. He stood strong against attacks leveled at him for daring to broach issues that most politicians are too frightened to even acknowledge as issues. A lot of Americans had concerns about these issues, frustrated that they were continually ignored. Now someone was not only not ignoring them, but boldly speaking about them. That captured respect and support for Trump.
Donald spoke truth to power, and people found that refreshing to hear, finally.
Donald is not free of warts, nor is he devoid of a past. So some arguments against him are well founded, but most are not. If I were held accountable for everything I might have bought into at some point and time in my life, I would have to admit my stupidity at the time.
I support Trump because I believe he is sincere. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. I don't have a crystal ball, though I sure as heck wish I did. I could maintain a monopoly on several of the lotteries and become one of the greatest philanthropist's of all time, LOL.
We each have to make up our minds who we believe in and hope we are reading it correctly. A lot depends upon it.
Cruz supporters are irritating only because they think they have the correct answers, and if you don't support their man then you are stupid. Frankly I have had enough of them smug, falsely placed sense of superiority. But I will never condemn them for supporting him.
I just wonder what these folks will do if Trump wins the nomination. Will they sit at home? Will they throw their support to a 3rd party candidate? Will they support trump?
I will support whoever comes out of the scrum with the ball, even if that person is Rubio who is the most two-faced person I have ever seen. But only because he can't possibly be worse than either of the two Democrat hopefuls. At least I hope not. But I will be praying that he meets such obstruction as no President has ever seen before.
Rubio is despicable, but Clinton and Sanders are even worse.
Don’t worry. I won’t be too long. Rubio will smoke Cruz tommorow (Donald will win). After Ted gets beat down in Nevada and on Super Tuesday, he will fade into the sunset. Hopefully his rabid supporters will calm down and Beck and Levin will crawl back under their rocks.
To foul to be believed.
Cruz And His Seven Mountain Dominionism Is Not In My Bible… Is it in yours?
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." — John 18:36
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. — Titus 1:16
Well, the problem is twofold: To the majority of voters, Trump (or any other candidate) can’t come across as unlikable or cold. He’s already slammed as racist and worse, so he has to spend a lot of time on seeming nice and caring even while stressing “legal”, and even if the details of his policies (ie., his immigration paper) are not necessarily so nice to the illegal immigrants (and some legal ones, too.)
The other problem is that something like a position paper of necessity has to be rather too long for most public “talk” sorts of situations. One of my problems with Trump’s position on immigration is that I’d prefer his paper be about 3x longer, to more clearly spell out more of how his proposals would get done. For example, I have ideas on how to ensure that pay to work visa holders is at the level(s) US citizens would receive or have received (if not slightly higher). But, NO candidate discusses it.
If I was Trump or Cruz, I’d send my immigration plan to targeted voters in just the groups you describe.
In the end, though, what we need as a candidate is another Reagan. “The Great Communicator”. He was terrific. Unfortunately, none has turned up.
Cruz supporters are irritating only because they think they have the correct answers, and if you don't support their man then you are stupid. Frankly I have had enough of them smug, falsely placed sense of superiority. But I will never condemn them for supporting him.
There are a few annoying Trump supporters as well, but the whackier Cruz supporters seem to have the ball when it comes to arrogance. The thing about that sort of attitude is, the holders almost never figure it out, or why other people see it in them...
Trump said he would be able to expedite the system because other politicians are dumb: "Politicians aren't going to find them because they have no clue. We will find them, we will get them out. It's feasible if you know how to manage. Politicians don't know how to manage."
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/07/30/trump-goes-mushy-incoherent-on-immigration/
To me, it sounds ambiguous as to when illegals could come back in, as their status vs. people already in line is not discussed at all.
That's called tunnel-vision.
I was in fact a Ted Cruz supporter, who thought Donald Trump was a joke.
As for your juvenile accusation that I am spinning like a top, only hinders your attempts to have any impact upon me. For I spin nothing. Instead I give you my honest view which is clearly evident you reject.
He has never uttered any such thing as even remotely rising to interpretation as a "comprehensive" plan to citizenship. For that path has already been established by Congress.
When he talks about accepting them back in he is clearly talking about that law, the legal method of acquiring citizenship. If somehow you see it as being something akin to the Gang of 8 plan, that's totally on you. You have allowed yourself to be cajoled into believing what Ted Cruz says it means. How does his stating he wants to deport them get construed as something other than that? Is that not confirmation to you that he agrees with your contention that illegals should not be here? If not then I don't know how more explicitly he could state it to convince you.
There is a Latino vote even if all of the illegals were deported tomorrow, because not all are illegal. They came here the right way, and went though the legal steps to obtain their citizenship.
Since Trump has never been in a government position, either Civil Service or elective office, what the government hasn't done cannot be laid at the feet of Donald Trump.
Show me the proof where Donald Trump has spelled out this touchback plan you are so adamantly claiming is his plan. I want definitive proof of him laying it out in clear English and he says he intends to kick them out as some kind of show, to then turn around and let them back in. I'm confident you cannot produce such proof because it doesn't exist. Instead you have allowed Ted Cruz to convince you that this is what Trump intends to do.
There you go again, my cult of personality. I'm frankly sick and tired of Cruz supporters who callously try to demean those they are debating, thinking they have all the answers, while the rest of us are nothing more than mindless lemmings who require someone else to make decisions for us. When in fact you all parrot the same arguments. Who exactly is creating the talking pints for you all to sound as one voice?
Again your attacks only hinder people from taking you seriously or even wanting to listen to what you have to say. In fact you now have me thinking perhaps you all are the members of the Ted Cruz cult.
I'll agree with you that the Hart-Cellar Act needs to be repealed, for it should never have been enacted in the first place. But the Democrats enjoyed a super majority controlling not only the Executive Branch but both Houses of Congress as well. By the time Republicans regained any control the damage had already been done.
Donald Trump and his supporters also agree with your belief that deportation of illegal aliens should be carried out. However, are you sure Ted Cruz plans to deport illegal aliens?
Lastly, we both agree that our borders need to be protected. Donald also believes that. He might even agree with you with regards to disengagement overseas, I honestly do not know because I do not remember him speaking on that subject. That is where I would diverge from both of you and Donald. However, their defense should not be borne solely by the American taxpayer. For our presence there benefits us as well. It gives us forward positions and it makes it ore likely to be the front lines of battles, instead of the United States.
Well may the best man win tomorrow in South Carolina, that being Donald Trump. But whatever the outcome I promise you this. No sitting at home whining about my candidate losing, no 3rd party candidate as a protest vote. Instead I ill be voting for the Republican nominee regardless who it is. Even the two-faced Rubio who I despise the most, even more than Bush. Because he couldn't possibly be as bad as either of the Democrat hopefuls. Because it is what is best for this country. I have serious doubts that Cruz supporters would do the same. For they impress me as reacting more like sore losers than adults if they fail to get their way.
Mr. Trump, last July (2015), you said on CNN:
"I want to move them (illegal immigrants) 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.
Are you proposing a process where former illegal immigrants can re-enter the US legally ahead of persons already in the legal process? Or do people who have been and are following the present legal process get preference, or does no one get preference?
Mr. Trump, in your immigration position paper you call for "Immigration moderation" to "allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages."
To clarify, and given the employment situation in the US, do you believe current legal caps in immigration from other countries are too high, too low, or about right?
Mr. Trump, in your immigration position paper you state under the heading "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."
Can you give us some sort of target numbers to define how much the US employment situation would have to improve, before this pause in immigration was rescinded?
Does Ted Cruz ever tell the truth about anything?
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.