Posted on 11/13/2015 12:23:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Skip to 5:10 of the first clip below for the immigration bit from this morning’s interview with Mike Gallagher. Actual quote from Cruz about Rubio’s claim that the two are alike on immigration:
That's like Obama saying my position is the same as his on Obamacare. That’s like Ayatollah Khamenei saying my position is the same as his on the Iranian nuclear deal.
Rubio and the Ayatollah Khamenei, huh?
Anyway. There are at least three broad differences between Rubio and Cruz on legalization. One: Cruz opposes a “legalization first” approach to reform, arguing correctly that that’s the same bait-and-switch that was pulled on border hawks with the 1986 immigration law. In return for mere promises of greater security to come, conservatives allowed illegals to be legalized up front. That’s what the Gang of Eight bill did. And Marco Rubio knew all about it.
Two: Rubio supports a path to citizenship to this day while Cruz has steadily opposed it. That’s important if you think we could hypothetically grant illegals the right to remain in the U.S. legally without the federal government eventually caving and granting them full citizenship at a later date. If you’re a cynic (a.k.a. you know your last 50 years of immigration history) and don’t believe that, then the difference isn’t so huge. Essentially it’s an argument about whether we should let illegals vote in, say, 15 years or (hopefully) a bit further out in time, once Congress finally gives in and ends their “second-class” status by making them citizens.
Three: We … actually know Rubio’s position on legalization whereas Ted Cruz’s remains a carefully guarded secret. “My position on immigration has been crystal clear from day one,” he says at the start of his immigration exchange with Gallagher, which I’ll bet gave Team Rubio a little LOL of their own. Follow the last link if you missed the background on that yesterday. For those who didn’t miss it, Michael Warren asks an interesting follow-up question:
Cruz told Byron York of the Washington Examiner not long after his amendments failed that his objective “was not to kill immigration reform but to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actually solves the problem rather than making the problem worse.” But if Cruz knew his amendments were meant to draw lines in the sand and he’s not for legalization, why didn’t his amendment propose barring any illegal immigrants from legalized status? Cruz has built a reputation in the Senate as a policy maximalist, willing to push as far as possible out of principle. It doesn’t add up that he would pull a punch and not try to amend the bill to block most or all legalization, too.
Why did Cruz’s amendment to the Gang of Eight bill offer to leave legal status for illegals in place while denying them citizenship? Team Cruz would say it’s because he wanted to isolate the issue of citizenship; if he offered Democrats everything they wanted except that, would they take the deal? The answer, it turned out, was no, which proves that citizenship for illegals is what they really wanted. Okay, but a brilliant guy like Cruz has surely absorbed the lesson I mentioned above, that legalization inevitably means citizenship. Why didn’t he stand on that point, knowing that any amendment he proposed would be defeated, and try to strip legalization from the bill too? “Legalization is eventual citizenship” he could have argued, and that would have stung Rubio. But he didn’t go that route. And we all know why: It’s because Cruz is fully planning to endorse legalization in the general election if/when he becomes the nominee. And when he does it, he’ll point back to his 2013 amendment — the one that supposedly was all about trapping Democrats — and say, “See? I was for it all along.”
Then again, that betrayal wouldn’t be nearly as grand as Rubio running for the Senate as some sort of border hawk and then stabbing conservatives in the back by joining the Gang as his first big legislative initiative. I wonder how long it’ll be before Team Cruz starts recirculating this old clip of Rubio claiming on the trail in 2010 that an “earned path to citizenship” for illegals is “basically code for amnesty.” Earned citizenship is exactly what the Gang offered. That counterattack is coming soon. In the meantime, here’s Cruz with Gallagher followed by what Rubio said yesterday about the alleged similarity of their positions on immigration.
It’s not as if Trump isn’t for the same thing.
So, who are you going to vote for?
NOBODY in this race meets your criteria.
Cruz definitely explains his rationale for increasing the H-1B visa program by 500% in that video extremely well. Rubio is several rungs below with ISQUARED.
Read my tagline closely.
I don’t know what ISQUARED means but Cruz’ reasons for increasing H-1Bs was solid and he sourced all of his data points. That said, he now wants a 180 day moratorium on H-1Bs to root out corruption in the program.
I’m in favor of economic growth and more jobs for Americans.
Why is it Trump gets a pass when he flips on an issue, even immigration, but not Cruz?
Trump’s companies hired H1B employees. We’re there no Americans to take those jobs?
RE: Read my tagline closely.
If you’re a one issue voter ( which I hope you’re not ), I guess you might as well stay home because I don’t see anyone who want to restrict immigration the way you seem to want.
Yo, Read, consider for a moment that your buds have an exaggerated opinion of their value to their respective employers and need to rethink some things.
I’m a one issue voter.
Take a look at France right now. Maybe you can guess.
RE: I’m a one issue voter.
As I said before, don’t vote in 2016.
You don’t have a candidate that meets your stringent criteria.
For that matter, don’t vote ever. I can’t think of one possible candidate who meets your criteria other than yourself.
I used to have an exaggerated opinion of my government. I definitely rethought some things.
France closed their borders today. A moratorium on legal immigration isn't simply economic. It's also national security.
I await a positive conservative message to emerge.
I full well understand people changing their minds, but Cruz is stating he has always been against increasing H1-Bs and the like. When you read his own press statement from his own website, you KNOW that’s a lie. He has not EVER said he’s “changed his mind,” but instead says his words in the press release were a lie, meant to smoke out Democrats.
I’m sorry, but that press release, and his stances since, show he is not afraid to lie. He’d rather lie than say he’s changed.
Our household sent him many hundreds of dollars right after he announced. After multiple attempts to contact his campaign, I still haven’t ever been told what he said in yesterday’s Laura Ingraham show, and would have told the Criz rep that Cruz was lying, if I had been told.
I take it you saw my later post with Cruz’s press release and the Laura Ingraham show from yesterday?
No, he has said no increase in any H1-Bs, period.
That would mean that from the 20,000 foreign US grads currently allowed to stay as an H1-B (20,000 over the 65,000), one would expect that the 65,000 NOT having graduated from US school would be made to be only or mainly from US schools.
That is EXACTLY true. But now, Cruz is saying he was lying the. to get the Gang of Eight to show their cards and cote against his amendment (mentioned in a GLOWING press release available in my earlier post).
Cruz Lies.
It may be hard for you to imagine but some people can walk and chew gum at the same time.
And now Cruz says the 500% increase was a lie meant to smoke out the Gang of Eight. So Cruz says his press release and amendment was only a fake smoke screen and that he never wanted to increase H1-Bs.
Please see my earlier post with the two links for confirmation.
Occam’s Razor: The simplest or easiest explanation is the most likely answer.
Cruz lies.
IOWs I was right. lol
No, he has said no increase in any H1-Bs, period.
No. Trump wants to legalize permanently foreign US grads. That has nothing to do with temporary H1B visas.
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.