Posted on 12/01/2015 10:41:52 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
The best part is when she asks the obvious follow-up -- is a path to legalization "amnesty"? -- and he won't even make eye contact.
There's a spectrum of answers to this question on the right, of course:
1. Amnesty is citizenship without preconditions. That's the strictest definition, and naturally the one preferred by Beltway Republicans like Marco Rubio in his Gang of Eight days. (Marco Rubio circa 2010 had a different view.) As long as you're forcing illegals to jump through some sort of hoop, be it learning English, paying back taxes, going to the back of the line, etc, that's not amnesty -- even if you're granting them citizenship. Anything short of immediate voting rights for illegals, no questions asked, is A-OK.
2. Amnesty is citizenship. That's Jeb Bush's position, as I understand it. Jeb will legalize 'em, let 'em stay in the U.S. and work, but allowing them to become full citizens with voting rights goes too far in rewarding them for breaking our laws. The most an illegal can aspire to be is a permanent legal resident. Beyond that lies amnesty.
3. Amnesty is legalization unless you've improved security first. That's Ted Cruz's position (and Marco Rubio's current position), again as I understand it. This isn't so much a literal definition of "amnesty," which is a matter of legal status, as it is a political compromise between the two prongs of comprehensive immigration reform. Legalization (i.e. work permits) is on the table if and only if we see concrete improvements in internal enforcement first. Border hawks got suckered in 1986 by accepting promises of future border security in return for immediate grants of amnesty; despite the Gang of Eight's best efforts, they won't get suckered again.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
From Wikipedia: Amnesty (from the Greek ἀμνηστία amnestia, "forgetfulness") is defined as: "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted."[1] It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense.
PING
Bttt
This is likely the first area Trump will ‘hit hard’ on, at Cruz.
Just the first.
Do they ask sanders/clinton the same questions?
Cruz loses on this. Anything that legalizes and rewards illegal behavior is AMNESTY. There is no gray area here. Shame on Cruz for still trying to play games with this one. He loses.
We already know their answer. They want to “fundamentally change this nation.”
And Ted Cruz has been avoiding the question.
I don't think he has the will to tell the GOP primary voters what his position is.
And Trump will not let that stand. He will force Cruz to respond clearly.
Then, the fight is on.
Lol...maybe he’ll say Midge lied to him, again, about what the true definition of what amnesty is.
You got that one right. Trump can be so very polite, nothing personal and just point out the four things Cruz has done that disqualify him: Amnesty, until recently a 500% increase in H1B, gave Obama TPP, and gave Obama Iran deal. Cruz can argue the definition of “is” and try to nuance these but the simple fact is that he is on the wrong side of each, hypocritical to criticize Obama for using the authority on TPP and Iran that Cruz voted to give him.
Bookmark
ill O’Reilly: Now, the 15 million illegal aliens already in the United States, what do you do with them? Donald Trump: I think right now you’re going to have to do something. It’s hard to generalize, but you’re going to have to look at the individual people, see how they’ve done, see how productive they’ve been, see what their references are, and then make a decision. Bill O’Reilly: All right, on a case-by-case—going to take a long time and a lot of people. Donald Trump: A long time, but you know, you have some great, productive people that came. You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.
CRUZ: All across this country, Republicans campaigned, saying: if you elect a Republican Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty. We need to honor what we said. We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have to rein in the abuse of power of the executive. Step #1 is if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees.
CRUZ: We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have to rein in the abuse of power of the executive. Step #1 that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty. That is an explicit authority given to the Senate.
Q: Are you saying the Senate should refuse to confirm the president's new nominee for attorney general?
CRUZ: We have to rein in the executive. In the Federalist Papers, our Framers talked about a president who would behave like a monarch. And step #2, we've got is the power of the purse, and we should fund one at a time the critical priorities of the federal government, but also use the power of the purse to attach riders.
Both agreed that the US has failed to secure its border with Mexico, and said they oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and the Obama administration's new directive allowing many young illegal immigrants brought to the US as children to be exempted from deportation.
Dewhurst: I have always been against an amnesty program. "If they want to be a citizen, they ought to go home and reapply."
Dewhurst says he was against tuition for children of illegal immigrants.
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales, urging the strictest enforcement of laws punishing those with prior felony convictions who entered the country illegally.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Ted_Cruz_Immigration.htm
From the article:
***************
“Trump position: They broke the law by coming here illegally so we can’t reward them by letting them stay and work. They’re all going home. And then, per Trump’s plan, the “good†ones are going to come right back in legally once they’re been removed. Why that’s any better in practice than Cruz’s position, I don’t know; arguably it’s much worse since it would involve the enormous expense of mass deportations with no intention of barring the deported permanently from the U.S.”
That’s why Open Borders/Amnesty PACs/donors have invested so much into this election....for candidates on BOTH sides.
Cruz refuses to say what he would do until after he is elected.
He says we need to secure the border, but doesn’t say how, and then says we can have a CONVERSATION about what to do with those still here.
Where have we heard that “have a conversation” crap before?
Below is a copy of your post 16 without the weird special characters.
________________________________
From the article:
***************
“Trump position: They broke the law by coming here illegally so we can’t reward them by letting them stay and work. They’re all going home. And then, per Trump’s plan, the “good” ones are going to come right back in legally once they’re been removed. Why that’s any better in practice than Cruz’s position, I don’t know; arguably it’s much worse since it would involve the enormous expense of mass deportations with no intention of barring the deported permanently from the U.S.”
Cruz refuses to say what he would do until after he is elected.
He says we need to secure the border, but doesn’t say how, and then says we can have a CONVERSATION about what to do with those still here.
Where have we heard that “have a conversation” crap before?
The fact that he won’t even define amnesty says it all. I wonder if THAT word is baked in to his “conversation”.
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.