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 ...
Dems are on the record for 100% open borders. No need to ask the question.
“Enforce the law, build the wall, secure the borders, deport them all, ...”
The only one to do that is Trump. Cruz will let them stay, which equals amnesty.
“Slamming Cruz is counter productive.”
Not when he is pro-amnesty, it isn’t.
Exactly!
What’s Rafael Edward Cruz’s position on the border wall?
But for Cruz, a Tea Party favorite who represents a state with rapidly changing demographics, finding common ground will not be easy. Many of the bedrock Tea Party supporters who helped elect him are immigration hard-liners who object to even the slightest nod toward amnesty, a loaded word that generally means providing an avenue for legal residency to people who entered the United States illegally. Such conservatives tend to favor mass deportation, or “self-deportation,†for the millions of undocumented immigrants.
On the other hand, Hispanics in Texas are projected to eclipse the white population sometime in the next decade, and Cruz cannot afford to alienate large numbers of Latino voters with a strident anti-immigrant tone and a hard-line legislative approach. Major business interests also are supporting a path to citizenship.
What Cruz has tried to articulate in both word and deed is a middle ground. It got no support from Democrats in Washington, but it goes further than many on the far right want to go by offering leniency to undocumented immigrants here already: A path to legal status, but not to citizenship. A green card with no right to naturalization.
Immigration-reform legislation from the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight passed that chamber in June and includes a 13-year path to citizenship. Cruz pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would have, among other things, eliminated the citizenship component.
Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.
Sept. 13, 2013
Gee, that surely couldn't be a "spun" notion?
Like how Trump "made fun" of some disabled dude?
Spun like that?
Check yourself, Trump and Cruz are the good guys in this.
The rest of the lot are wankers.
Sure, Sessions has been fighting in the Senate longer, he’s been a Senator longer. But where are his filibusters, his calling out leadership on the Senate floor, when has he brought the idiocy to a screaming halt over immigration?
You mention 2006. Cruz was fighting for the right of US states to execute illegal aliens on death row in 2005.
He is intentionally leaving out that amnesty includes them getting to stay. And that is what Cruz is for. He has never been honest enough to say it, but he never said they have to leave. If they get to stay, they get legal status. If they get legal status, they will eventually get citizenship. It’s all logical next steps.
And Cruz thinks we are too stupid to see it.
Middle ground is DC code for f*** you America. It's the con game they are very good at.
Sessions fought against amnesty when W pushed for it. That’s fighting against leadership and Sessions has done it consistently for a decade.
..and he has played it well...
Cruz’ stance is 2nd best in the field, I’ll give you that.
But, I say he’s for amnesty using MY definition which us they have no consequences of their crime if they get to stay.
Cruz has never been honest enough to say it, but he never said they have to leave. If they get to stay, they get legal status. If they get legal status, they will eventually get citizenship. It’s all logical next steps.
I like them leaving. Period.
No Surrender on Immigration
Who will protect the nation, if not us?
By Sen. Jeff Sessions
November 10, 2014
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/no-surrender-on-immigration-112766#ixzz3t6VWNO8g
I can tell you anything I please, but it doesn’t mean you’ll listen. You hate Cruz. I gave up on arguing issues with you several months ago.
For anyone else reading and having questions about this Heidi Cruz CFR tripe ask yourself this: If Heidi is in the pocket of the open borders crowd and she can control her husband so well, how then did Cruz get away with fighting the Bush administration on sovereignty?
“Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.”
Ouch.
That be amnesty then!
I’m for Trump/Sessions now ;)
Yep....that’s what it says....:>)
Sovereignty?
We have no sovereignty. The U.S. is a de facto sanctuary country. Maybe he never got the memo.
Already linked. Go read.
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.