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 ...
Please do not scream at me about this. I am just telling you the truth. I do not personally benefit from the use of cheap illegal workers other than indirectly through lower prices. I personally am willing to pay more for what I buy in order to enforce our labor laws, but I am just me.
Most people have no idea how powerful these interests are, but if you look around and see who is doing much of the work in this country, it will help you to understand. I guarantee you that each of the major candidates is quietly hearing from those interests. So, if the candidates seem to have trouble saying what you would like them to say, do not be surprised.
Thank you for an exact quite I can use when the Cruz bots won’t admit he’s for amnesty. I think many donated early and don’t like to admit they were taken.
No, I don’t need not link to understand we have no sovereignty.
The U.S. is a de facto sanctuary country. Maybe he never got the memo. And none of this is an accident. It’s all intentional.
sov·er·eign·ty.
[ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē]
NOUN
1.supreme power or authority:
“how can we hope to wrest sovereignty away from the oligarchy and back to the people?”
synonyms: jurisdiction · rule · supremacy · dominion · power ·
[more]
“I do not personally benefit from the use of cheap illegal workers other than indirectly through lower prices.”
That’s not really true. If it were, house prices in mexifornia would be half that if the other states.
Illegals get paid under the table, so then go out and get welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, and free medical. Taxpayers get screwed and only the unethical employers get mire profit from paying no workers comp and no social security.
“How many do you honestly think will even do that...with welfare benefits likely taken away and jobs taken by Americans? See? That leaves the good ones.”
Good point.
What’s Rafael Edward Cruz’s position on the border wall?
Instead of a wordy ramblinig link, why not just tell me?
And getting rid of the illegals...and them letting the “good” illegals come back quick is logical?
Cruz doesn’t seem willing to “own the down side” on this issue.
The quote is from Trump on Bill O’Reilly in 2011. Trump’s immigration position was just as “nuanced” as everyone else’s until this year. And all he’s changed is now he says that the illegals have to be deported first, before the “good ones” can come back (permanently I guess).
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-trump-sits-down-bill-oreilly/
O’REILLY: OK. Now, the 15 million illegal aliens already in the United States. What do you do with them?
TRUMP: I think right now you’re going to have to do something and, you know, 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 have been. See what their references are and then make a decision.
O’REILLY: And then make a decision. All right, on case by case. It’s going to take a long time and a lot of people.
TRUMP: A long time, but, you know, you have some great productive people that came in.
O’REILLY: No doubt.
TRUMP: And then you have some total disasters that probably should be in prison.
I didn’t misread it, but just wanted to add that an amnesty discussion did come up in the domestic policy debate with Kerry. But it never became a major issue in 2004. I guess W’s lie during that debate worked.
I remember that march by illegals and in Chicago, and smaller ones elsewhere. After some bad publicity, they were able to eliminate most Mexican flags from later marches and began waving US flags to show their patriotism.
Lower prices?
Does that go along with the 20 years of lower stagnant wages while the cost for everything has tripled for Americans?
Bush did nothing but make American citizenship all but pointless.
I lived it and watched it.
I feel the need to assume that they are telling the truth. I have trouble believing that any business would hire an illegal unless there is some manner in which it is costing the business less to do so. I have to assume that they know what they are doing and know what their choices are in the market.
And, I assume that if we correct this problem, it will cost me something more than it does now to eat in a restaurant, to buy groceries, to stay in hotels, etc. I am willing to pay more.
Thanks, Jedi! I appreciate the deciphering :)
I don’t see where Trump has specifically said ‘path to citizenship’, in that. Do you?
Please show me where, in his “position statement “ Trump mentions amnesty or deportation. The entire document does not have a the word “deport” in it even once.
The Cruz and Trump position papers on immigration are nearly identical. Cruz HAS defined amnesty. I cannot find Trump’s definition but would be happy if you copied a link with it.
FReepers attacking Cruz on immigration boggle the mind. Furthermore, the hypocrisy of attacking Cruz based on one interaction with a journalist while letting Trump skate on similar charges is astounding.
Your link’s from 2013. Trump was not for deportation in 2011 when O’Reilly asked him:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3366836/posts?page=51#170
If you’re going to accept whatever Trump says now even when it contradicts his past positions then you have to do the same for Cruz. Go by what he says now, not what he said in prior years.
Bottom line is Trump is not for booting out all the illegals permanently. He’s going to let the “good ones” back in in an expedited fashion. I guess you could call that fast track back their reward for coming here illegally.
Cute, but ignores the substance of the query.
Trump’s always said he’ll let the good illegals back in. I’ve never heard him say there will be a ban on letting them be citizens. I assume they’ll be on the same path to citizenship any other immigrant would be.
What MSM interaction did Trump skate on?
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.