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 ...
Here are some puzzle pieces that when put together might reveal what the GOPe might be up to:
FACT: Cruz used to be Bush’s attorney.
FACT: in school, Cruz had a reputation for being extremely talented at arguing persuasively for the “opposite” side in debates.
Then GWB recently comes out of hibernation and makes a point to say about Cruz how much he “dislikes the guy”. I found that so bizzare.
Why would GWB, who has remained silent on political commenting, all of a sudden make an exception?
Being the liars that they are, I read Bush’s comment as he means just the opposite. He really likes Cruz, but, wants to make it appear like he doesn’t. I ask “Why”?
Is it because Cruz really is a RINO just acting the part of a conservative, and really, he will advance the RINO Amnesty Plan just as the other RINOs will?
Is this Karl Rove “covering all his bases” by having different politicians play a sort of chess game, each pretending to represent different constituencies, all the while really being a part of Rove’s Team? So, no matter who wins, Rove wins?
And does the Club for Growth support Cruz? Is it because they both support Amnesty?
Wouldn’t you think, at some point, Cruz is going to have to just come out and say definitively what his position really is?
This report has it right. Cruz wants legal status for all illegals and to only deport those who have committed added crimes here.
From Cruz’s website:
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
My evaluation of that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3366423/posts?page=204#204
There are no discrepancies there whatsoever. For anyone to look at the amendments Cruz proposed to Gang of 8 as a representation of his positions is preposterous. They were strategic proposals meant to get a response out of the people supporting the bill that could be used against them later. By putting up an amendment that changes nothing but the path to citizenship, he was able to prove that the Democrats want citizenship for illegals and wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less. This was VERY important to do back then, before Obama’s amnesty, and before everyone knew the Democrats were for widespread amnesty as they’ve all admitted since Obama made his moves.
Instead of quibbling about exact amount, consider this. Even if it was just $11 million as you say, what strings were attached to the donation? Please do not say none, because then I can sell you a ocean front villa in Kansas.
It is the old story about a lady who refused to sleep with George Bernard Shaw for 10 pounds but would do it for 1 million pounds. Shaw replied, we already established your profession, now we can quibble about the price.
It goes a bit deeper than that.
Anyone that closely associated with the Bush's don't get my vote. But that's just me
Great comments, Btw Club for Growth is a total fraud.
LOL, these conspiracy theories are too much. Cruz fought tooth and nail against Gang of 8 and Obama’s amnesty, yet somehow he secretly supports it? This is absurd. It’s also well-known Cruz was on the “wrong side” of the Bushies since he went against Dewhurst for Senate.
AND everybody rushes out and says: ‘Trumps plan says this and it says that, and he can’t do this and he can’t do that” but yet.....
When it’s Little Boy Blue Cruz everybody says: ‘ They were strategic proposals meant to get a response out of the people supporting the bill that could be used against them later’ and that’s just fine....
Well you know what, Cruz isn’t everything you people think he is.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI&feature=youtu.be
That’s a different issue.
Cruz was able to prove that the Democrats want citizenship for illegals and wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less?
This is a joke right?
Who knows what the strings were? Maybe the donor is anti-amnesty, pro-life, anti-same-sex-marriage, wants originalists on the court.
Cruz manages to get into the Senate and have a great conservative record, so the donors must like what he’s done and want to get him a promotion where he’ll have more power.
Cruz talks more about deporting illegals on his web site than Trump does:
Enforce the law: Restore our commitment to enforcement and public safety and the Rule of Law by rededicating DHS to fully enforcing the law, including through deportations and returns. During the first five years of the Obama Administration, President Obama removed or returned only 3.8 million illegal entrants. That is a fraction of the removals and returns during the previous five years, and a fraction of what we could accomplish if we had a President who actually forced DHS to do its job and removed politics from an agency charged with law enforcement. As President, I would do just that.
The BIG difference being, they won’t be ILLEGALS when they come back. They’ll have applied (gone through the entire process), if and when they’re allowed to come back, LEGALLY.
Now, how does that play out, in the long run, for citizenship? Just like it does for any immigrant who has entered the country LEGALLY.
Again....that is NOT an automatic path to citizenship. BIG difference. Otherwise, we’d be up in arms about EVERY immigrant (like Stuart Varney) who applies for/becomes a citizen :)
It’s only a “joke” to people who don’t understand the basic principles of winning a debate by backing your opponent into a corner. Cruz did just that with his Gang of 8 amendments. He exposed the true intentions of the Gang of 8 and that helped scuttle the bill. He’s been the biggest anti-amnesty warrior on the conservative side for years.
(Cruz) was able to prove that the Democrats want citizenship for illegals and wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less?
For decades neither of the two beltway parties want nothing less than wide open lawless borders. Could this be anymore obvious?
Good cop bad cop strategy don’t cut it anymore.
You can ping the messenger, BlackFemaleArmyCaptain, when talking about her. She is tough and can handle any criticisms you may try to level against her.
The problem though is you are shooting the messenger, not the source of the message nor the content of the message.
Cruz doesn't use such tactics in his arguments, normally he will attack the message itself, usually quite deftly.
However, if he truly is avoiding the answer to this reporter's very simple question, something is alarmingly wrong with him.
Worst yet, it is THE question of 2015-2016.
Difference is these will be on an “expedited” process. Plenty of these illegals leave and re-enter the country multiple times as it is. Depending on how expedited Trump makes it, they might be back here just as quick as before. Still doing the same job “Americans won’t do,” still blasting the Mariachi music, but now fully legalized thanks to Trump.
So how does Rafael Edward Cruz define amnesty?
However, if he truly is avoiding the answer to this reporter’s very simple question, something is alarmingly wrong with him.
_________________________________________
Bingo....You got it.
“How is it possible were 7 months into this election, but no one knows how Rafael Edward Cruz defines amnesty?”
I’d have to surmise that the answer to your question is lack of basic reading skills, as the Cruz definition of amnesty is posted in this thread at least twice.
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.