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 ...
Absolutely nothing wrong bringing back immigrants LEGALLY who have above average skills, and can contribute to our economy instead of a burden on tax payers.
But it must start by DEPORTING ALL ILLEGALS first. No exceptions for breaking immigration law.
And you haven’t been here to long, or you would have known exactly what we are talking about....what I posted to you is what I meant...
If you had watched any of Trump’s speeches and rallies, you would know by now this man is the only one of the candidates that has more rallies and speeches in one week than the rest of them do in a month...he is the most energized man around....
You, who ever you are, are a PHONY with a capital P!!!
While a real wall is under construction! And we won’t be able to beat the price for it’s construction.
Thank you ;>)
Lol....you’re a fine one to talk about folks ‘being around’....
Ineteresting....I looked at your posting history....you’ve made only a few posts this year, and before that...you hadn’t posted since 2012, then you skip around a bit for a post or two in 08, 09 and then 06....all that was on just one page of posting history.
You seem to be the one with ‘the best parody’, here, FRiend.
BFL
RR never uttered an evasive response, Churchill....no one?
Look, I will vote for the man with the golden hair and golden toungue....if he is the nominee......but this hagiography for TRUMP is just is sickening as what I heard for the 1 that was going to lower the level of the oceans!
Just look up his position on his web site. His position is clear and detailed.
Sometimes we are told by Trump supporters that Trump has to speak in sound bites and his detailed position can be found at his web site.
And now his supporters complain about Cruz doing the same thing.
Maybe Cruz should say, **Trump*s a nice guy, but he*s terrible. People must be crazy to vote for him. I*LL make America great again. I will build a great big wall.**
Yes, we need more detailed speeches like that.
Amnesty is granting illegal aliens the privilege to remain physically within the USA.
Period.
Word games about paths to this or that, green-card vs “temporary work permit”, legal-status vs citizenship, etc etc etc. are all just eye-wash / Bubba-bait nonsense from the uniparty.
Churchill? Reagan? Lets get back to 2015 America.
You evaded the question. Feel free to answer the question below.
> Btw, since you’ve been here a long time, do you know how Rafael Edward Cruz defines amnesty? If not, why is he refusing to tell us?
So could you tell me how Rafael Edward Cruz defines amnesty? If not, why is he refusing to tell us?
I am beginning to think that Conservatives want their candidates to consistently say the MOST conservative things they can, as LOUDLY as they can, thinking that it will bring victory.
In today’s media/political bizarro world, even saying something we all agree with - like all illegals should be deported - will be turned into a rallying cry by the opposition leading to charges of racism, Nazism, etc, etc.
The Left has the same problem in the other direction. They all believe that single payer is the way to go in health care, but if they say it too loud or too often they will galvanize the opposition, leading to their defeat. The Left has become very good at NOT saying what their ultimate goal is while running for office and then, after they get in, doing everything they can to implement what they wouldn’t previously admit to. Gay marriage is a perfect example.
At some point we have to have faith in our candidates. We need to read between the lines and trust that they are on our side. While this can get you burnt - see Bush Senior and Bill Clinton for examples on the right and left - you can also get candidates that are as or more conservative/liberal than expected.
BTW...NOW is the time to be pushing your candidate. During the PRIMARIES! Once they are over, we MUST rally around the candidate. While they may not be our preferred candidate, they will be better than the opposition. Obummer has done considerable and lasting damage and blame for that lies in no small part to those conservatives who stayed home because the GOP candidate wasn’t conservative enough.
Google Cruz/immigration. You will find it.
Wall, enforce current laws. Fund enforcement.Including deportation. It’s all there.
Pretty simple, legal and constitutional.
I slither out at times.....now I see the same ridiculous crap....only from the opposite side now.....snake oil just the same!
You’re right -’deport’ isn’t in there. “deported” is though. geezzzz
You’ve never heard Trump talk about deporting them? I guess you’re avoiding watching him because he repeats it every time some lame brained journalist asks. Cruz is the one that refuses to be clear. he lost my support months ago by being wishy-washy.
I get it now, do you??? LMAO....
You're confused. We've never had a candidate that rocks the podium and tells America the truth, that were getting ripped off by the corrupt betraying SOB's in DC.
Why do ya think Trump is making history here? Ya think this is some kind of silly game? Should Trump be more PC and appeasing to each and everyone?
Would you prefer he act like the other candidate, the joyful happy turtle while telling everyone how wonderful and how great we still are?
Absolutely amazing how you hold the golden haired one up as the lion of realism and consistency.....really? What crap....
LOL, that’s been my opinion too, listening to him. The only chance they will have to get back in is to leave before anyone knows they are here and get in line to come back legally. Those deported don’t come back, ever.
You can tell me. It should only take a couple of sentences to say how Rafael Edward Cruz defines it.
Thanks.
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.