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 ...
Thank you.
John 8:44
“You belong to your father, the devil…”
Trump immigration “plan” is enforce the law, secure the borders, period, end of plan.
He cheer leaded the fight for TPA which enabled TPP.
Bump! Go Trump!
Illegal immigration has been my number one issue since 1990, when H.W. refused to enforce the 1986 law. Quite a few of us saw this coming a long time ago. Pat B being the most prominent of us.
When I was a boy I could get a job mowing lawns or working in a garden store, garbage truck, etc. Now all those jobs teenagers used to do have gone to illegals. Just about all construction jobs here in Texas have gone to illegals too. Used to be blacks did all of the concrete work here. Now it’s all illegals. Illegals are killing minority communities and poor white communities too.
No when it mattered. Cruz was the biggest cheer leader for TPA in the Senate when it counted and voted for TPA when it counted. He even wrote an op-ed for the WSJ urging passage of TPA. When after getting absolutely hammered on social media he flip flopped, which he does a lot. His many flip flops tell me you can not believe what he says.
Truth!
1. Ted Cruz is a Reagan Republican: he believes in free trade as a powerful weapon to spread democracy and increase American influence— but he wants Congress to have a role in trade agreements. TPA has been used by every President for the past 50 years to expedite the negotiation of trade deals. Our allies, and enemies, know that the US Congress is a fickle beast that just loves to tack on poison pill amendments in order to kill a bill/treaty. TPA sets a time period and the mandate of an up or down vote— no amendments, no denial of cloture, no foot dragging. If Congress members do not like the details of the bill, they have to vote no and send it back to the drawing board. Furthermore, unlike the Constitutionally mandated treaty process, TPA allows for the House of Representatives to get a vote on a trade bill. (The Constitution says that the Senate must ratify a treaty— the House gets no vote.) Now I think we would all agree that Congressmen who have to be re-elected every 2 years are far less likely to sign onto a damaging treaty than Senators, who are only elected every 6 years— so letting the House have a vote is a good idea.
2. The TPA bill that originally hit the Senate floor was all but identical to the TPA used by the aforementioned Presidents of the past half-century. Senator Sessions was (rightly) concerned that immigration language would be added to the bill in the House, but no such language existed in the first Senate version. Conservatives were further worried that TPA would be used to re-authorize the Export-Import bank. McConnell gave assurances that the Export Import bank not only would not be added to the TPA, but that it was dead for the rest of the legislative year.
3. To end debate on any bill, that does not fall under specific budget rules, in the Senate you need unanimous consent OR 60 yes votes during what is called a cloture vote. When the cloture vote for TPA—the Senate version— was held there were 62 yes votes. Cruz did not cast the 60th, 61st, or 62nd vote. In fact, he had already voted yes to end the debate because he had been assured by House and Senate leaders that immigration codicils would not be added and that Ex/Im was dead. Then McConnell, realizing he would not get cloture (he only had 54 votes) made a deal with 8 Senators to put Ex/Im on another bill. You can read about those shenanigans here: http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/trade-promotion-authority-senate-roll-call-vote/
4. After cloture was obtained the deal McConnell made became public and Cruz was pissed as hell. To make matters worse, the House TPA bill included the very immigration language Sessions warned about. So, both Boehner and McConnell lied to conservatives (not just Cruz) in order to garner support. Because the House and Senate bills were different, they had to be combined in what is called a “Conference Committeeâ€. That bill then had to be passed by both the House and Senate.
5. It was during the vote for cloture on the newly edited joint bill, (TPA-2 if you will) that Cruz and several others rebelled and voted no. Cruz has explained that the version of TPA that was passed was not the version supported by Reagan conservatives and he could not, in good conscience, vote for it.
6. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal has been sent to Congress to vote on under the rules outlined in TPA. This means that TPP cannot be amended or filibustered. All members of Congress will have a chance to vote and must either vote yes or no.
Bull sh*t.
It's done nothing but put America on the road to decline while lining the pockets of a few well connected insiders. Those insiders have become wealthy beyond imagination while leaving middle America nearly dead on the floor.
One of the greatest contributions the US can make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create greater barriers, and destroy millions of jobs. We should always remember: Protectionism is destructionism. America’s jobs, America’s growth, America’s future depend on trade—trade that is free, open, and fair.
This year, we have it within our power to take a major step toward a growing global economy and an expanding cycle of prosperity: the historic free trade agreement negotiated between our country and Canada. And I can also tell you that we’re determined to expand this concept, south as well as north. Our goal must be a day when the free flow of trade, from the tip of Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle, unites the people of the Western Hemisphere in a bond of mutually beneficial exchange.
Source: Pres. Reagan’s 1988 State of the Union message to Congress , Jan 25, 1988
I tried apologizing.
If your heart is too heard to accept it, that’s your choice.
No sale on your pro-free trade.
It’s economically gang banged middle America. This is no secret.
MINE THE BORDER! ...cheap, and effective!
Hi, I can read. And sorry to say I did not see and answer in Cruz’s plan concerning the Illegals who are ALREADY here. I certainly agree with his plan which talks about enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. Trump does too. My concern was I had not heard Cruz say, UNTIL TODAY, that he would deport those already here. He did so today on a radio show.
BTW, I have not said I would not vote for Cruz. I will be voting for whomever the Republican Nominee happens to be. But I will say, right now I would be totally delighted with a Trump/Cruz ticket.
Please remember that I can read. I taught children how to do it too! :)
Cruz wants illegals to leave. Through a variety of means of deportation. You understand that, right?
See, for example, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3367371/posts
bkmk
It’s amazing to me the things that people consider flip-flops. Romney was a flip-flopper. Cruz is one of the most consistently conservative politicians in decades.
I consider it an admirable quality when a conservative politician can be reasoned with by his conservative constituents to change his position on an issue to a more conservative stance. I do not consider that flip-flopping or being untrustworthy.
We need consistently conservative leaders with whom we can reason when they are wrong. It is illogical to expect any conservative politician to be right 100% of the time. Reagan was not right 100% of the time. Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, et al. are not right 100% of the time. The important thing is that they are consistently conservative and can be reasoned with.
We’ve beaten our heads against the wall with leaders like Boehner and McConnell because they were never going to bend to more conservative positions. Cruz did. And you fault him for that?
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.