Ted Cruz vs. Marco Rubio: Did Cruz Support Legalization of illegals?

So I had a pollster challenge me to provide evidence that Cruz was not being honest on immigration. I've actually been doing so for months, but most people haven't seen or considered all the evidence. With the battle picking up between Trump and Cruz, I figured that now, more than ever, would be an important time to highlight this issue with Cruz's record:

Okay, so Rubio accused Cruz of having supported an expansion of H1B visas and of legalizing illegal aliens. Cruz called these claims entirely false, and his surrogates have claimed that Cruz didn't actually support the bill in any way, but just offered his amendment to prove that Dems weren't serious about reform and just wanted to give citizenship to illegals. (Legalization is to be distinguished from granting citizenship, which you do not need to give to permanent residents -- but which they'll inevitably get anyway).

So, did Cruz oppose "immigration reform," and did he oppose legalization like he claims? Let's see.

The following is a short transcript from a video that was produced after Team Cruz denied they supported legalization earlier in the year, and was generally ignored at the time:

"And I'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system, and in particular about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows. If this amendment is adopted to the current bill the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status. [Registered Provisional Immigrant] They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed under the terms of the bill they would be eligible for LPR status as well [Lawful Permanent Resident], so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principle objective -- to provide a legal status for those who are here illlegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen.

And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment, and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representantives. I donâ€™t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass, and so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together and this amendment --I believe if this amendment were to pass the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically, and so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment."

Does this sound, as the blogger notes, "like someone using a parliamentary device merely to smoke out the Democratic position, or someone sketching "middle ground" legislation he supports?"

"The American people are overwhelmingly unified that, number one, we need to secure the border," he added. "And, number two, any bill that this body passes should have border security first and then legalization, not the other way around."

"What Mr. 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...

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.

"The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight," he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Mr. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation."

In March of THIS YEAR, MSNBC, wondering if he had changed position, caught up with Cruz and asked him what his current position on legalization is, since he had spoken against a short lived legalization proposal from the House:

"Asked by msnbc about where Cruz stands now on legalization, campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said that the senator has been "consistent" and confirmed that the views he expressed in the Tribune had not changed. She described his amendment to the Senate "gang of eight" bill as an effort "to improve a very bad bill" that he ultimately opposed.

While Frazier said Cruz fought the bill's path to citizenship because it "flies in the face of the rule of law," she declined to apply the same label when asked about legal status in the right circumstances.

"I think his main priority is dealing with the border security component and making sure that we know who is coming into the country and making sure that we have control over who is coming into the country and then we can deal with what to do with the people who are already here," she said.

So it appears Cruz considers anything that does not include sufficient border enforcement first to be amnesty, but from 2013 to 2015 never actually opposed legalization "under the right circumstances," which he does not define as amnesty. The spokesman affirmed that his position from the Texas Tribune article (posted above) had not changed, but that his focus was primarily on border security first.

Starting after March, however, where immigration became a bigger deal, Cruz stopped giving direct answers to whether or not he supported legalization:

TED CRUZ: Well, my view is first, we secure the borders and solve the problem of illegal immigration. And then I think we can have a conversation about what to do about the people who remain here. I donâ€™t think the American people will accept any solution until we demonstrate step number one, we can secure the border.

CHUCK TODD: So anything's on the table? Potentially deportation or not deportation, but anything's on the table for the 11 million--

TED CRUZ: I think we should secure the border and then have a conversation at that point. Stop using the Washington approach of I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. The American people arenâ€™t going for it.

This pattern continued in interviews after this, such as with Megyn Kelly later in the year.

(I'll also note that Scott Walker was also using this "we'll have a conversation" rhetoric around the same exact time, which made me think the GOP actually got together to try that line of argument.)

In November, Cruz was accused by the Rubio campaign of having supported legalization and expanding H1-B programs, saying that Cruz "proposed legalizing people that were here illegally. He proposed giving them work permits. He's also supported a massive expansion of the green cards. He supported a massive expansion of the H-1B program... so, if you look at it, I donâ€™t think our positions are dramatically different."

The Ted Cruz campaign responded that these accusations were blatantly false, and that Cruz was merely using a trick to sabotage a bad bill he never supported. He then released an immigration plan either a day, or two days after Rubio's charges, essentially to demonstrate that he's strong on immigration. However, Cruz's team apparently continued to give news outlets the same "We'll have a conversation later" statements with regards to legalization:

"While Cruz may not support legalization, he hasn't definitively ruled it out. His position, his campaign said, is that he'll refuse to even discuss what to do with the undocumented population until the border is secure."

"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz declined to close the door to a potential pathway to legal status for the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally Friday, saying he wouldn't elaborate on his plans for them until after the border is secure."

So, is Ted Cruz and his team being honest with his supporters when he rails against amnesty and accuses Team Rubio of "blatant falsehood"?

That is because of the businesses that he is in, the people he and his contractors hire, and his hiring practices both here and abroad, all of which you consistently discount.

First of all, you've never shown any evidence for this assertion. In fact, I don't think I've ever engaged with you in any way that I remember. Outside of you, I remember reading just one article about people-- claiming anonymity-- claiming that they are illegal aliens working for a contractor hired by another contractor hired by Trump.

I'm sure working with contractors, Trump has more than likely worked with some that have illegally used illegal aliens. But that's hardly evidence that Trump 1) hires contractors because they hire illegals 2) approves of the hiring of illegals 3) nor do any of your other assumptions logically follow.

Given his record and that he admits that he engages in hyperbole to play to people's fantasies, I'm on rather solid ground there.

Context is everything. What is the "hyperbole"? In his book, is it "making up facts," or is it: "This is the BEST steak you'll ever eat!" Your ground is rather built on your prejudice.

I think he's being deliberately vague so that he doesn't induce the hyperbole about entering South Central LA with armored columns to deport all the gang-bangers with the resulting dead children on the evening news.

Well there you have it, amnesty pimp Carry Okie thinks deportation is going to leave hordes of dead children. Marco Rubio had the best position after all!

There are two problems with what Frazier said. First, she said that Cruzâ€™s Gang of Eight proposed amendment â€œwas not intended to suggest support for legalization.â€ It may not have been intended to do so, but Cruzâ€™s Press Release about his proposed amendments stated that his â€œproposed amendments will effectively address the current problems with this bill.â€ As I explain in my article, this means that Cruz was supporting legalization to a status less than citizenship. Frazier is being disingenuous here. Cruz should step in quickly and correct here and clearly state his full position.

Thanks for your AT article, it had a lot of detail and is very useful. You can tell that you're a lawyer due to your ability to dissect out a lot more of the fine detail than I did. This disingenuous behavior of Team Cruz is a constant pattern. With TPP, for example, Cruz initially rebuffed Sessions, declaring that TPP "did not change immigration law," end of story. Technically that's true, but then it also created a means for other countries/corporations to bring in foreign workers working for foreign wages, and also gave them the power to challenge any limitation on the bringing in of these workers. Cruz, when he was selling TPP, was happy to end the conversation at that simple statement, but wouldn't tell the whole story.

Notice here that what Frazier says is technically true, if you were, maybe, a lawyer. The amendment, taken all by itself, like some isolated little paragraph inserted by a computer, didn't push any additional changes regarding legal status for illegals. But then we know that there's a LOT more to this story.

Regardless of whether they are citizens or not. Ohhh, that's right, there's that nasty "due process" thingy. It's not funny how you forgot that.

Considering even under Obama, where illegal aliens are protected as much as possible, 3 million illegals have been deported, I am not too concerned that we cannot efficiently throw them out.

So you want sweeps? That's political suicide. "Dead women and children in the barrio. Film at 11:00."

Well, if illegal aliens want to put up a gun fight, that's an even bigger reason to throw them out. What are they doing with guns anyway?

As you know (and don't mention), my plan would work faster than either Trump's ior Cruz'

I have no idea what your plan is and I honestly do not care. Considering all the fraud in social security that even you highlighted, it seems implausible that a plan that features no effort at deportation will be as effective as, say, Operation Wetback.

The border must be secured. There are millions of illegals coming into the country. Millions of pounds of drugs.

An operation to remove illegals is exactly what is needed.

The business he is in is constructing hotels, golf courses, casinos. They hire scads of maids, busboys, and groundskeepers. Building them takes laborers. Yes I have posted support for this "assertion," but you can have it again, and I don't give a crap what you think of it. To not hire illegals in that market in this country would be economic suicide.

As to Dubai, here is a first hand account.

I have hired contractors. I put it in writing that no illegals would be hired. So could Trump. If they weren't on the location described, he could have sued the Washington Post. We know he sues news organizations he believes defame him. He didn't sue the WP.

You lose there.

Context is everything. What is the "hyperbole"? In his book, is it "making up facts," or is it: "This is the BEST steak you'll ever eat!" Your ground is rather built on your prejudice.

For you to cite my "prejudices" without having referenced Cruz' written immigration plan in your post is beyond hypocrisy. As to "facts," when Trump suggests that Cruz will not get things done when he fights the RINOS in charge of the Senate, while simultaneously touting that he will get things done when he knows the GOPe Senate leadership abhors him, this is worse than hyperbole.

I am not too concerned that we cannot efficiently throw them out.

Bald hand wave of pure hubris.

The border must be secured. There are millions of illegals coming into the country. Millions of pounds of drugs.

Of course, but empty platitudes will get you no points in this discussion. This about how to do it. Trump won't supply details. Neither will you. I did.

An operation to remove illegals is exactly what is needed.

A way to do it Constitutionally in such a way as to negate the Federal courts is what is needed; else the deportations will cost a fortune, take forever, and entail such political blow-back that it is likely to fail. Mexican drug dealers aren't leaving without a fight. My plan is better than either of them because it acquires the human intelligence necessary without need for warrants and insulates the Federal government from mistakes to a degree. It's more effective against terrorists for the same reasons.

Yes I have posted support for this "assertion," but you can have it again,

So in order words you have no support. The article claims to interview a handful of people who claim to be illegals, but which the Washington Compost did not actually verify, since they only use the word "may" in the sentence "a contractor working for a Trump company may be using illegal immigrant labor." So in other words the Washington Post is reporting a story with zero facts in it.

The fact that the media can't produce better articles than this is pretty telling.

As to Dubai, here is a first hand account.

So Vice magazine, which does regular articles about Trannies and their sexual practices, wrote an article where the retarded author-- after dedicating the first little section to Trump's "mesmerizing hair"-- complains about "Migrant labor" in the Dubai that allegedly doesn't get enough pay, and this is your big smear of Trump?

I think it's official: You have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

For you to cite my "prejudices" without having referenced Cruz' written immigration plan in your post is beyond hypocrisy.

In fact I did reference it:

"The Ted Cruz campaign responded that these accusations were blatantly false, and that Cruz was merely using a trick to sabotage a bad bill he never supported. He then released an immigration plan either a day, or two days after Rubio's charges, essentially to demonstrate that he's strong on immigration. However, Cruz's team apparently continued to give news outlets the same "We'll have a conversation later" statements with regards to legalization:"

You're too dishonest and too deranged to acknowledge it though.

As to "facts," when Trump suggests that Cruz will not get things done

Notice how desperate you are to change the subject.

This is really just your assertion based on multiple false premises. If 500,000 deportations a year-- under the OBAMA administration-- is being accomplished, it does not follow that we can't do a lot more than that after tripling the number of ICE agents and border patrol.

Sure, it'll cost, but then illegal immigration and its costs are a lot more anyway.

My plan is better than either of them

Not only do you have Trump Derangement, you appear to be quite insane, as you're seriously talking to me about some plan of yours-- that apparently no candidate is supporting-- as if I should care. You gonna run for President Okie?

Most of your post there seems to be based on information you do not have, but assume, such as "it'll be VERY expedited" and "He'll let everyone back in who isn't a criminal alien, but which laws?" Trump has never stated the standard would be not committing any other crimes besides entering illegally. The only thing he has said is that there may be "special cases," with "really spectacular people," and that he would favor a merit system to determine who to bring or who not to bring.

I found the quote you are apparently ignoring:

He [Trump] continued, "I would expedite it [the process] because some of these people are fantastic people. I've been to the border. I was there a few days ago. I met some people. These are fantastic people, and they have great reputations within their community. So, what I'd do is I'd expedite it. But, you have to have laws. If you don't have laws, you don't have a country. I would get them out and try and - the good ones. And the bad ones, they're gone. They never come back. They'll never get back into this country. But, the good ones, of which there are many, I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally." And there you have it, just as I said. This is a redo of the 2007 Kay Baily Hutchison immigration plan, which was rejected as equivalent to an amnesty. Trump is merely a better salesman.

In tonightâ€™s debate Cruz said to Rubio that he (Cruz) does not intend to legalize the illegals

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-13/did-ted-cruz-actually-support-legal-status-for-undocumented-immigrants-

The media will remind him.

You’re falling for Rubio’s liberal/RINO propaganda. From Breitbart:

On Sean Hannity’s radio show on Thursday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) dismissed the suggestion that his GOP colleague Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, was a proponent of the so-called “Gang of Eight” bill during the legislative process in 2013.

Lee, who was on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Cruz at the time the legislation was being debated in that committee, argued Cruz’s efforts to introduce amendments was in no way a gesture that he supported the bill.

He went on to add that that accusation, which would have meant that he and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), one of Cruz’s opponents for the GOP nod, had similar positions on immigration reform at that time were “absolutely false.”

“Well, look — as you know, as you just pointed out, I’m friends with both these guys,” Lee said. “I have enormous respect for both of them. I will tell you this: I serve on the Judiciary Committee with Ted Cruz. I was there with Ted Cruz the entire time as we spent weeks on the ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration bill. I was there as we both drafted and presented amendments trying to make this really bad ‘Gang of Eight’ amnesty bill not as bad.”

“And at no time during that process — at no moment did I ever see Ted Cruz take any action that was tantamount to saying he was embracing amnesty,” Lee continued. “He filed amendments designed to make the bill less bad. But that didn’t mean and does not mean now and never will mean that he was going to vote for that bill. He was just trying to make it less bad. And insofar as anybody is trying to suggest that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio had the same position with regards amnesty or with regards to the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill — that is absolutely false. One-hundred percent false.”

Lee went on to say he did not see a good reason to get involved in the contest and endorse a candidate, but he would “step up to their defense” when one of those candidates is unfairly accused.

On Sean Hannityâ€™s radio show on Thursday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) dismissed the suggestion that his GOP colleague Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, was a proponent of the so-called â€œGang of Eightâ€ bill during the legislative process in 2013.

Which in itself is an entirely false premise to begin with. No one is accusing Cruz of being a proponent "of the Gang of Eight bill." He's being accused of supporting legalization from 2013 to 2015, which is true beyond any reasonable doubt.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Breitbart manages to get these types of replies because they're deliberately twisting what the charge actually is. Lee might also be engaging in a certain level of butt covering as well.

Here is the actual record:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-phares/to-the-trump-supporters-the-real-record-on-immigration-and-amnesty/10156280762755177

Read it and get back to me.

This â€œreporterâ€ knows that Cruz never supported amnesty in any form, not legalization, as Sens. Lee, Sessions, and Schumer have all attested.

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.