On Immigration, Cruz Aims for Middle Ground

The Texas Tribune ^ | Sept. 13, 2013 | Julián Aguilar and Jay Root

[fg566asd]

On Immigration, Cruz Aims for Middle Ground

When it comes to immigration reform, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made it abundantly clear what he opposes: giving citizenship to people who broke the law to come here.

What has not been as evident is what he supports: legal status for millions of people here already, while making it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door.

“I have said many times that I want to see common-sense immigration reform pass,” he said. “I think most Americans want to see the problem fixed.”

But for Cruz, a Tea Party favorite who represents a state with rapidly changing demographics, finding common ground will not be easy. Many of the bedrock Tea Party supporters who helped elect him are immigration hard-liners who object to even the slightest nod toward amnesty, a loaded word that generally means providing an avenue for legal residency to people who entered the United States illegally. Such conservatives tend to favor mass deportation, or “self-deportation,” for the millions of undocumented immigrants.

On the other hand, Hispanics in Texas are projected to eclipse the white population sometime in the next decade, and Cruz cannot afford to alienate large numbers of Latino voters with a strident anti-immigrant tone and a hard-line legislative approach. Major business interests also are supporting a path to citizenship.

What 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: A path to legal status, but not to citizenship. A green card with no right to naturalization.

[nathanbedford]

Here is another source:

Trump's comments that Romney's plan of self deportation was "mean spirited" are utterly incoherent.

If the plan is mean-spirited because it removes illegal immigrants why does Trump in the next breath tell us that these very same illegal immigrants can come right back into the country under his plan? Why does Trump propose to deport them, presumably forcefully only to readmit them? The reality is Trump has shot from the hip on immigration and, despite belatedly publishing a written plan on immigration, he has no rational approach. He would push everybody out and then let people who are "terrific" back in.

Does Trump mean that Romney's idea of removing all the immigrants by self deportation is mean-spirited because that would actually permanently remove them from the country whereas Trump's plan is to create a revolving door? Trump goes through the motions churning immigrants out and then back in but in the dance he gets frustrated Americans to put aside rational analysis in the hope that the man with the flamboyant demeanor is somehow purer than other office seekers.

Many gullible conservatives confuse Trump's bombast with real conviction and common sense.

[fg566asd]

Here’s the difference, Trump was never a politician nor a sitting senator with a professional track record. Furthermore, that’s a rather ambiguous statement. Maybe he feels that his plan is more humane?

The difference is with Cruz is that there is no ambiguity, he was outright against deportations on record in late 2013, long after the gang of 8 bill was dead, and this was reconfirmed in march 2015. Furthermore, Trump was harsh on illegals in his 2000 book ‘The America We Deserve’, while Cruz worked for W. Bush, who appointed john roberts and tried to ram immigration reform down our throats, remember?

[nathanbedford]

I'm not at all clear why it is more "humane" to forcibly remove tens of millions of illegal immigrants than it is to have them self deport. I am not at all clear why it is more humane to put millions of people through a useless exercise, sending them out of the country only to let them return. Would Trump expose millions of people to a twenty-first century trail of tears to no purpose?

While Donald Trump was enriching himself by engaging in corrupt crony capitalism, Ted Cruz was fighting the fight with Senator Sessions to stop the Gang of Eight Bill.

One can argue that Ted Cruz has modified his positions in the area of immigration which is no more important to you than it is to me. How has he done so? He has moved from no citizenship to no legal status. He has moved from increasing legal immigration and H1B visas to reducing even eliminating immigration and eliminating the latter.

Cruz argues that these positions were taken as lines of defense against Rubio's Gang of Eight Bill but even if that exclamation is discounted as subterfuge in an election year, these are not basic ideological rebellions against a lifelong commitment to conservatism. These are not the equivalent, as many on these threads insist, of a change of party, a flip on abortion, and countless other ideological reversals done by Trump as easily as changing gears in your auto.

In no sense would Cruz ever justify his changes in policy as matters of self-interest but Trump blatantly does so. One can but conclude that his actions are utterly selfish and there is no reason to believe that Trump's lifelong practice will suddenly change when he is beyond our control and becomes the most powerful man in the world as well as one of the richest. At that time we will be utterly defenseless to another rogue chief executive controlling the inflow of returning illegal aliens according to his whim or definition of "terrific."

God knows where Trump will flip-flop next if he gets into office or what will become the flavor of the week that tickles his ego.

To bet the ranch that Donald Trump will continue to maintain his robust posture on immigration-now effectively no more robust than Cruz'-is to bet the ranch on one man's ego whose biography shows it to be mercurial.

How much more prudent to go with a candidate whose default position is not his own ego but honest conservatism.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Many gullible conservatives confuse Trump's bombast with real conviction and common sense.

Notice that you are talking about real conviction and common sense in a thread that proves your candidate Ted Cruz is lying to you.

Do you see the problem with this? Do you understand the warped psychology behind why you felt the compulsion to distract on to Trump in the exact way you did?

[katiedidit1]

Don’t confuse newbies for Trump. They detest anyone that is a threat to the DON.

[katiedidit1]

Be interesting to dig up some “old news and old views” by the Don. He is no conservative. Are you hoping he will select Oprah for his VP?

[nathanbedford]

Do you understand the warped psychology behind why you felt the compulsion to distract on to Trump in the exact way you did?

So I am now supposed to depart from rational analysis and debate about the relative qualities of candidates to defend my own sanity.

No thank you, I do not feel the need. I am quite content with my psychological condition. But I am very put off by cheap debating tricks.

[fg566asd]

That’s Trump’s point to argue, the fact is that Cruz was openly against deportations and even continues to make no mention of deporting non-criminal illegals from his website.

Cruz also flipflopped on TPP. Cruz also took Rand Paul’s side against nsa spying and isolationism, while Reagan supported nsa spying and was an interventionist.

Trump’s core issues, are trade, the border, and terrorism, going back to his 2000 book, ‘The America We Deserve’; he’s solid on those issues.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Would Trump expose millions of people to a twenty-first century trail of tears to no purpose?

It would probably help if you didn't twist Trump's statements on this matter. When you pick up on words like "some," "the few," the "special cases," the "merit system" in Trump's statement, it suddenly gives you the data you need to understand what Trump is talking about.

No, it's not perfect. Trump has never defined who exactly would be allowed to return. But at the end of the day, mass deportation and a legal process for aliens to return is better than what Cruz supported for 3 years (now denying): which was, for illegals to "come out of the shadows" and sign up for legal status, all 40 million of them. Of course, most probably wouldn't even bother if there was any perceived cost.

[fg566asd]

Read his book ‘The America We Deserve’ from 2000, Trump talked about trade, illegals and terrorism. Cruz was busy working as a lackey for W. Bush and supporting Roberts’ appointment.

[katiedidit1]

Trump donated BIG bucks to the dems. I mean he wanted Hillary to have a front pew at his wedding. So newbie if you want a free pass do not expect Trump’s not so distant past to be exposed

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

So I am now supposed to depart from rational analysis and debate about the relative qualities of candidates to defend my own sanity.

But if you were actually engaged in "rational analysis," how, exactly, would you be able to declare that Ted Cruz is a man of convictions and virtue, when he's proven to be lying on national television to millions of people?

[katiedidit1]

Mr Newbie. Is Trump’s book in the Sci Fi section? Trump supported TARP, auto bailout and Porkulus bill, i.e., Trump is for big government and big businesses.
Trump’s Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)

Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump’s belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)

Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren’t really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he’s [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN)

Trump supported TARP, saying, “You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank.” (CNN)

Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller)

Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC)

Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post)

Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review)

In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama’s call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN) via Isara

[nathanbedford]

Cruz has not flipped on TPP.

Cruz has recently adopted a Romney like posture on illegal immigrants which amounts to robust enforcement of laws concerning employment and benefits, strict enforcement on the border, and forced deportation according to the law, reversal of his position on H1B visas etc.

It appears that there is virtually no difference today between Cruz' position on illegal immigrants and Trump's except Cruz does not say he would let them back in, but Trump would.

[nathanbedford]

If your beef is with Cruz's alleged dishonesty, why do you make the issue about me?

[fg566asd]

Cruz was in favor of TPP, until Trump came into prominence and then he flipped, the same exact thing happened to Cruz on immigration. The difference is that Cruz is lying about his past.

[nathanbedford]

Cruz has recently moved to a position very close to Trump on removing illegal immigrants in our midst. He follows the Romney pattern of self deportation combined with vigorous enforcement of deportation laws, prohibition of sanctuary cities, cutting off benefits, tightening up the border, and the apparent elimination of H1B visas and other provisions which facilitate widespread immigration.

Cruz defends his position on not calling for the deportation of illegal immigrants at the time of the struggle over the Gang of Eight amnesty/ citizenship bill, as a legislative maneuver. I have no doubt it was a legislative maneuver but Cruz had also made remarks to the effect that there should be a way for illegals to "come out of the shadows" etc. I think Cruz has changed his views to a point where he is rock solid today on immigrants in our midst.

I think Cruz has been less than honest in denying that he was favoring a kind of amnesty back at that time when that was a major victory because the political climate was calling for citizenship. As a matter of political calculation, Cruz tried to have the issue both ways. After all, there is a dimension beyond the economic cost of illegal immigrants, it is their ability to vote once they attain citizenship (and sanctuary states the ability to vote illegally). Given the political culture at the time, Cruz and Sessions behaved the way legislators have fought since time immemorial.

Trump's intervention concededly changed the entire debate so that deportation of illegals became an acceptable and achievable goal beyond denying citizenship. Trump changed the political climate and Cruz changed his position. I would be more comfortable if Cruz simply said so rather than tap dancing.

On balance, one can way the number and degree of flip-flops committed by Donald Trump in his biography against these questionable allegations now being dredged up against Cruz and there is really no equivalence, Trump's whole biography is a gigantic ego trip of flip-flops.

[katiedidit1]

Trump has changed his position on immigration. When Trump is vetted from the RIGHT, many of his sycophants say all that matters is his stance against illegal immigration... but if you remind them that he chastised Mitt Romney as an immigration hardliner in 2012 and favored comprehensive immigration reform (Trump: “You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.”), his minions simply say, “that was then, this is now.”
SOURCE: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...
Ok... So let’s move on to 2015...
6/27/2015: SOUNDS LIKE AMNESTY. Trump tells TMZ, he’d create a “system of merit,” saying people here illegally should have “a road to legal status” if they work hard and contribute to the country.
SOURCE: http://www.tmz.com/2015/06/27/donal...
7/26/2015: ONLY DEPORT THE BAD ONES. Trump: “We have to get the bad ones out, then the other ones; and I am a very big believer of merit system, I have to tell you. Because some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job, in some cases sadly they’ve been living under the shadows etc, etc, we have to do something, so whether it’s merit, or whether it’s whatever, but I’m a believer in the merit system; if somebody’s been outstanding we try to work something out.”
SOURCE: (7:20 mark) http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wa...
7/27/2015 (one day later): DEPORT EVERYBODY. Trump: “But the good ones — of which there are many — I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally.”

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

On balance, one can way the number and degree of flip-flops committed by Donald Trump in his biography against these questionable allegations now being dredged up against Cruz and there is really no equivalence,

IOW, Ted Cruz is a liar but Trump has changed his position more often. Gotcha!

That said, your assertion that Cruz is now "solid today" on immigration is unfounded. For the entire campaign cycle, at least after March (wherein, before hand, he supported legalization), Cruz has refused to take legalization off the table, and, at best, says he only "intends" to oppose legalization, which, in legalese, is a "maybe," while e continues to lie to his supporters about ever supporting legalization in the first place.

[Carry_Okie]

Legal Status without Deportation = not enforcing immigration laws = amnesty

Trump's Expedited Legal Status with Deportation = Amnesty too

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." Oh yes, and the INS will be so very selective as directed by an employer of hordes of busboys, maids, groundskeepers, and construction laborers known to pay borderline slave wages in his foreign developments in such pillars of the West as Istanbul and Dubai.

See tag line.