“Before Trump got in, he was.”
I meant, he was not against open borders and he was for amnesty until Trump got in.
That can be documented.
So document it.
Here’s some news/info for FReepers to read while you’re looking it up.
May 8, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ted-cruz-immigration_n_3238085.html
“WASHINGTON - Among the 300 amendments to the Senate immigration bill is one that would take away one of its central purposes: giving a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an almost certain “no” vote on the bill from the so-called gang of eight, filed an amendment on Tuesday to ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point.
The path to citizenship under the gang of eight bill is already a difficult one. It would take about 13 years and require immigrants to complete a number of requirements, such as learning English and paying hefty fines. Undocumented immigrants would first apply for provisional immigrant status, and most would be required stay in the U.S. for at least a decade before being eligible to apply for legal permanent residency. They could then eventually apply to be a U.S. citizen. But the government would have to meet certain border security benchmarks before any provisional immigrant could move into legal permanent resident status.”.......
May 8, 2013:
Ted Cruz Files Amendment To Deny Path To Citizenship As Senate Works On Bill
......”The amendments filed today to strengthen border security and reform our legal immigration system will not only bring meaningful, effective improvements to our immigration system, but also have a chance of becoming law,” said Cruz in a statement. “America is a nation of immigrants, built by immigrants and we need to honor that heritage by fixing our broken immigration system, while upholding the rule of law and championing legal immigration.”
His amendments are among more than 300 filed by the Tuesday evening deadline. Republicans wanting tighter enforcement provisions filed a majority of the amendments, with Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, leading the pack with 77 amendments.
Supporters of the bill, mainly of the part of it that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, kept a steady drumbeat in defense of the measure though emails, websites and social media.
In a press release, America’s Voice, a leading national group that advocates for more lenient immigration laws, singled out Cruz’s anti-citizenship amendment as particularly worrisome.
“This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill - the popular heart of an immigration reform solution - but also turn its back on 100 years of precedent in immigration policy,” said the release..........
Dec 17, 2015
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-immigration-record-216919
“........Cruz says his amendment was a “poison pill” designed to doom the Gang of Eight reform package that Rubio co-authored.
So who’s actually correct? There are two big points to unpack.
First is whether Cruz’s amendment was indeed a “poison pill” meant to kill the immigration bill, which the Texas senator’s campaign now contends. That is unequivocally true, so point goes to Cruz.
Second is whether Cruz’s amendment signaled his true policy beliefs at the time. That’s significantly murkier and ultimately, may never be knowable.
Let’s start with the first point.
The bipartisan group of eight senators - including battle-tested veterans and relative newcomers like Rubio - painstakingly negotiated a delicate compromise in early 2013 that would overhaul every corner of the U.S. immigration system, including a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions here illegally.
Fans and foes of the legislation, as well as observers at the time, knew the core bill couldn’t change too dramatically because that would upset that compromise, which not only had the backing of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate but also coalitions off the Hill, such as labor unions and the business lobby.
Cruz’s amendment - which called for stripping out a pathway to citizenship, but keeping a path for legalization - would have done precisely that.
The night before each Senate Judiciary Committee markup, senior Gang of Eight aides would huddle to scour through each of the amendments that were teed up for the following day, determining which proposals would be palatable and which would be unacceptable. This strategy was meant to ensure the core elements of the Gang of Eight deal would stay intact (the four members of the Gang who sat on the Judiciary Committee would vote in a bloc, usually with the rest of the committee Democrats, to vote down potential deal-killers).
“This one was one that clearly we all had to oppose because it went to the core of the deal,” recalled an aide to a Senate Democrat during the 2013 negotiations. “It could’ve unraveled the whole deal.”
Sure, Cruz himself never called it a “poison pill” at the time. But no senator refers to his own proposal as a poison pill, even if it plainly is. The Gang of Eight never considered Cruz as “gettable,” and it was well-known at the time that Cruz was never going to vote for the bill and was in fact, trying to kill it.
“Everyone was rolling their eyes and smirking when he said it would improve the bill,” said the aide. “I don’t think anybody took it seriously.”.........