What is your basis for this? It it based upon your feelings? Or is there some factual evidence that backs this up?
Here is what Ted Cruz said in June of 2013:
This Gang of Eight bill is a disaster. It is the exact same thing we saw in 1986. The last big immigration reform was in 1986, and the federal government told the American people, we're gonna grant amnesty for the three million people who are here illegally. And in exchange for that we're actually gonna secure the borders. We're gonna solve illegal immigration, and the problem is gonna go away.
Now, we saw what happened. The amnesty happened, the borders never got secured, and now three decades later, instead of three million people, it's 11 million people.
I post this in hopes that there is still the capacity to reason and think critically inside of you. But if your response to the first question is 'feelings', then I know nothing I could ever post would do any good.
And here is what he sad in 1999
...But the document he created as part of Mr. Bush’s debate preparation material in December 1999 suggests a different approach. It reflects the sort of careful positioning Mr. Cruz now decries in jeremiads against the Republican establishment that have fueled his rise to the top tier of the presidential race.
As one of the architects of Mr. Bush’s immigration platform, Mr. Cruz, then 30, outlined calibrated positions that would appeal to conservatives concerned about border security while portraying Mr. Bush to moderates as an inclusive Republican. The memo, in which Mr. Cruz put his name on every page, was authenticated by another aide on the 2000 Bush campaign.
“America is stronger with the many immigrants who come here to make a new life and participate in the American dream,” Mr. Cruz wrote in capital letters about legal immigrants at the document’s outset.
Presidential Election 2016
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Battle for Party’s
He also advised that Mr. Bush state his support for increasing caps on visas for high-tech workers — a position that Mr. Cruz held after being elected to the Senate in 2012 but has recently abandoned.
Mr. Cruz urged Mr. Bush, again in capital letters, to state his opposition to illegal immigration and to urge enforcement of border restrictions.
“But, at the same time,” he added in the next sentence, “we need to remember that many of those coming here are coming to feed their families, to have a chance at a better life.”
It is not quite the same as calling illegal immigration “an act of love,” as Jeb Bush did last year, but Mr. Cruz’s advice to Mr. Bush was sharply different from his posture of late as he seeks to create distance with Mr. Rubio.
“I think Cruz captured his boss’s position perfectly,” said Rick Tyler, a Cruz campaign spokesman, about the memo.
Asked if Mr. Cruz disagreed at the time with the positions he outlined in the document, Mr. Tyler declined to say.
In Mr. Cruz’s autobiography, “A Time for Truth,” he recalled that immigration was in his issue portfolio and that he and his colleagues were pushed to devise issue positions. “There was a lot of pressure on those of us on the policy team to help develop meaningful policy proposals that would underpin the political messaging,” he wrote.
As Mr. Rubio has raised questions about Mr. Cruz’s immigration views, Mr. Cruz has moved to the right on the issue. He has backed off his calls to allow higher numbers of legal immigrants and has begun arguing that the purpose of the failed 2013 immigration overhaul, of which Mr. Rubio was a co-author, was to add millions of new Democrats to the voting rolls.
“I think the new politically correct term is no longer illegal aliens — it’s undocumented Democrats,” Mr. Cruz said on Thursday.
In a particularly hard-hitting new ad, Mr. Cruz suggests that the failed overhaul of immigration laws that Mr. Rubio pushed for in the Senate would have, had it succeeded, allowed Syrian refugees and “ISIS terrorists” to enter the country.
As president, Mr. Bush supported legislation that would have offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but the measure collapsed in Congress much the same way as Mr. Rubio’s 2013 bill.
Mr. Bush, who aggressively pursued Latino votes as governor, had largely formed his overall views on immigration before Mr. Cruz joined his 2000 campaign. But the tone in the memo is reflective of an aide who at the time left little doubt about how he viewed Mr. Bush’s candidacy.
“One of the reasons I was so eager to help Bush is the way he has described himself, as a compassionate conservative,” Mr. Cruz told a Princeton alumni publication in 2000, not long after writing the memo. “That’s how I have always conceived of my own political views.”
Such a statement was more than the mark of an ambitious young staff member, it also reflected where Republicans were 15 years ago, long before the rise of the Tea Party and the presidency of Barack Obama.
To win the Republican primary, Mr. Bush had to offer assurances on addressing the border, but there was no expectation then that candidates should espouse mass deportations or vow to oppose any legal status for immigrants in the country illegally.
In fact, Mr. Cruz, in the memo, referred to legislation Mr. Bush supported that would have allowed “family members of resident aliens to obtain tourist visas while they are waiting to rejoin their families permanently.”
“I think it’s only fair, and I think it’s the right thing to do,” Mr. Cruz advised Mr. Bush to say.
In the memo, Mr. Cruz suggested words that his boss, the candidate, could use in a debate. But in Tuesday night’s debate, echoes of that carefully parsed guidance could be heard when Mr. Cruz, now the candidate, was pressed about what he would do with the illegal immigrants already residing in America.
“I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization,” Mr. Cruz said, leaving himself room, perhaps, to one day change his mind.