Posted on 01/19/2015 8:03:28 PM PST by SoConPubbie
Ted Cruz is the only possible Republican candidate who understands the problem with amnesty.
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” – Voltaire
Even though we just came off an election that seemed to last an eternity, we are approaching 2016 more quickly than we realize. Unlike the last two presidential election cycles, the Republican field is stacked in 2016. There are several solid contenders for the nomination, as well as a parade of horribles who would lose to presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately, despite a deep bench of qualified conservatives who appear to have their heads on straight, there seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding among them regarding one key issue: amnesty, and a pathway to citizenship. Ben Shapiro recently wrote up a handy little guide which shows us just where each of the Republican front-runners stand on the issue of amnesty—specifically a “pathway to citizenship.” Here are some quotes from the men themselves:
“I do believe that those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance, just like anybody else, to get in line and to become a citizen if they would like to do so.” – Mitt Romney
“…there already is a process for how people become citizens. The main difference is I wouldn’t have people be forced to go home. You’d just get in line. But you get in the same line everyone is in.” – Rand Paul
“I tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship. You shouldn’t ignore the law or ignore those who break it. But by the same token, I think it’s a little disingenuous when I hear people say they should experience the full weight of the law in every respect with no pathway…” – Mike Huckabee
“For people waiting to come in our country legally, we’ve got to make sure that they get in first, that they get their status first, because they’ve been following the rules and playing by the rules. After that, if there is a way to set up a process so that you enable people to come in and have a legal pathway to do that, that’s something we’ve got to embrace.” – Scott Walker
“…of course allow [illegal immigrants] to have a pathway to citizenship. That’s the only humane and reasonable thing to do.” – Ben Carson
Now, there are certainly other presidential contenders, but my point is clear. There is a pervasive sentiment that, regardless of the method, and the time frame, we should eventually allow those who came here illegally to become citizens.
The left contends that even if we grant citizenship, amnestied illegals would not be allowed to vote. They tell us that it’s crazy to worry about something like that. However, as the DNC’s Donna Brazile said early last year: “I don’t think you can create two classes of citizens in this society, one with legal status and the right to vote, and one without.”
The wheels are always in motion, and to believe otherwise is foolish. The left wants illegals to be granted the right to vote because they will–in large part–vote Democrat. The Democrats want 11 million new voters who are dependent on government handouts, and grateful to those who give them those handouts. That way, a conservative candidate will never again win a national election. Because of the makeup of illegal immigrants, they tend to be low-skill, low-wage workers, who would be much more likely to rely on the federal government for subsistence. Why would they ever vote for a Party that wants to reform social safety nets?
Republicans are either foolish enough to think that if they support amnesty, they will get a chunk of those future votes, or they are too stupid to see what’s really going on. Either way, their idiocy is causing them to side with the left on a “pathway to citizenship.”
There is one candidate, however, that understands what’s happening, and that candidate is Ted Cruz. As Shapiro points out in his article:
“The Texas senator has been outspoken in his belief that the border must be enforced and that illegal immigrants should not be given a pathway to citizenship. Last year, he was instrumental in killing a Republican bill pushing comprehensive immigration reform.”
In 2013, Senator Cruz himself said as much:
“In my opinion, if we allow those who are here illegally to be put on a path to citizenship, that is incredibly unfair to those who follow the rules…”
Not only is it unfair to those who have come here legally to grant illegal immigrants citizenship, it would be the death knell of the conservative movement. During the 2012 election cycle, Newt Gingrich proposed a rather brilliant idea. He proposed that we deport all illegals who have committed serious criminal offenses, and allow the rest to stay. However, those who stay would never be given citizenship, and therefore, would never have the right to vote. This proposal should satisfy the bleeding-heart liberals who just want families to stay intact, and who simply want illegals to have a better life in the United States, right? Unlikely.
The left has an agenda, and that agenda is to get more votes, and more power. It’s a simple goal, but one that goes unnoticed, even by many conservatives. Ted Cruz knows what’s going on behind the curtain, and given that, he’s the only one we should support in 2016. If we select a “pathway to citizenship” candidate, we will have lost before the election has even taken place
Citizen by statute means that we confer citizenship by law as opposed to citizenship by natural allegiance. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE doubts that anyone born of two parents who are citizens INSIDE the country in which both parents are citizens is NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. No law is needed to establish this person’s citizenship BECAUSE it occurs by a natural process. But, there are obviously circumstances that need statutory language to clear up ambiguities should they occur. Say a person is born in Britain to a mother who is American, and a father who is English? The child, depending on English law could be English, and in actual fact is, but also could be American, and in actual fact is also. But these facts are established by laws, not by natural means. Suppose America disallowed dual citizenship, or England likewise disallowed dual citizenship, or England required that the child’s citizenship be that of the father.. or mother.. or that America required the child be born in country.. These are the simple problems. There are many more complicated problems. The basic point is this: Laws are needed when there is any circumstance that exists without the natural manifestation of citizenship.
” Ever notice when the “Talking Heads” talk about 2016 possibles, they never mention Ted Cruz? I wonder why?”
They are afraid of him.
” “For people waiting to come in our country legally, we’ve got to make sure that they get in first, that they get their status first, because they’ve been following the rules and playing by the rules. After that, if there is a way to set up a process so that you enable people to come in and have a legal pathway to do that, that’s something we’ve got to embrace.” – Scott Walker”
Goodbye, Mr Walker!
No reason not to talk about both ... we're intelligent adults. Ending the socialist welfare state will certainly alter the discussion of immigration, both legal and illegal. Ending the unsustainable gravy train will eliminate one fairly powerful attractor for illegal immigration.
True. But where is it defined that that is the only definition of natural born citizen?
But these facts are established by laws, not by natural means.
But if Congress is empowered by the Constitution to establish rules of naturalization then wouldn't it mean that they must also establish, by law, who does not need to be naturalized? And since the Constitution identifies only two forms of citizenship then if you are not naturalized then you must be, by default, natural-born.
I didn’t mean to turn it back on you, so please accept my Apology. I simply do not know what Law people refer to when referring to what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen.
Like many here, I always assumed it meant a Child of two American Citizens, born on United States soil.
After going though numerous Threads regarding Obama’s, McCain’s and even Cruz’s Citizenship over the last six years, it appears my assumption may have not been correct.
I am just looking for clarification based on current “Law”. Thanks...
We need a communicator, a conservative, and a Christian.
Cruz is the only candidate who is all of those.
Exactly. No matter what anyone says or thinks, the current law controls. Black's dictionary is not the current law. Vattel is not current law. So and so's opinion is not current.
The only thing that is current law IS current law. And current law says that Cruz is eligible.
Yes. And current law is the definition of natural born citizen when the Constitution was written.
Evidently, you haven’t read current law.
The democrats won’t have to bring this up, the Republican boot-lickers will gladly do so to peel off Cruz votes for the Huckster or the Rube resulting in yet another split vote and another Party anointed liberal LOSER, but he will have that all important (R) in front of his name.
8 US Code Para. 1401
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Cruz’s case is in sub -paragraph (g).
Previously, you were an unregistered "citizen-at-birth". Had you died between the time of your birth and the time of your registration, you were still an American "citizen-at-birth" and would've been buried as such.
You completely miss the point. Neither Congress, nor the courts can reinterpret the Constitution. An easy way for you to understand... Is a citizen automatically a natural born citizen, even at birth? If you say yes, then the words natural born had no meaning when the Constitution was written. How sad. What other words do you need to discount to get your way I wonder?
Some Freepers really scare me. The one’s who know a little bit most of all. Yes... there are MANY ways to be a citizen. And there are also many ways to be born a citizen. There is only ONE way to be a natural born citizen: Be born in the country in which both of your parents are citizens. Thank you for playing.
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.