Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Ted Cruz is The Only Option in 2016
Last Resistance ^ | January 19, 2015 | Frank Camp

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: DoodleDawg

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.


41 posted on 01/20/2015 8:15:06 AM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet; SoConPubbie

” Ever notice when the “Talking Heads” talk about 2016 possibles, they never mention Ted Cruz? I wonder why?”

They are afraid of him.


42 posted on 01/20/2015 9:03:53 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

” “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!


43 posted on 01/20/2015 9:08:09 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one
first and foremost, the socialist welfare state needs to be brought to an end. than we can talk about immigration.

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.

44 posted on 01/20/2015 9:11:38 AM PST by NorthMountain (No longer TEA Party ... I'm the TAF Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
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.

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.

45 posted on 01/20/2015 10:13:53 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GOPBiker

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...


46 posted on 01/20/2015 10:15:36 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (If you think the Mulatto Marxist is bad, just wait until the Menopausal Marxist shows up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/john-bolton-s-surprising-support-for-gay-marriage.html


47 posted on 01/20/2015 10:38:52 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
If you don’t like the Constitution it was designed to be changed in a multiple of different ways.

Actually, since the Constitution, it's Amendments, US Laws, or SCOTUS rules do not contain anything supporting your definition, YOU, and THOSE OF YOU who believe this definition of 'Natural Born' is the correct one, need to go through the process of changing it, because as of now, it does not mean what you want it to, at least constitutionally speaking.
48 posted on 01/20/2015 10:43:02 AM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

We need a communicator, a conservative, and a Christian.

Cruz is the only candidate who is all of those.


49 posted on 01/20/2015 10:44:48 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
So... I love Ted Cruz. But Ted Cruz cannot legally be President. Why we would want to push him forward is mindlessly foolish considering the possibilities.

You could not be more wrong!

Your definition, Black's Dictionary, the so-called general meaning of the phrase at the signing of the constitution, and your desire for it to mean that not withstanding. The only things that establish the legal meaning of the phrase "Natural Born", and therefore, it's application to Senator Ted Cruz and his eligibility to be President, is contained in the Constitution, it's Amendments, US Law, and SCOTUS Rulings on the Constitution and US Law. Everything else is irrelevant.

Now, that could change if a case was brought before the SCOTUS concerning this and they ruled, that yes, your supporting evidence should be taken into consideration and should be the LEGAL definition. Or, the US Congress could pass a law, have it signed by the President, and then Presto-Magic, your definition of 'Natural Born' would then become the LEGAL definition.

But, until either of those two things occur, your definition IS NOT THE LEGAL DEFINITION.

It is simply your opinion that is should be the legal definition.
50 posted on 01/20/2015 10:48:14 AM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins
We need a communicator, a conservative, and a Christian.

Cruz is the only candidate who is all of those.


Amen!
51 posted on 01/20/2015 10:49:11 AM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; HMS Surprise
...your opinion...

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.

52 posted on 01/20/2015 10:53:55 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Yes. And current law is the definition of natural born citizen when the Constitution was written.


53 posted on 01/20/2015 11:28:12 AM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

Evidently, you haven’t read current law.


54 posted on 01/20/2015 11:31:35 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Zenjitsuman

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.


55 posted on 01/20/2015 11:55:48 AM PST by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

8 US Code Para. 1401

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Cruz’s case is in sub -paragraph (g).


56 posted on 01/20/2015 12:08:25 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GOPBiker
Reading into the document is interesting though and I am going to try to post a picture do you can see it but it says; ‘... is now a US citizen...’ which I contend it would not if I was previously a US citizen.

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.

57 posted on 01/20/2015 5:11:07 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTEAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins

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?


58 posted on 01/20/2015 6:56:41 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: xzins

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.


59 posted on 01/20/2015 7:02:35 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson