Posted on 03/28/2015 1:04:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[BIG SNIP]
".....Sen. Cruz is Americas last hope for a credible border. By that I mean a border that is controlled by the citizens of America, not the citizens of other countries. I mean a border that is controlled primarily for the benefit of citizens of America, not the citizens of other countries. I mean a border that is controlled by an American population that appreciates and welcomes immigrants, but only when they come here legally, and in numbers that are conducive to their assimilation into the American value system that is based on the principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Is Sen. Cruz going to give us doubletalk about illegal immigration like all of the others who will be running for President? Is the primary problem with Americas immigration laws, or is it with the willingness of Americas government officials to enforce those laws?
It is time for Sen. Cruz to tell the citizens of America something that will allow us to look into our childrens eyes, and tell them that there is still a chance for a credible border under the rule of law. Given his contradictory position, Sen. Cruz owes this to Americas citizens, who watch in agony as their country disappears with its rule of law, and he owes this to those who have not violated our law and seek to become American citizens in conformity with present law.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Walker has long been maligned about flipping on ethanol by a lot of people, including some Cruzers here on FR.
Readers have a right to know the truth on Walkers longstanding ethanol position, one he articulated again in his Iowa speech.
+++
Walker on ethanol, March 7, 2015
“While I do not support the mandate, I do not have a problem with ethanol...
However, it is clear to me that a big government mandate is not the way to support the farmers of this state...
Central planning will not help our family farmers, protect our environment, or provide jobs.
The free enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government.”
Wifey, you are posting on FR and want the single candidate, single issue purists to be civil and treat you and your subject with dignity?
I am a Cruzer, and he is the only candidate that I have donated to during the Presidential election cycle, BUT, I like Walker and would be OK with him as our candidate.
I will try to be civil with you and your guy, but if I step over the line, slap me silly and remind me of this post.
However, there are some posters here at FR, that beg to be bitched slapped, and I will do that when they beg hard enough.
The important point to realize is both men are hated by the establishment and the GOP-e will send in their flying monkeys as concern trolls.
These supposed disputes are like UFO sightings. Someone heard someone say this or more accurately some lefty misquoted them and now folks on our side are claiming one of our guys said it.
Where is a VIDEO or AUDIO proof?
We know the lefties twist and contort what anyone says or does on the right. So, unless their is an actual video or audio of Cruz or Walker saying something crazy i am just going to file it away in a X file.
Either Walker or Cruz, or both together, would be far better than what we have now. Either one of them could come out in a clown suit and sing Tip Toe Through the Tulips and still be a substantially better choice than Obama.
Thank you, and everyone on the thread for making good comments and discussing this.
yep!
If you read about the toxic interaction of LEGAL IMMIGRATION + REFUGEE INDUSTRY + NON-PROFITS you will see it’s more than the border that needs protecting. The 8USC 1324 statute on Shielding, Harboring, Aidding was undermined under Clinton. 1611 was added but gave the US Attorney General power offer a huge loophole providing non-profits, NGO’s defense from prosecution. Here is what I have written on a blogpost:
Although President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996 -8 USC 1642, (which required proof of citizenship in order to receive many benefits and made church charities and non-profit organizations verify eligibility of citizenship), it also came with another caveat.The Attorney General was given exclusive powers to create community programs,services and assistance necessary for the “protection of life or safety” which could be provided by government-funded agencies without regard to legal status,(8 U.S.C. 1611).
We are now tracing this enthusiasm for “refugees, asylum” in our state of Texas and the money to be made. Obviously the Central American “youth” invasion made this loophole very profitable.
When I hear Cruz talk about LEGAL IMMIGRATION I am hoping he knows about this...
Not our problem.
Its easy to post anonymously Deport hem all but they all, including Cruz, know at the national level that it wont fly.
There is no "moderate" stand on illegal immigration.
If we allow a "pathway to citizenship" these same illegals will sue to get full citizenship status.
All illegals should be deported.
Is there a current candidate or potential candidate who is on the record with that exact position?
If not, do you plan to sit out the presidential primary and the general??
Is there a current candidate or potential candidate who is on the record with that exact position?
If not, do you plan to sit out the presidential primary and the general??
I am (at least so far) a Cruz supporter, but am glad you posted this article, Cincinatus’s Wife.
Every candidate owes us the obligation to be straight forward and specific about their positions on immigration: 1) border control, 2) what to do with the millions of illegal invaders already here, and 3) how many more millions of immigrants they want to import to take American jobs and/or put on our various government programs.
Cruz needs to answer this as well as all the rest of the candidates.
The one candidate who has been forthcoming on this is Jebbie Arbusto. I appreciate his letting us know that he plans to continue to give our country away rather than hiding his position.
Cruz is IMO the best candidate, in the unlikely event Cruz is somehow eliminated from the race I think Walker is a decent man and an acceptable second tier candidate above all others.
The difference is that Scott Walker supports citizenship and Cruz opposes it.
So who is Cincinatus’ Wife trying to bring down? Ted Cruz.
While Scott Walker supports citizenship, you want to go after Cruz’s efforts to block that, by confusing conceding to a form of legal status to bring them out of the shadows, as being like Walker’s wanting to make them citizens.
Cruz is doing what he can to prevent citizenship.
Walker supports citizenship, Cruz opposes it.
OK, I stand corrected. But really, that’s impossible for a politician to not do, versus a statesman.
I understand that Cruz opposes a path to citizenship. My point is that Cruz was willing to vote for the Gang of Eight bill, which gave legal status to illegals (short of citizenship). I am against such legal status, and am in favor of the position I set forth in my article.
From my article:
Sen. Cruz stated in his press release that he is confident my proposed amendments will effectively address the current problems with this bill. If his proposed amendments would have effectively address[ed] the current problems with the bill, there does not seem to have been any reason for Sen. Cruz to have voted against the bill if his proposed amendments had been adopted. Apparently Sen. Cruz did not see any problem with the bill giving illegal immigrants legal status, so long as it would be a status less than citizenship.
As I state in my article: Sen. Cruz is Americas last hope for a credible border. I hope he agrees with my position, as expressed in the article. But I dont know if he does. The point of the article is to get him to state his position.
I noticed at the recent post at Legal Insurrection (http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-disputes-msnbc-claim-he-supports-legalization-of-illegal-immigrants/), the following two paragraphs:
Senator Cruzs campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told us Cruzs goal in the Gang of Eight amendment was three fold: to get Senators on the record showing where they stood on the issue, that it was a good faith effort to improve the bill, and to stop a pathway to citizenship. Frazier explained it was not intended to suggest support for legalization.
Cruz supports strengthening the border and fixing our legal immigration and interior enforcement systems before we deal with those who are here illegally, Frazier said. Its premature to discuss what to do with those who are still here illegally until we have made these reforms. Indicating that there may be the potential for amnesty in the future, only encourages more illegal immigration.
There are two problems with what Frazier said. First, she said that Cruzs Gang of Eight proposed amendment was not intended to suggest support for legalization. It may not have been intended to do so, but Cruzs Press Release about his proposed amendments stated that his proposed amendments will effectively address the current problems with this bill. As I explain in my article, this means that Cruz was supporting legalization to a status less than citizenship. Frazier is being disingenuous here. Cruz should step in quickly and correct here and clearly state his full position.
Secondly, Frazier said: Its premature to discuss what to do with those who are still here illegally until we have made these reforms. It is not premature. Present law requires their deportation, in most cases. There is no authority for the President to suspend enforcement while we wait for true border enforcement. Is Frazier saying that if Cruz becomes President he will not do anything regarding the illegals presently here until he gets the border truly controlled? I am hoping that is not Cruzs position. Again, Cruz needs to step in now and deal with this issue and Fraziers statements.
I dont think there is any significant chance that any of the other candidates would agree with me. Perhaps, Rick Santorum, but I am not sure he is running. Cruz might do so. But I dont know.
My personal view is that you are taking Cruz's and Frazier's remarks too literally.
Beyond my posts 8, 14 and 25, above, I interpret Cruz's statement that he is "confident my proposed amendments will effectively address the current problems with this bill" is intended solely to back his Senate colleagues into a political corner, offering everything but citizenship to demonstrate their duplicity. It is also obiter to his amendment removing a path to citizenship.
Frazier's statement that "Its premature to discuss what to do with those who are still here illegally until" the border and "interior enforcement systems" are secured, means, to my mind, "what to do with" them beyond what we are doing now pursuant to current laws. It is stretching her words, and interpreting them contrary to Cruz's known position, to suggest that Cruz would halt enforcement until the border is secure.
I don’t trust Cruz on immigration either. He has in the past said he’s open to some kind of legalization. Believe me legalization mean citizenship the minute the Rats gain control of the government and Cruz knows this. One thing I dislike about Cruz is he is always trying to be to clever. I’ll take a straight shooter like Trump over a “clever” Cruz any day.
The Wests' PC policies on "migrants" are now revealed as the insanity we always knew it was. Both the USA and Europe are being over run. This election we either win with Trump or things get really bad.
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.