Posted on 03/28/2015 6:19:03 AM PDT by AJFavish
On March 23, 2015, United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas gave a speech announcing that he is running for the Republican nomination for President. In his speech he said the following about illegal immigration:
Instead of the lawlessness and the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders.
And imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes and celebrates those who come to achieve the American dream.
Missing from Sen. Cruz’s speech was anything about how the nation should treat the illegal immigrants who are here. Sen. Cruz’s position on this point has been contradictory.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I've been saying the same for years! I got trashed here for bashing W over his non enforcement of immigration laws. I've been a single issue voter since 2005 and immigration is my issue. I did not vote McCain because of immigration, I did vote Romney because of his hard line on immigration. Right now I'd vote Cruz and I might vote Paul. Other then that I'll go 3rd party because the rest of the GOP field is very weak on illegal immigration.
I’m not sure Paul is for securing the border to be frank. And I think Walker is okay on the border issue - but Cruz is probably the safest bet.
Paul is occasionally wobbly on immigration/amnesty so I trust Cruz more then Paul on the issue. Policy wise as best I can tell there is very little difference between the two.
There’s a tremendous difference in tone, and yes, somewhat on policy. Immigration and the Middle East and national security for example.
But the biggest difference is in tone. Paul wants to pander to liberal yutes and African American by pretending to believe what they believe, and by slamming other Republicans. Cruz will have NONE of that, and wants to convince those people that conservatism is right.
Only B: has ever worked in electoral history.
Yeah, Cruz is my first choice, Paul might be an acceptable second choice. But right now Cruz has my vote. I think Cruz is going to be very hard to beat in a GOP primary, unless the Rats show up and vote. Which is likely to happen if the Rat primary is uncontested and boring.
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 America’s last hope for a credible border.” I hope he agrees with my position, as expressed in the article. But I don’t 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 Cruz’s campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told us Cruz’s 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. “It’s 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 Cruz’s Gang of Eight proposed amendment “was not intended to suggest support for legalization.” It may not have been intended to do so, but Cruz’s 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: “It’s 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 Cruz’s position. Again, Cruz needs to step in now and deal with this issue and Frazier’s statements.
I don’t 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 don’t know.
Thanks for your reply:
However, we disagree. Feel free to enjoy the self gratification nature of your deportation fantasies. They are NEVER EVER EVER going to happen for a lot of reasons.
Number one: not enough cops, sheriffs, agents to ever do it.
Number two: too damned many attorneys to let if happen.
Number three: too many sanctuary cities.
Number four: Most Americans DO NOT WANT to deport their neighbors, little league partners, church going friends, etc - and these 15 million illegals probably have 150 million legals who fit those categories.
Thus, it is meaningless to discuss anything beyond secure the border. I don’t like that fact....but I do recognize that fact.
Oh, another thing that’s not ever happening? Santorum. And being from Pa, he doesn’t have any experience with immigration anyway. He just has theories and talking points.
Some of the ‘rats might really believe the hype that Cruz is un-electable, and maybe they’ll cross over and vote FOR him.
Now wouldn’t that be delicious irony?
With due respect, I think it’s reality that’s problematic on immigration. Nothing, absolutely nothing, needs to be discussed until the border is secure, because until the border is secure, nothing else can possibly matter.
You know I never thought of that! But thinking about it you might be on to something. And yes delicious.
That could not be further from the truth: we will have a presidential election before the border is secure, and if we vote in a pro-amnesty (though they never call it that) candidate for president, the country is lost.
(Though yes, indeed, the border should have been secured back in W’s administration, if not sooner.)
You misread me...yes, we’ll probably have 2 or 3 BEFORE the border is secure, thus, nothing else is matters.
This article from Hot Air...
Not exactly a left wing rag......
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.