It’s worse than that - the author is just plain wrong...he missed the word NOT in Cruz’ press release - the one he based the entire piece on.
Here is cut and paste from the VERY FIRST SENTENCE in the presser: “to significantly improve border security measures, fix our immigration system in a manner that champions legal immigration, and uphold the rule of law by ensuring illegal immigrants granted legal status under this bill are NOT GIVEN a path to citizenship.”
WTF? This guy didn’t read.
Kind of like how I feel about Bushes.
Sometimes, I think those that say they support conservative “thinkership” [I made that word up for this very case, BTW] in their effort to ‘get published’, flourish in the community and for other reasons often try to make problems from minimal points or to just stir up discussion as newbie talk radio hosts often do.
I think that’s the case here. My version of conservative “thinkership” is responsible journalism that responds accurately in a conservative manner while ALSO being activist in other venues - such as here, for example.
Perhaps it’s not that this fellow didn’t read, but conveniently did some fancy editing by leaving NOT out.
“WTF? This guy didn’t read.”
The inclusion of “not” doesn’t affect the point the author is attempting to make. The author claims that the amendments Cruz proposed to the ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill would allow those currently here illegally to remain with certain restrictions on entitlements and with no pathway to citizen ship. The author claims this does not “respect the rule of law” hence the claim that Cruz position is contradictory.
Not trying to defend the author who I disagree with.
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.