Saying he wants to enforce the border but not telling you what he wants to do with the illegals already in the country, and also lying about his support for legalization in the past!
Posted on 11/30/2015 10:42:15 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Ted Cruz on Sunday refused to address how he would handle the millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the country, despite hammering Marco Rubio this weekend for previously supporting a path to citizenship. Cruz refused to take off the table his own support of a potential path to legal status despite his cries against "amnesty."
"Let's demonstrate we can stop illegal immigration, we can protect our national security interests, we can protect our law enforcement interests," Cruz said after a campaign stop in Newton, Iowa. "Then once that's done, we can have a conversation at that point about whatever people remain here illegally."
Cruz has insisted the border must be secured before addressing proposals of how to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants still living in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
What legal options are you afraid Ted will take besides deportation. He has said he will enforce the "rule of law". Any form of amnesty would be a reward for breaking the law. And illegals are not citizens and entitled to protection under the Constitution of the USA.
That's what I want to see our next POTUS do, strictly enforce the laws and the Constitution of the USA. I think Cruz will.
Trump wants the wall, but has the cajones to say everyone must first go out.
Where are Cruz’s cajones?
Saying he wants to enforce the border but not telling you what he wants to do with the illegals already in the country, and also lying about his support for legalization in the past!
I supplied you a comparison you apparently didn't read right here.
I have work to go do.
Then, they should be able to apply for re-entry IF they have not broken our laws.
***
They have already broken our laws by entering.
Good catch! I took one look at that one foot long piece of crap and thought to myself, "Do I really want to take the time to read a biased, massive hit piece from a deranged person who hates Trump for not banning immigration entirely, but supports Cruz's amnesty for all plan? No, not really."
And WHY is it govt can only *do* ONE thing at a time??
1) Turn off the freebies and taxpayer funds
2) WHILE actively finding and prosecuting the lawless.
3) WHILE building the wall
Course, if govt was doing #1 and #2, #3 MIGHT not be required.
You are a liar. I’m so sick of the immature Trump-haters.
No one is trashing anyone. Try that lame excuse on someone else.
GROW UP and know that people have their own opinions about issues and they don’t have to always agree with yours.
We are adults.
Move along.
True.
Back to the street corner, eh?
Club for Growth donated $750K. That's a drop in the bucket. Cruz PACs total about 38 million.
Cruz's top donor is Robert Mercer who gave 11 million. He is staunchly anti illegal immigration.
Isn’t it crazy? Essentially, Cruz is saying let’s not enforce a law until we have a means in place that largely prevents people from breaking it in the first place. Is that the approach anywhere else in American jurisprudence? Off the bat, I can’t think of any other examples, although it does remind me a little of the Left’s gun control arguments, which I think everybody here hates with a passion.
- - -
"Ted Cruz picks up Rick Perry donors in Texas"
"Cruz trumpeted the new donors at a press conference in Houston, stressing that only his campaign has been able to combine the power of small donors and large donors to have a deep run into next year.
The big fish is Darwin Deason, a billionaire who along with Kelcy Warren donated $11 million to pro-Perry outside groups.
Cruz's camp didn't say how much money the six donors will commit to the Texas senator or his super PAC, which had raised $38 million as of late July. -snip-"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/ted-cruz-texas-endorsements-dan-patrick/
Cruz's written plan specifically says that with regard to deportations and removals, the law will be enforced fully. Most of his written plan describes how this will occur.
That's a strange, backhanded way to frame a question.
As should be clear from my posts on the thread, my fear is that a President Cruz would maintain the status quo, vis a vis, illegals, by NOT deporting those in the country. His public statements on the matter have made that clear to me.
In my observation, Ted is just as wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed about the nuts and bolts of illegal immigration as the rest of the Cheap Labor Express. He's just a whole lot better at making it sound like he's for enforcement, while never actually saying that at all.
Trump, on the other hand, says what most Americans need and want to hear from a candidate, which is, "The illegals have to go."
Now is not the time for equivocation, nuance, double-speak, evasions, or slippery lawyer talk. We need and want these politicians to stand up and speak plainly about what they intend to do about the greatest issue facing us.
Looking through your comments, it’s clear you’re a Trump fanboi as well. So naturally you’ll eagerly defend other Trump fanbois.
Only Trump can *possibly* beat Hillary, right? All the others are hopeless, right? And Trump never *really* said there was a coalition of 100 black pastors who were supporting his campaign, right?
Keep defending your bombastic TV star candidate. I’ll keep promoting my courageous conservative candidate. Who according to you can’t possibly win because he’s too conservative, too unlike Romney and McCain ... who were the most electable candidates in the past couple of elections, right?
So why can't Ted simply repeat what's in his immigration plan when queried by reporters? Why does he have to resort to PC BS like having a "conversation" about what to do with the illegals after the border is closed?
It's inconsistent on Ted's part, and you should recognize it as such. On an issue as important as this, Ted should be clear as day, with not a single millimeter between his written plan and his public statements.
So why can't Ted simply repeat what's in his immigration plan when queried by reporters? Why does he have to resort to PC BS like having a "conversation" about what to do with the illegals after the border is closed? It's inconsistent on Ted's part, and you should recognize it as such. On an issue as important as this, Ted should be clear as day, with not a single millimeter between his written plan and his public statements.
Yes, Cruz should cite his plan instead of saying PC BS.
And so should Trump who says that he will "expedite" the good ones back when he says that they all must go.
You should recognize that.
Okay, you do that. What we don’t need is stealth Bushies.
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.