Posted on 12/17/2015 7:40:06 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
(Before I begin, I recommend Freepers read up on this thread here, which proves Cruz's support for legalization short of a pathway to citizenship both in 2013 and also after that, and then continue to read this thread)
So, I've been getting spammed a whole lot by a bunch of rather vicious posters, and I realized a significant pattern in all of them: a failure to not appreciate the language behind all that this debate has been about (the debate on whether or not Cruz lied when he stated he never supported legalization). Nor do they appreciate that they are generally making assumptions about what is mainstream for us today versus what was, at the very least, the accepted mainstream concession that we had swallowed in 2013.
One example of this "forgotten" history, by the way, is that legalization after border enforcement (short a pathway to citizenship) was the mainstream position back then, or at least something we had been beaten down enough to accept under certain circumstances, even by Rush Limbaugh. But we will get to that in its place.
There are several points that posters need to come to grips with to understand the irrelevance of most of the Cruz defenses against the Rubio/Santorum charge:
1) The first thing I keep hearing is: "Cruz voted against amnesty! His amendment REMOVED the pathway to citizenship!"
Cruz has a different definition for amnesty than all of you do. Cruz uses the term "amnesty" interchangeably with the phrase a pathway to citizenship. You can see an example of this in the link I just inserted, where Cruz moves from bashing amnesty to bashing the pathway to citizenship. This is interchangeable language for Cruz. Cruz has also described legalization before border enforcement to be amnesty. But if you notice within that article, this does not stop Cruz from supporting a legalization after the border is secured. To him, this is not amnesty. It never has been. And Team Cruz even reaffirms his support for legalization of illegals from 2013.
2) "It was a POISON PILL to show how extreme the Democrats were!"
It's important to make clear that: whether it was a poison pill or not is entirely irrelevant, since Cruz supported legalization short of a pathway even after the gang of eight fight was over. You would see this if you read that very very first link in this post of mine. If it was all a ruse when Cruz said "I want immigration reform... to bring those that are here illegaly out of the shadows," then Cruz did not get the memo. he kept at it.
Secondly, it appears that the idea of legalization after the border was secured was a pretty mainstream concession back then and was what Lee, Cruz, and possibly even Sessions had already accepted. In Cruz's case, it was what he advocated for as part of "common sense immigration reform." I don't remember the mood at that time since I was always supportive of mass deportation. The general opinion of others has never much bothered my own positions. I am making this conclusion by reading commentary from that time period.
Reading many of the public statements of this time, demonstrating how extreme the Democrats were was indeed a high priority. Everybody knew that the Democrats wanted two things:
1) No border enforcement
2) Perpetual amnesty for every new wave of illegals who, in turn, would become Democrat voters
But this doesn't mean that the GOP wasn't moderate (by our standards of moderate): Republicans at that time, possibly even Sessions, were not as far to the right as we are today. They were not fighting against legalization after the border was secured. This never comes up even once.
Take a look at this release by Senator Lee. Can you tell what's missing? While Lee complains about legalization without border security, nowhere does Lee highlight any amendments or comments that would have removed legalization after the border is secured. Citizenship is certainly barred, but legal status short of a citizenship never is. (Pay attention to these bolds, folks, because a lot of you have trouble appreciating these distinctions. Try to read with an eye to detail.)
Lee highlights all sorts of amendments: he highlights amendments put forward by the Sessions/Lee/Cruz Triumverate that boosts security. That make it harder or near impossible for illegals to work here illegally (supposedly). Lee even calls an amendment by Cruz to double Green Cards a "step in the right direction." (For the record, Sessions opposed this.) But what's missing is any amendment that would have stripped legalization from the bill after the border was secured.
Cruz even gave a press release at that time, highlighted by our very smart fellow Freeper in his American Thinker article, that reads:
"I very much want commonsense immigration reform to pass, but if this bill becomes law as currently written, it will not solve the problem. Instead it will make the problem of illegal immigration worse... We must work together in a bipartisan manner to fix this problem in a way that secures the border, improves legal immigration and respects rule of law so we remain a nation that welcomes and celebrates legal immigrants. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues and am confident my proposed amendments will effectively address the current problems with this bill"
Do you see that folks? If Cruz's amendments are passed, then they "effectively address the current problems with this bill." Read it again. Remember. What's still in the bill? Legalization after the border is secure, if his amendments had passed.
This brings me to another strawman: "Cruz's amendment doesn't add legalization!" No, of course it doesn't. Cruz's amendments did all sorts of things, but legalization was in the bill already.
It's also pretty clear here that Cruz was not lying to Democrats in any way. Cruz, just as he said, was making a good faith compromise to get the bill passed. Hence the 500 percent increase in H1B1. Hence the doubling of green cards. If the Democrats had bowed, Cruz would have voted for the bill because it represented, to him, "common sense immigration reform."His amendments would have settled all of his-- and presumably the conservative world's-- issues with the bill.
Mass deportation as a thing to fight for was not an idea. People may have wanted to, but nobody ever raised it as an issue, so far as I can tell, at least from Cruz, at least from Rush, at least from what I can tell from my research of that time period. Just like with the gay marriage debate, slowly but surely, these nefarious things become so mainstream that they are no longer a point of debate. Or, like in the Art of the Deal, you ask for the moon, and thus what to do with Planet Earth just becomes an accepted, undebated thing. That's what legalization had become. A done deal. The only question was, "should they get citizenship?" and "should it be before or after the border is secured?" Rubio's position was that it had to be before the border was secured, because we supposedly "needed to know who was here ASAP, so the number you would grant amnesty to wouldn't get bigger later." Cruz/Lee/Session's was "We need to secure the border so that this is the last amnesty we ever give."
What they were doing-- even Rush Limbaugh-- was trying to find a final solution to illegal immigration, a plan that would stop further illegal immigration into the country once and for all. NOBODY WAS FIGHTING AGAINST LEGALIZATION, in and of itself. As further evidence of this, I started looking for Rush Limbaugh commentary after Breitbart had an article recently where they quoted Rush Limbaugh saying, (going by memory) "Okay, you want immigration reform? 25 years no citizenship for illegals." Breitbart's use of this quote was rather dubious, but it inspired me to go through Rush Limbaugh's archives and to do google searches by years and months for particular terms, and what I discovered was:
Mass deportation was never on Rush Limbaugh's list of priorities during this fight. The entire tenor of Rush's commentary consisted of these several things:
1) That the border would never be secured.
2) That democrats would get 11 million new voters via citizenship.
3) That illegals would abuse welfare and were abusing welfare.
4) I even saw a transcript where Rush talked about the necessity of H1B visas. No mention of expanding it, but certainly not a "Oh, that's a bad program" kind of comment.
Only in one transcript did I find a possible reference to the "find and deport them all" position. In Rush's interview with Marco Rubio, Rush asks him What about enforcing the law as an alternative?
To this, Rubio merely gives a long answer that nowhere makes "finding and deporting them" even something that exists as an idea, but just assumes that "we need a way to get these people to identify and show themselves", which Rush does not challenge. The idea of mass deportation just doesn't seem to be an idea that was in the mind of Rush Limbaugh, and definitely not in Marco Rubio's. If deporting all illegals was in our heads back then, it was not reflected anywhere I could find (but then, it would be impossible for me to check every conservative website or archive from every radio host).
You will notice that all of Rush Limbaugh's concerns-- security, citizenship, H1B expansion (well, Rush didn't explicitly call for expanding it)-- were all addressed by the anti-Gang of Eight team, particulary by Ted Cruz, with the exception of Sessions who tried to remove the H1B expansion.
I think this is demonstrative of something very important:
Ted Cruz rightly believed that this compromise was what conservatives accepted. Granting legal status to illegals after the border is enforced, after welfare is reformed, after all of his amendments become law, just made sense to him and to the country at that time. Maybe folks on FR felt differently about that, or maybe most conservatives didn't realize all the details around that fight. Who knows. But legalization under a particular set of circumstances was not controversial. Even Rush Limbaugh seemed to accept it.
I think this explanation could have vindicated Cruz from all the troubles he's had over the past few days, since his position was clearly better than Rubio's, no question.
The problem, of course, is that Cruz is refusing to own up to that very obvious history. He is claiming he never supported legalization, but it is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he did... which wasn't a big deal. It's OKAY to evolve further to the right from a position even Rush Limbaugh had accepted. But Cruz didn't evolve fast enough. In fact, Cruz never evolved at all. For months he's been trying to have both sides of the issue. It wasn't until the debate that Cruz gave his first ever, clear answer to the question: "Would you oppose legalization of illegals?" To which Cruz replied, "I do not intend to," which, as weak as it is with that word "intend," is the strongest he's ever been.
I think the reason Cruz has decided to deny any association with his own history is because Donald Trump already trumped him on the issue. Cruz doesn't want to be the "me too" candidate, because Trump took that position and owned it as his own. For Cruz, it's easier just to deny it, that way he maintains an aura of "always consistent". He does not trust Conservatives to be smart enough to accept his explanation of what was going on back then, because Trump has so drastically changed what is and isn't acceptable. Cruz also has to not tick off his donors from the Club for Growth and all those other groups, all of whom would love all this cheap labor. So instead of owning up to his past, Cruz is playing a game, hoping that Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart.com, or whatever, can convince you that the debate back then was entirely different. That the debate back then was about both amnesty-- in the sense of a pathway to citizenship-- AND permanent residence, even though, the truth is, legal status for illegal aliens was already accepted by all parties.
That also raises up another issue: the whole Jeff Sessions defense. "Sessions says Cruz stood by him!" Well, that is absolutely true. But if Sessions is trying to say, "Cruz stood by me to bar legalization in all its forms," then it is entirely false, as the evidence clearly shows. Cruz and the other members of the GOP also clearly had ideas of expanding immigration at that time, as you will note in the Lee press release, is described as a "step in the right direction" for fixing our "broken immigration system."
Reading the knee jerk and fact free reactions of folks is amusing. Lucky for me there are no stones, as I might have already been stoned, or tied up and burnt as a witch. Well, I’d whip you all even if there were stones at your disposal :P
Your post is full of establishment lies and propaganda.
Yep, and he could have even wrote a response like mine, demonstrating the history of that fight, and how his views were STILL better than Rubio's. But Cruz doesn't want to do that.
I'd ask you to "be specific," but I've asked folks a thousand times for specifics, and have never had anyone ever challenge me on any specific facts.
Posted this on earlier thread but worth a repost here as it fits.
It’s interesting how Trumpophiles only attempt to tear down their opponents rather than building up their chosen candidate.
I suspect it’s quite difficult to make someone with such a long and distinguished history of liberal positions look appealing to the conservative base.
It’s far easier to tear down the competition with sophomoric spin and disingenuous interpretation of motives then try and justify Trumps support of Kelo, Single payer healthcare, Ethanol subsidies, Planned Parenthood, confiscatory taxes on the rich, opposition of Medicare/Social Security reform and donations to Democrat campaigns/causes.
Can’t blame em I guess.
Here are some inconvenient FACTS for Cruz supporters.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) met his wife, Heidi (née Nelson), while working on the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000. Heidi Cruz is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker for J.P. Morgan. Wikipedia lists Heidi Cruz as an “investment banker†and a “historical member†of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which was launched in October 2004. The Task Force advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a North American region.
Comprised of a group of prominent business, political and academic leaders from the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Task Force was organized and sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (U.S.), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was co-chaired by former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, John Manley, former Finance Minister of Mexico, Pedro Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts and Assistant U.S. Attorney General William F. Weld.
Its main publication is the 70-page Task Force Report #53 entitled, Building a North American Community (May 2005). Heidi Cruz is listed as a member of the Task Force (page 9 of the report in PDF) and described as “an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas†who “served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.â€
You nailed it.
I want to make a note of something:
If you read the thread, you will notice that the replies fall into two classes: 1) replies that are covered in the OP and in the previous thread I posted (the first link pasted into my OP); 2) Those which try to viciously distract from Cruz onto either Trump or his supporters.
The open minded observer should mark the significance of this.
Don’t take this the wrong way as I am a Cruz guy first and Trump guy second. In fact hope both antler on the same ticket. Lets say you are 100% correct. What makes one better than the other. On one hand you may have someone that supported it and has backed away. On the other hand you have a businessman who played both sides his whole career but undoubtedly has been a liberal most of his life.
Neither is 100% clean and neither was Reagan when he granted amnesty. My point is Cruz has been a consistent defender of Conservatism and the constitution with a long proven track record. He is also the closest thing to Reagan we have seen since Reagan himself. I’m putting my money behind Cruz because he truly is a conservative.
Actually the majority of replies are Cruz supporters refuting attacks on their man by Trumpohiles.
Our guy has 100% conservative rating as well so we have alot to crow about. Your guy....not so much.
No one can accuse Cruz supporters of open mindedness. They claim “purity” and demand obedience like the denizens of DU.
Group-think is what DC has become.
Time to be done with attorney politicians, especially those with absolutely no executive experience. How many people has Ted employed? Executive boards built and operated?
None. We’ve had the freshman senator experience, thank you. Not again - the learning curve is too steep for the time we have left.
Well, the statement: "Trump has been a liberal most of his life" is probably something that can be challenged, but which I will not bother to in this thread (as it is not relevant), and, anyway, I'm not in the mood after expelling so much energy in the research for the OP. But there is something I can and should address:
It's not just that Cruz backed away and changed (it's not entirely proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Cruz HAS changed), it's that he's lying about his past.
That's a different dynamic than the one you concede.
So go ahead and vote for Rubio or Jebcito if Cruz is so bad. And it isn’t like Trump is lily white on this and a host of issues. But let’s debate angels on the head of a pin while the country burns.
All of these vanities to try to paint Cruz as weak on immigration (the cynical intent to get Cruz supporters to switch to Trump), are just cynical ploys, and frankly dishonest.
It’s both sickening and sad..
So what do you dislike more, Cruz’s potential prior thoughts (heck, even call it current thoughts) on legal status (we agree, not citizenship, correct?) OR do you dislike more Cruz’s dogged refusal to admit a wrong?
It seems that Trump has the same refusal to admit past wrongs (or current ones— ala making fun of the disabled NYT reporter— how childish and undisciplined.)
And if Cruz wins the nomination, would you vote for him over the Democrat?
Exaclty, but I suspect it will wear thin eventually..
I see it as desperation. Why don’t they laud Trump on his record? He has a record. They know it. The one where he stood with the Clintons you know? This is as you said, cynical ploys, and its intellectual dishonesty. Liars will lose.
I’ll take a Freshman Senator with limited experience but proven constitutional conservative bonafides and brilliant mind over a successful businessman with a long track record of liberal positions and card carry Democrat just a scant 6 years ago.
“No one can accuse Cruz supporters of open mindedness. “
Unlike Trump supporters. Bwahahahahaha.
“Instead he reveals a character flaw.”
I will never vote for Cruz. All his wishy-washiness shows he has no true convictions and will be swayed by his donors or even the GOPe.
After 2014, I would think we’ve all been stabbed in the back enough.
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.