Ted Cruz on immigration: “I oppose legalization… Today, tomorrow, forever.”

posted at 10:01 pm on December 21, 2015 by Allahpundit

A leftover from this weekend that I want to note for archival purposes, in case he wins the nomination and then starts claiming next summer he never said he was absolutely opposed to legalizing illegals in all circumstances. This sounds pretty absolute, no?

Isn’t this the same Ted Cruz who said a month ago that we’ll have a “conversation” about legalizing people once the border is secured?

The Republican presidential candidate’s comments came in the wake of a New York Times report that unearthed a 1999 memo from Cruz urging his then-boss, George W. Bush, to take a more nuanced approach to the immigration debate…

When asked Friday if that memo was a liability in the general election, Cruz was blunt.

“My position is very simple. I oppose amnesty. I oppose citizenship. I oppose legalization … Today, tomorrow, forever. I believe in the rule of law.”

He added: “We can enforce the laws. We can secure our borders. We can keep our country safe. And at the same time, we can continue to welcome and celebrate the legal immigrants who follow the rules and wait in line pursuant to our rules.”

Who’s more responsible for turning Cruz into a strict opponent of legalization, Rubio or Trump? Remarkably for a guy who’s doing his best to pander to Trump’s voters, Cruz kept the door open to legalizing some immigrants for almost this entire year. He didn’t fully close it until he and Rubio clashed at the last debate and the media came sniffing around wanting to know whether Cruz’s 2013 amendment to the Gang of Eight was really a poison pill, as he now claims, or a clever way to give himself a pro-legalization record that he could cite later in a presidential election. If Trump hadn’t run, though, Cruz could have still supported modest legalization (without citizenship) and been comfortably to the right of Rubio. With Trump in the race, he’s got to stay at least as far to the right on amnesty as Mitt Romney was. Which is basically where he is now.

Rubio, incidentally, is going to try to use Cruz’s (apparent) rightward evolution on legalization as part of a larger argument that he’s … a flip-flopper. Ted Cruz, true conservative — or squish?

Rubio broadened his attack by accusing Cruz of flipping on giving President Obama expedited trade-negotiation authority…

Rubio also panned Cruz for reversing himself by voting against $3 billion in cuts to a crop insurance program. Cruz initially voted for the proposed cuts, which were not popular with farms in agricultural states such as Iowa.

“He’s done it on votes on farm issues. In fact he changed his vote on the floor of the Senate,” Rubio said. “If you’re going to attack someone on a policy issue, you need to be clear about where you stand on the issue and where you stood in the past.”…

“When you spend your whole time telling people that you’re a clear talker and you say what you mean and everyone else is a sellout but you’re the only purist, I think it’s fair to say, ‘Well hold on a second, here’s where you’ve been on the past on some issues and here’s where you are now,’” he said.

That’s a clever strategy. For one thing, it changes the subject from Rubio’s much more momentous flip-flop from border hawk circa 2010 to Chuck Schumer buddy in 2013. And it hits Cruz on his biggest strength potentially, that he’s unbending in his devotion to conservative principle. If Rubio can convince undecided righties that that’s a lie and that Cruz is as apt to surprise them as president as Rubio is, then the argument for Cruz over Rubio as nominee starts to disintegrate. If they’re both going to govern mostly conservatively with occasional “evolutions,” why not choose the guy whom most people see as the more electable of the two? I don’t think it’s going to work, especially once Team Cruz goes to work on Rubio with ads about his betrayal on amnesty, but that’s the plan. Interestingly, Rubio’s not the only Republican making the flip-flop attack on Cruz right now either. His unlikely ally is Rand Paul, an archenemy on foreign policy, who’s also coming after Cruz for his 2013 legalization amendment and flip-flopping in general. Paul wants to show tea partiers and border-hawk libertarians that Cruz is more compromised than he is whereas Rubio wants to show undecided righties that Cruz is just as compromised as he is. Their motives are as different as can be but the likely effect, hurting Cruz, is the same. Why Rand would want to do that when Rubio is the likely beneficiary, I don’t know.

Here’s Paul’s new attack ad against Cruz, followed by a 2013 interview rediscovered by Eliana Johnson in which Cruz says, when asked what he’d do with the 11 million illegals already here, “I think there probably could be a compromise on that” so long as citizenship was off the table. I did a Darth Vader-esque “nooooooooo” when I heard that. Does that sound like a man who’s firmly opposed to legalization? Or was opposed, I should say.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That is not what Trump advocated. That is, however, exactly what Cruz and yourself want (ed).

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:22 PM

My position is pass a law first that says, after this specific date (6 months after signed into law) any illegal alien deported will be deported with a lifetime ban on re-entry.
Build the fence, man the fence, stop the border crossing.
Finish the entry and exit program so we can stop visa overstays.
Enforce the current laws.
Make e-verify mandatory, make it effective against current employees.
Deport every last illegal alien in the nation, period, and per above, never allow them back in. Otherwise you are rewarding them for breaking the law and entering the nation illegally.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:35 PM

citizenship, they cannot vote. And, why do the democrats want millions of uneducated criminals to become citizens? You got it.
One poison pill is enough. The one that kills the democrat’s efforts.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:09 PM

Well he didn’t state that, he stated he put in several poison pills.

So Cruz wanted to do everything in his power to kill the bill, but just couldn’t be bothered to vote for Jeff Sessions’ amendment? He even came out after and stated he wanted to increase legal immigration. WHY, if he wanted to kill the bill, vote against that? Unless he didn’t want to have that in the final bill that he wanted to pass.

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM

So, which is it….he didn’t vote for one, voted for another? You guys can’t have it both ways.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:36 PM

Has anyone seen both of them in the same thread at the same time? O_o

fossten on December 21, 2015 at 11:28 PM

I think I did earlier. But they were careful not to address each other. :)

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:37 PM

Well he didn’t state that, he stated he put in several poison pills.

So Cruz wanted to do everything in his power to kill the bill, but just couldn’t be bothered to vote for Jeff Sessions’ amendment? He even came out after and stated he wanted to increase legal immigration. WHY, if he wanted to kill the bill, vote against that? Unless he didn’t want to have that in the final bill that he wanted to pass.

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM

He did not put in any, he proposed several. In the hopes one would get in, which is enough.

Specify the amendment Cruz voted against. Google is not offering it up.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:40 PM

My position is pass a law first that says, after this specific date (6 months after signed into law) any illegal alien deported will be deported with a lifetime ban on re-entry.
Build the fence, man the fence, stop the border crossing.
Finish the entry and exit program so we can stop visa overstays.
Enforce the current laws.
Make e-verify mandatory, make it effective against current employees.
Deport every last illegal alien in the nation, period, and per above, never allow them back in. Otherwise you are rewarding them for breaking the law and entering the nation illegally.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:35 PM

Now you just disagreed with yourself in this very thread. With an aside to chastise conservatives for making him disavow his previous position.

Isn’t this the same Ted Cruz who said a month ago that we’ll have a “conversation” about legalizing people once the border is secured?

Which is the correct position he should have been allowed to keep into the general election to maximize our ability to win the Presidency.
But all too many people desire to ensure that conservatives never wield the levers of power in this nation.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 10:16 PM

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:40 PM

So, which is it….he didn’t vote for one, voted for another? You guys can’t have it both ways.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:36 PM

He’s highlighting how confusing Cruz’ positions are when you try to explain them away by using the poison pill defense.

fossten on December 21, 2015 at 11:40 PM

Specify the amendment Cruz voted against. Google is not offering it up.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:40 PM

You first, specify the quote where Cruz said ‘poison pill’ before this month.

fossten on December 21, 2015 at 11:42 PM

Since Trump is here pulling all the mealy-mouthed cowards to the right, what’s depressing? You should be thankful and happy. :)

Anti-ControI on December 21, 2015 at 11:24 PM

I sort of am. It’s just that the entire professional politician field was weak on it. Relying on sheer chance that a wild-card outsider who could easily have gotten bored and left at any minute, like before, is the depressing part.

Dongemaharu on December 21, 2015 at 11:45 PM

My position is pass a law first that says, after this specific date (6 months after signed into law) any illegal alien deported will be deported with a lifetime ban on re-entry.
Build the fence, man the fence, stop the border crossing.
Finish the entry and exit program so we can stop visa overstays.
Enforce the current laws.
Make e-verify mandatory, make it effective against current employees.
Deport every last illegal alien in the nation, period, and per above, never allow them back in. Otherwise you are rewarding them for breaking the law and entering the nation illegally.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:35 PM

Now you just disagreed with yourself in this very thread. With an aside to chastise conservatives for making him disavow his previous position.

Isn’t this the same Ted Cruz who said a month ago that we’ll have a “conversation” about legalizing people once the border is secured?

Which is the correct position he should have been allowed to keep into the general election to maximize our ability to win the Presidency.
But all too many people desire to ensure that conservatives never wield the levers of power in this nation.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 10:16 PM

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:40 PM

No, I did not.
I stated the second quote, which is the first chronologically, as an election position to maximize votes for Cruz in the General.
The first quote, chronologically more recent, is my PERSONAL position.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:46 PM

So, which is it….he didn’t vote for one, voted for another? You guys can’t have it both ways.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:36 PM

He’s highlighting how confusing Cruz’ positions are when you try to explain them away by using the poison pill defense.

fossten on December 21, 2015 at 11:40 PM

Well, that’s all fine and good, but for the money, not allowing the democrats to give citizenship for votes was just fine. Sure, we know that Schumer would break his leg trying to run to the microphone to scream about second class citizens and such, so, that is why THAT poison pill was so important.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:46 PM

So, which is it….he didn’t vote for one, voted for another? You guys can’t have it both ways.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:36 PM

Are you being intentionally dumb? It was an amendment proposed by Sessions, that Cruz didn’t support, to kill a bill that Cruz stated he wanted to kill. He didn’t vote for the amendment in the committee, made a big stink about his opposition of it to the press, and voted for legal status for illegal aliens, sans citizenship (for about two seconds after signing). If he wanted to kill the bill, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to vote AGAINST a poison pill. Unless he believed his amendment would pass and he didn’t want Sessions amendment in the final bill.

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM

You first, specify the quote where Cruz said ‘poison pill’ before this month.

fossten on December 21, 2015 at 11:42 PM

I never said he did. Disingenuous are you? I guess that amendment is not actually damaging, only the argument it allows you to make and allow others to imagine.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:48 PM

If he wanted to kill the bill, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to vote AGAINST a poison pill. Unless he believed his amendment would pass and he didn’t want Sessions amendment in the final bill.

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM

Always depends on the amendment and whether voting for it damages his credibility to the point he cannot sell at all his poison pill amendments in the future.
So name the amendment so I can read it to see which it is. My guess is it is quite the amendment.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:50 PM

No, I did not.
I stated the second quote, which is the first chronologically, as an election position to maximize votes for Cruz in the General.
The first quote, chronologically more recent, is my PERSONAL position.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:46 PM

That’s rich, we are talking about chronological order from a person using quotes repeatedly from July, twisting their meaning, smearing it all over Hot Air, and stating that it is his current position sans conditions he laid out.

And secondly, you stated that Ted Cruz’s position on legal status for illegal aliens, that until this month he favored, was the CORRECT one.

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:54 PM

I never said he did. Disingenuous are you? I guess that amendment is not actually damaging, only the argument it allows you to make and allow others to imagine.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:48 PM

Ah, so you agree that Cruz’ original intent was to support the legalization included in his amendment.

Thanks for that.

fossten on December 21, 2015 at 11:57 PM

Well, that’s all fine and good, but for the money, not allowing the democrats to give citizenship for votes was just fine. Sure, we know that Schumer would break his leg trying to run to the microphone to scream about second class citizens and such, so, that is why THAT poison pill was so important.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:46 PM

He risked Schumer calling his bluff and passing the legal status and doing exactly what you said, shortly before the courts give them citizenship.

Again, he wanted to kill the bill, then why did he pick and choose which poison pills he was going to support?

It sounds like he was giving a half ass effort then. So which is it? Was he lazy or in support of legal status?

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:57 PM

Always depends on the amendment and whether voting for it damages his credibility to the point he cannot sell at all his poison pill amendments in the future.
So name the amendment so I can read it to see which it is. My guess is it is quite the amendment.

Constitutionalist on December 21, 2015 at 11:50 PM

I have listed it many times on this site to see what Cruz diehards thought on the matter, and the only guy I got to bite was HornetSting, an admitted Trump/Cruz neutral. You have yet to post links to anything you have stated in your arguments, I have had to find the original stories on my own.

Time to exercise that civic duty of yours and search this site.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:00 AM

It is amazing how double sided the Trumpers are on things.

Trump changes his immigration position pretty regularly, has all through the last 18 years. From profiting from hiring illegals (whether specifically known or not does not matter, his companies did hire and use them), to using the H1B and H2B visas to cut his costs at his businesses. His spending hundreds of thousands of dollars ostensibly bribing politicians for his benefit, to being pro amnesty at one time to then arguing 100% deportation only to move to touchback amnesty, then to session’s written policy, but still continues to argue bring them back, and no duh, of course you bring them back legally, but that is still amnesty. Just like passing a law today to just deem them legal does it LEGALLY is still AMNESTY. This man is trustable on immigration.

But Cruz, who is impeccable on Conservatism, is supposed to have argued that his amendments were poison pills, when they obviously were as such, a long time ago, which cuts his ability to continue to help block liberal bills with poison pills. Because otherwise, he is not trustable. In the view of the trumpettes, conservatives must throw away their negotiating power in order to be trustable enough to support. It is a catch 22 that is unbelievable. If they have no leverage to block liberalism and enact conservatism, then they should not be voted for, but if they retain their ability to block liberalism or enact conservatism then they are trustable enough to support.

Trump can do or say anything. No matter how big a change it is, he is trustable, today, tomorrow, forever.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:01 AM

I have listed it many times on this site to see what Cruz diehards thought on the matter, and the only guy I got to bite was HornetSting, an admitted Trump/Cruz neutral. You have yet to post links to anything you have stated in your arguments, I have had to find the original stories on my own.

Time to exercise that civic duty of yours and search this site.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:00 AM

I do not post links. But I do post enough text that they come up in google reliably. But I have searched for gang of 8 bill sessions amendment cruz voted against and about 20 various similar searches and it does not come up.
Can you point to a singular case where my text did not come up with a google hit at or near the top of the list? I doubt it.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:03 AM

Ah, so you agree that Cruz’ original intent was to support the legalization included in his amendment.

Thanks for that.

fossten on December 21, 2015 at 11:57 PM

Not at all. I am saying that the vote against the amendment will show that Cruz is being honest that he was working to enact poison pills.

My guess is that it was so anti legalization that if Cruz voted for it, it would give his deceit for saying he supported his amendments away. Thus, removing his negotiating position completely.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:05 AM

It is amazing how double sided the Trumpers are on things.

It’s amazing how you still peddle this crap.

Trump changes his immigration position pretty regularly, has all through the last 18 years. From profiting from hiring illegals (whether specifically known or not does not matter, his companies did hire and use them), to using the H1B and H2B visas to cut his costs at his businesses.

Huh, I didn’t know that Trump has been running for president for 18 years. He was using our corrupt system to his benefit.

Please don’t tell me that you don’t try to get every exemption and benefit on your taxes? Because then you would demonstrate how much of a liar you are.

His spending hundreds of thousands of dollars ostensibly bribing politicians for his benefit,

I know right! Lets attack all the businessmen bribing the pure little angels in office. The government would have been running just fine if these EEEEEEVIIIIIL businessmen didn’t FORCE them to accept bribes!!!!

to being pro amnesty at one time to then arguing 100% deportation only to move to touchback amnesty,

So many lies, so little time.

then to session’s written policy, but still continues to argue bring them back, and no duh, of course you bring them back legally, but that is still amnesty.

No its not. Someone really needs to hit you with a very large cluebat.

Just like passing a law today to just deem them legal does it LEGALLY is still AMNESTY. This man is trustable on immigration.

Nope, using existing law. You don’t have to pass a single new law to make the system work.

But Cruz, who is impeccable on Conservatism,

There you go again with your “pure” nonsense.

is supposed to have argued that his amendments were poison pills, when they obviously were as such, a long time ago, which cuts his ability to continue to help block liberal bills with poison pills.

Except for the amendments that he voted against, because when Cruz votes against something that was obvious even then as a poison pill, it was not a poison pill because the “pure” conservative said so.

Because otherwise, he is not trustable. In the view of the trumpettes, conservatives must throw away their negotiating power in order to be trustable enough to support.

You are deranged. You don’t start negotiations by giving the other side 75% of what they want.

It is a catch 22 that is unbelievable. If they have no leverage to block liberalism and enact conservatism, then they should not be voted for, but if they retain their ability to block liberalism or enact conservatism then they are trustable enough to support.

You don’t have to jump through hoops there. Simply VOTE NO on the bill. There is no need to do Machiavellian nonsense.

Trump can do or say anything. No matter how big a change it is, he is trustable, today, tomorrow, forever.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:01 AM

Stop the temper tantrums.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:11 AM

I do not post links. But I do post enough text that they come up in google reliably. But I have searched for gang of 8 bill sessions amendment cruz voted against and about 20 various similar searches and it does not come up.
Can you point to a singular case where my text did not come up with a google hit at or near the top of the list? I doubt it.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:03 AM

I know the exact quote that will give you the answer. But I do not post links.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:12 AM

Not at all. I am saying that the vote against the amendment will show that Cruz is being honest that he was working to enact poison pills.

My guess is that it was so anti legalization that if Cruz voted for it, it would give his deceit for saying he supported his amendments away. Thus, removing his negotiating position completely.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:05 AM

LOL.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:12 AM

So, which is it….he didn’t vote for one, voted for another? You guys can’t have it both ways.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:36 PM

Are you being intentionally dumb? It was an amendment proposed by Sessions, that Cruz didn’t support, to kill a bill that Cruz stated he wanted to kill. He didn’t vote for the amendment in the committee, made a big stink about his opposition of it to the press, and voted for legal status for illegal aliens, sans citizenship (for about two seconds after signing). If he wanted to kill the bill, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to vote AGAINST a poison pill. Unless he believed his amendment would pass and he didn’t want Sessions amendment in the final bill.

NWConservative on December 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM

Oh my, you’re gonna win me over to your side with that one. I didn’t want to bring this up, but since you are so worried about Cruz and his work to stop the gang of eight, shall we revisit Donald Trump’s past stance on illegal immigration, say, back in 2012 and his remarks about Romney, the donkey.
I’m sure you can google it, genius.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 12:16 AM

Huh, I didn’t know that Trump has been running for president for 18 years. He was using our corrupt system to his benefit.

Please don’t tell me that you don’t try to get every exemption and benefit on your taxes? Because then you would demonstrate how much of a liar you are.

Corrupt in life, corrupt in office.
I do not try to bribe politicians to add more exemptions for me. I ask politicians to create a pure level playing field to allow the market and individual ability to decide our fates.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:11 AM

So, your argument for the Gang of 8 bill was to sit down and not slow it down as much as possible. To not highlights its flaws to get grassroots anger built up enough to dissuade politicians from voting for it. Your argument is to allow them to quickly bring it up for a vote and simply vote no on it, so it can quickly be moved to the other chamber of congress, in this case, the house of representatives, where Boehner was clear on his intentions to bring it to a vote and allow the democrats to carry most of the weight of passage.
Is this my correct reading of what you just said? Because that really seems to be what you just said.
I do not know about you, but I send my representatives to congress to enact what I want enacted, or at the very least to slow down or stop that which I want stopped. I expect them to factually be persuasive in changing other representatives positions or at least effective in slowing down the process.
Cruz is both. That is why they hate him. He knows the rules well enough to gum up the works to allow us citizens time to burn the phone lines down. And he knows how to bring facts to forefront to cause some people close to the line to move towards the conservative vote.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:25 AM

Oh my, you’re gonna win me over to your side with that one.

I don’t know how I could have made it any clearer to you.

Well he didn’t state that, he stated he put in several poison pills.

So Cruz wanted to do everything in his power to kill the bill, but just couldn’t be bothered to vote for Jeff Sessions’ amendment? He even came out after and stated he wanted to increase legal immigration. WHY, if he wanted to kill the bill, vote against that? Unless he didn’t want to have that in the final bill that he wanted to pass.

I said that because IF Cruz wanted to really kill the bill, he would have voted for every amendment designed to kill it.

I didn’t want to bring this up, but since you are so worried about Cruz and his work to stop the gang of eight, shall we revisit Donald Trump’s past stance on illegal immigration, say, back in 2012 and his remarks about Romney, the donkey.
I’m sure you can google it, genius.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 12:16 AM

Yep. That same time when everyone was amnesty crazy. The one quote. LOL.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:33 AM

Was trump for Amnesty?

He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal,” Trump said. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote … He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants,” Trump told Newsmax. “But what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it.”

“For people that have been here for years that have been hard-workers, have good jobs, they’re supporting their family — it’s very, very tough to just say, ‘By the way, 22 years, you have to leave. Get out,'” he said during an appearance on Fox News. “I’m one of the world’s very conservative people, but I have to tell you on a human basis, how do you throw somebody out that’s lived in this country for 20 years.”

Appears to be yes, yes he was for amnesty. And he still is for amnesty. But for a moment, he blazed a nice trail with his quickly abandoned call for every illegal alien to be deported statement. At least you have that to cling to. Trump did not cling to it, but his trumpettes are clinging to it.
I did not see anywhere in his policy paper where he deports every illegal alien. Anyone wants to show me where I missed it. I am willing to look it over.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:34 AM

Yep. That same time when everyone was amnesty crazy. The one quote. LOL.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:33 AM

Was he pro amnesty or not in 2012? Answer, yes. He was. So he cannot be trusted according to you arguments. But you cling to him…

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:36 AM

Was he pro amnesty or not in 2012? Answer, yes. He was. So he cannot be trusted according to you arguments. But you cling to him…

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:36 AM

NO. Again you misrepresent the arguments. I have stated repeatedly my problem was not that Cruz supported legal status, it was that he LIED about it.

And yet you cling to a verified liar.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:44 AM

NO. Again you misrepresent the arguments. I have stated repeatedly my problem was not that Cruz supported legal status, it was that he LIED about it.

And yet you cling to a verified liar.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:44 AM

Evidence in the record argues otherwise.
You still have not pulled up the quote where he specifically stated in his amendment that it was to make illegals legals.
It does not exist. You bank on subterfuge. His bill simply stripped citizenship from the bill. The legalization was already in the bill, and without the citizenship, the democrats are ON THE RECORD saying they would not pass the bill.
Hence, no evidence he was for amnesty.

There is evidence that Trump was for Amnesty.

Lots and lots of it.

“to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.
Here talking about illegal aliens…
Our legal immigration has no problem churning out citizens.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:49 AM

Appears to be yes, yes he was for amnesty.

And he changed his mind.

And he still is for amnesty.

Your definition of amnesty included every legal immigrant.

But for a moment, he blazed a nice trail with his quickly abandoned call for every illegal alien to be deported statement.

Which you have no evidence of other than your opinion.

At least you have that to cling to. Trump did not cling to it, but his trumpettes are clinging to it.

Yes keep clinging to a “pure” conservative who will lie about his past support.

I did not see anywhere in his policy paper where he deports every illegal alien. Anyone wants to show me where I missed it. I am willing to look it over.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:34 AM

It is under the part that states enforce existing law, and it matches what he says. Unlike Cruz who decided not to speak about deportation at all, unless it was for convicted criminals.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:50 AM

And yet you cling to a verified liar.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:44 AM

I will accept that Ted Cruz lied. He did so to do my bidding in Congress and thwart amnesty. He played a role that was not who he was in order to sell a poison pill to an evil which should not happen. Due to his efforts and the time that his efforts gave the American people, we do not live in a nation that has just created 10 million or more residents on a path to citizenship and the right to vote, which they do at a rate of 84% democrat to 13% Republican.

You have already stated that you would prefer amnesty to already be the law of the land rather than to fight it with any tool available. If you do not like a bill, just vote no you said.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:54 AM

I sort of am. It’s just that the entire professional politician field was weak on it. Relying on sheer chance that a wild-card outsider who could easily have gotten bored and left at any minute, like before, is the depressing part.

Dongemaharu on December 21, 2015 at 11:45 PM

Again, Trump is here, pulling weaklings to the right, so why does it really matter how we got to this point?

Getting emotional about that which is purely nonexistent/imaginary is not a healthy/satisfying way to go through life! :D

Anti-ControI on December 22, 2015 at 12:56 AM

Evidence in the record argues otherwise.

What evidence? He outright lied. I’m sorry you live in an alternate reality as a result of your cognitive dissonance.

You still have not pulled up the quote where he specifically stated in his amendment that it was to make illegals legals.

Remember? We don’t post links.

It does not exist.

It does.

You bank on subterfuge.

You bank on people believing your twisted logic.

His bill simply stripped citizenship from the bill. The legalization was already in the bill, and without the citizenship, the democrats are ON THE RECORD saying they would not pass the bill.
Hence, no evidence he was for amnesty.

Except his own words.

There is evidence that Trump was for Amnesty.

One interview, that everyone and their mother knows about.

Lots and lots of it.

And you lie again.

“to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.
Here talking about illegal aliens…
Our legal immigration has no problem churning out citizens.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:49 AM

Deport them and they can try to reapply to come back legally with form I-212. That’s the law, and it is completely delusional that you think that the existing law is amnesty, but believe that Cruz supporting legal status, the CORRECT view as you state it,is not.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:57 AM

I didn’t want to bring this up, but since you are so worried about Cruz and his work to stop the gang of eight, shall we revisit Donald Trump’s past stance on illegal immigration, say, back in 2012 and his remarks about Romney, the donkey.
I’m sure you can google it, genius.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 12:16 AM

Yep. That same time when everyone was amnesty crazy. The one quote. LOL.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:33 AM

See how that works.

BTW, illegal aliens who border jumped and circumvented our sovereignty should never be allowed to apply for citizenship. I don’t care if they go back and wait in line. They should never be allowed that special privilege.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 1:01 AM

I will accept that Ted Cruz lied.

Wow, it took you almost three hours to get to this SIMPLE POINT.

He did so to do my bidding in Congress and thwart amnesty. He played a role that was not who he was in order to sell a poison pill to an evil which should not happen.

Except that he wanted to do that poison pill but not others, it is contorted, contrived logic. How do I know that he isn’t lying now, now that he has been so thoroughly exposed? How do I trust him when he lied to everyone in 2013 and lied again about it in 2015. How do I trust him when he votes for the TPA to enable the TPP? And then tells us we are all idiots for questioning him. How do I trust him when he worked with and donated to the NRSC and refused to campaign for insurgent conservatives in 2014? Especially when that very NRSC was responsible for a smear campaign against McDaniel in Mississippi? Especially when he campaigns against that very organization?

Due to his efforts

His efforts amounted to nothing, the bill passed the Senate.

and the time that his efforts gave the American people,

The House didn’t pick it up, that was the time given to the American people.

we do not live in a nation that has just created 10 million or more residents on a path to citizenship and the right to vote, which they do at a rate of 84% democrat to 13% Republican.

But legal status was the CORRECT choice though.

You have already stated that you would prefer amnesty to already be the law of the land rather than to fight it with any tool available. If you do not like a bill, just vote no you said.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:54 AM

You are a lying hack. You have already admitted that you support amnesty. Any hard-line stance you take is just rhetorical nonsense.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:06 AM

Deport them and they can try to reapply to come back legally with form I-212. That’s the law, and it is completely delusional that you think that the existing law is amnesty, but believe that Cruz supporting legal status, the CORRECT view as you state it,is not.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 12:57 AM

So, you think a president arguing to his underlings that they should quickly approve those I-212 is not an amnesty? It is not short circuiting the intent of the law?
Cruz never supported legal status. He supported poisoning the well of legal status. Big difference. He campaigned against amnesty, including legalization, and he has kept to his word.
You act like child that is ignorant of almost everything in the world and are easily taken advantage of by ever nefarious person on the street. Incapable of understanding how people manipulate events to their advantage. like your parents never taught you how to watch out for these people.
Jeff Sessions says he was working to kill the entire bill. Jeff Sessions is trusted by Trump on immigration, enough so Trump allowed him to write his very own immigration policy paper. Enough so that Trump is happy to have Jeff Session’s on stage with him to absorb some of Jeff’s immigration policy good will from the people. Funny how you do not trust your very own candidate here.
I fully trust Cruz. He has a track record second to none in the senate on conservatism, all of conservatism.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 1:07 AM

See how that works.

I don’t hold Trump 2012 in the same category as Cruz. Trump as a private citizen, could say and be as inconsistent as he liked because he wasn’t running for office on a platform. We elected Ted Cruz to be a Senator, I hold him to a higher standard because HE ASKED FOR IT by running to be a politician and with his history HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

BTW, illegal aliens who border jumped and circumvented our sovereignty should never be allowed to apply for citizenship. I don’t care if they go back and wait in line. They should never be allowed that special privilege.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 1:01 AM

I agree. And that is where Cruz and Trump agree in everything that I have seen.

I don’t think that any person who is deported as an illegal alien should ever be allowed back in ever.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:11 AM

You are a lying hack. You have already admitted that you support amnesty. Any hard-line stance you take is just rhetorical nonsense.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:06 AM

Nope, I support no amnesty at all. My record is clear as far back as you can trace my position. But you, you say that the Republicans should have rolled over and just simply voted no on the Gang of 8 bill and let it head on over to the House of Representatives for a quick debate, no amendments (John Boehner’s way) and a vote to pass it and send it to Obama.
Your words, just “vote no”.
And no, it was not taken up in the House because by the time the bill made it to the House, we the people had burned the Phone lines down. But it lingered there waiting for a moment to put it through that did not come. Because Cruz and many others kept the pressure up against the bill. Until finally Cantor was ousted in a primary and leadership understood that passing amnesty would see the lot of them thrown out of office.
That all fits Cruz’s statements. People I trust trust Cruz on this subject. People who hate Cruz still give him credit for helping defeat the bill.

Nov. 8, 2012 – In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) says: “It’s an important issue that I think ought to be dealt with. This issue has been around far too long. While I believe it’s important for us to secure our borders and to enforce our laws, I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”


..
.

April 26, 2013 – The Senate “Gang of Eight” formally introduces Senate Bill S. 744, an 844-page comprehensive immigration bill. Opponents hatch plans to try to kill it by dragging out the process with amendments and debate.

June 27, 2013 – The Senate votes 68-32 to approve the immigration bill, with 14 Republicans joining all the chamber’s Democrats to support the legislation. It had grown to 1,200 pages thanks to amendments adding stronger border security measures and new work visas for high- and low-skilled workers. Among the requirements: 20,000 more border agents, 700 miles of fence along the border with Mexico, and $3.2 billion in technology upgrades for border patrol.


..
.

June 10, 2014 – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) suffers a shocking upset in his primary, a loss that many advocates believes spoils hopes among immigration advocates that the House leadership would pursue immigration after GOP members are safely through their primary elections.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 1:20 AM

See how that works.

I don’t hold Trump 2012 in the same category as Cruz. Trump as a private citizen, could say and be as inconsistent as he liked because he wasn’t running for office on a platform. We elected Ted Cruz to be a Senator, I hold him to a higher standard because HE ASKED FOR IT by running to be a politician and with his history HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

BTW, illegal aliens who border jumped and circumvented our sovereignty should never be allowed to apply for citizenship. I don’t care if they go back and wait in line. They should never be allowed that special privilege.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 1:01 AM

I agree. And that is where Cruz and Trump agree in everything that I have seen.

I don’t think that any person who is deported as an illegal alien should ever be allowed back in ever.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:11 AM

So, in other words, he can say whatever he wants and you won’t hold him to it. Am I getting that right? Your slip is slowing, NWCon, but that’s okay. I got you and you know it. Trump was worse on immigration than some stupid amendment not amendment….but, they are both on it now and I will support any one of these two men. They get it. Immigration is the battle that we have to win or it destroys everything from our national security to our education system. We agree more than we disagree, NWCon. Immigration is the one stance that will make or break a candidate for me. And, we are talking about it because of TRUMP. I will never forget that.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM

So, you think a president arguing to his underlings that they should quickly approve those I-212 is not an amnesty? It is not short circuiting the intent of the law?

It is not amnesty because again, they are asking to come in legally by applying for a waiver. And it is not a short circuit of the law when it is written INTO THE LAW ITSELF.

Trump has already stated that some could be allowed back in, which I’m assuming, is using this method. And that is after they are determined to not be needing welfare and that they are actually needed in this country. Again that is in his statements and plans. Doctors, students in the STEM schools, etc.

Cruz never supported legal status.

He did. Read his many, many statement to the fact.

He supported poisoning the well of legal status.

He didn’t state that until this month. You have presented nothing to discredit this.

Big difference. He campaigned against amnesty, including legalization, and he has kept to his word.

Wrong, he campaigned for legalization as an alternative to citizenship. And he lied about it.

You act like child

Funny, children make believe like you do.

that is ignorant of almost everything in the world and are easily taken advantage of by ever nefarious person on the street. Incapable of understanding how people manipulate events to their advantage. like your parents never taught you how to watch out for these people.

Yes, Cruz seems to have reeled you right in.

Jeff Sessions says he was working to kill the entire bill.

He was.

Jeff Sessions is trusted by Trump on immigration, enough so Trump allowed him to write his very own immigration policy paper. Enough so that Trump is happy to have Jeff Session’s on stage with him to absorb some of Jeff’s immigration policy good will from the people. Funny how you do not trust your very own candidate here.

Where did you pull that out of? Jeff Sessions is not infallible. And I definitely believe he was trying to kill the bill. Cruz was just trying to legalize illegal aliens. He said so himself and said nothing until the other lying weasel Rubio pinned him on it.

And instead of telling the truth, he decided that he would create a lie in a lie.

I fully trust Cruz. He has a track record second to none in the senate on conservatism, all of conservatism.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 1:07 AM

^^^^ Do you even read what you type?

You act like child that is ignorant of almost everything in the world and are easily taken advantage of by ever nefarious person on the street. Incapable of understanding how people manipulate events to their advantage. like your parents never taught you how to watch out for these people.

Again:

How do I know that he isn’t lying now, now that he has been so thoroughly exposed? How do I trust him when he lied to everyone in 2013 and lied again about it in 2015. How do I trust him when he votes for the TPA to enable the TPP? And then tells us we are all idiots for questioning him. How do I trust him when he worked with and donated to the NRSC and refused to campaign for insurgent conservatives in 2014? Especially when that very NRSC was responsible for a smear campaign against McDaniel in Mississippi? Especially when he campaigns against that very organization?

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM

Nope, I support no amnesty at all. My record is clear as far back as you can trace my position. But you, you say that the Republicans should have rolled over and just simply voted no on the Gang of 8 bill and let it head on over to the House of Representatives for a quick debate, no amendments (John Boehner’s way) and a vote to pass it and send it to Obama.
Your words, just “vote no”.

Holy cow that is a lot of ASSumptions.
How would that happen if the Republicans voted no? They do have a majority in the house and that is why it was tabled for so long. And then Eric Cantor’s loss defeated the house version.

And no, it was not taken up in the House because by the time the bill made it to the House, we the people had burned the Phone lines down. But it lingered there waiting for a moment to put it through that did not come. Because Cruz and many others kept the pressure up against the bill. Until finally Cantor was ousted in a primary and leadership understood that passing amnesty would see the lot of them thrown out of office.

Huh. I didn’t see Cruz in all of that happening in Eric Cantor’s district. Maybe it was because he was busy not helping these guys out since he pledged to only help incumbents.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 1:20 AM

I don’t need to see your edited version of history thanks.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:35 AM

So, in other words, he can say whatever he wants and you won’t hold him to it.

And where did you get that bud? If he said what he said as a private citizen in 2012 now, while running for president, he loses my vote and a significant number of his other supporters.

Am I getting that right?

Nope.

Your slip is slowing, NWCon, but that’s okay. I got you and you know it. Trump was worse on immigration than some stupid amendment not amendment

WHAAAT???!

I didn’t know that Senator Trump was on the Senate floor in 2012 and 2013 making those comments!?

….but, they are both on it now and I will support any one of these two men. They get it.

And again, you really don’t have a qualm from me about that. HOWEVER, I don’t like people who insult my intelligence by thinking that, while running for president, that they can tell me they never ever supporting legal status.

Immigration is the battle that we have to win or it destroys everything from our national security to our education system. We agree more than we disagree, NWCon. Immigration is the one stance that will make or break a candidate for me. And, we are talking about it because of TRUMP. I will never forget that.

HornetSting on December 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM

Trump is the reason this issue is being discussed at all. And Ted Cruz has made some really serious blunders on trade too. The TPP will hand over our immigration system to an unelected board. And he voted to make it easier to pass it, all the while telling people who disagreed with him that they were crazy, a la Nancy Pelosi.

I don’t want someone who’s first instincts are globalist positions. Trump, despite all his flaws, almost always comes at a problem with an America first viewpoint.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:43 AM

I don’t hold Trump 2012 in the same category as Cruz. Trump as a private citizen, could say and be as inconsistent as he liked because he wasn’t running for office on a platform.
NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 1:11 AM

Yeah, I am the one reeled in here by a campaigner.
Your logic is impeccable. The person who changes positions based upon which part of the bed he wakes up on and the exact second on the clock when he wakes up is the person that can be trusted, because he was not in politics. Yet while running for president and therefor IN POLITICS he continues to change his position, well, he is not elected and never swore an oath to the constitution, so he is totally trustable, even though he always changes his position. That is the guy to trust after the election.

I think between the two of us, we have cleared enough up.
I am logical and capable of understanding the workings of government.
You are illogical and incapable of understanding the workings of government.
I trust Cruz far more than Trump.
You trust the entertainer Trump regardless of facts because he never swore an oath of office so all his lies are off your record and have an unbelievably negative opinion of Cruz because in your view a politician cannot use subterfuge to do the will of their constituents.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 1:44 AM

Yeah, I am the one reeled in here by a campaigner.

You said it.

Your logic is impeccable.

Thanks.

The person who changes positions based upon which part of the bed he wakes up on and the exact second on the clock when he wakes up is the person that can be trusted, because he was not in politics.

I don’t expect a private citizen to be brushing up on the nuclear triad. I expect Cruz, as SENATOR, to act with integrity and know better. So yes, there is a double standard. Now that they are both running for president, I hold them both to the same standard. But you will never convince me that I should take some Trump gaffe in 2012 as a television personality as seriously as Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate campaigning for legal status for illegal aliens.

Yet while running for president and therefor IN POLITICS he continues to change his position, well, he is not elected and never swore an oath to the constitution, so he is totally trustable, even though he always changes his position. That is the guy to trust after the election.

Interesting, I clearly remember stating and seeing several others stating that you are making things up.

And it is also interesting that you bring up swearing an oath to the Constitution.
Article II Section II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

So was Ted Cruz defending the Constitution when he decided to make the Iran treaty passable with 34 votes?

So was Ted Cruz defending the Constitution when he decided to make the TPP passable with 51 votes?

I think between the two of us, we have cleared enough up.
I am logical and capable of understanding the workings of government.
You are illogical and incapable of understanding the workings of government.

No we have established you are the king of straw men, red herring, and slippery slope arguments.

I trust Cruz far more than Trump.

Oh, so we’ve moved from completely trusting him to trusting him more than Trump.

How about you don’t trust either?

You trust the entertainer Trump regardless of facts

I don’t trust him I am voting for his platform. If he doesn’t follow through then I will vote against him. It is simple, no trust involved there.

because he never swore an oath of office so all his lies are off your record

Wait, so now we moved from him supporting amnesty to him being a liar? Wow, you are getting desperate to take Cruz’s lie off the table.

and have an unbelievably negative opinion of Cruz because in your view a politician cannot use subterfuge to do the will of their constituents.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 1:44 AM

A politician doesn’t make repeated statements in support of legal status and offers amendments not removing legal status and then blatently lie about it and expect me to have a positive opinion about them on this issue. And this is one of my most important issues with trade a close second.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 2:00 AM

And with that I will have to resume this in the morning, I have to work to pay for illegal alien’s welfare tomorrow.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 2:02 AM

And it hits Cruz on his biggest strength potentially, that he’s unbending in his devotion to conservative principle. If Rubio can convince undecided righties that that’s a lie and that Cruz is as apt to surprise them as president as Rubio is, then the argument for Cruz over Rubio as nominee starts to disintegrate. If they’re both going to govern mostly conservatively with occasional “evolutions,” why not choose the guy whom most people see as the more electable of the two?

All candidates surprise us, just as most Supreme Court Justices do, when the rubber hits the road in the Oval Office (just to mangle a metaphor).

The conundrum is, who are you going to trust to bend less than someone else on the issues that matter to you most?

I trust no one any longer, but you have to elect someone — so you just do your best with the evidence and gut feeling that you have.

AesopFan on December 22, 2015 at 2:02 AM

We’re well into the phase of the news being driven by candidates attempting to demonize other candidates.

I’ve never had a problem with legal immigration, so I don’t know why I should be expected to be upset that Cruz is focused on illegal immigration instead.

We can debate where to set the legal immigration standards all day. The problem we have is the complete subversion of everything agreed upon to allow illegal aliens to just enter the country and ignore the law, taking jobs they are supposed to be unauthorized to have, and drawing welfare benefits not legally permitted to them, and in many cases stealing identities in order to claim those benefits.

Close the breaches and enforce the law, and the rest will clear up shortly.

Note that most of the criticism aimed at Cruz is coming from either a) the people who have no intention of enforcing anything, like Rubio, Jeb, and all the Democrats and b) the people making pledges they almost certainly have no intention of keeping. Trump, for example, has made at least as much noise about eventually legalizing illegal aliens as Cruz ever has.

With any politician, there is always the question of whether or not he will ultimately keep his promises. Trump, for example, has not always been as anti-immigration as he has lately, which has to raise the question of how sincerely he will keep to his current position if elected. For all that people keep seizing on every conceivable inconsistency in Cruz’s statements up to now, he’s at least always kept a consistent position that it’s illegal immigration that needs to be fixed. If the government will at least follow the law and immigration policy it sets, then any proposal to expand legal immigration will have to be approved by Congress and the president against significant public opposition. It’s the refusal to enforce the law that allows illegal aliens to flood in regardless of what the people of the country actually want.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 22, 2015 at 2:10 AM

Ted Cruz- Another example of why lawyers get a bad rap.

redware on December 22, 2015 at 4:03 AM

Buhbye Teddy. If we wanted an Amnesty shill we could vote for Rand or Rubio. This is why you open borders guys can’t pick up steam.

Brock Robamney on December 22, 2015 at 5:05 AM

reason this is hurting Ted instead of Trump about the flip flop, is Ted a pol and after Omni nobody trust them anymore. I vote for Ted if he gets the nom but Ted is reminding ppl of a typical politician.

djohn669 on December 22, 2015 at 5:24 AM

Why the hell is Rand Paul running ads against Cruz anyway? He has got about as much a shot at the nomination now as Bob Dole does. Plus, there’s probably not a lot of overlap between Cruz voters and Paul voters, so hurting Cruz doesn’t gain him anything. Something mighty fishy about this.

Lamont Cranston on December 22, 2015 at 7:06 AM

And using that phrase “Today, tomorrow, forever” is politically tone deaf. That’s just begging some amnesty group to make an ad juxtaposing Cruz and George Wallace.

Lamont Cranston on December 22, 2015 at 7:12 AM

Ed Morrissey Retweeted
Chris Cillizza [email protected] 6m6 minutes ago

Trump 28, Cruz 24, Rubio 12, Carson 10 in new Q poll. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2311

Bmore on December 22, 2015 at 7:39 AM

And using that phrase “[Now], tomorrow, forever” is politically tone deaf. That’s just begging some amnesty group to make an ad juxtaposing Cruz and George Wallace.

Lamont Cranston on December 22, 2015 at 7:12 AM

That was my first thought as well. Tricola do usually make for strong rhetoric, but maybe he just spaced the source for this particular one.

Tzetzes on December 22, 2015 at 8:08 AM

If Trump hadn’t run, though, Cruz could have still supported modest legalization (without citizenship) and been comfortably to the right of Rubio.

This is what kills me about amnesty shills. They can say this with a straight face.

As if a) the issue is citizenship; and

b) once legalized, you can keep the illegals from pursuing citizenship.

Amnesty shills keep throwing this out there as if it means something. “I don’t support citizenship, just legal status”. That is a meaningless distinction and you know it.

It is so damn dishonest.

Monkeytoe on December 22, 2015 at 8:35 AM

Corrupt in life, corrupt in office.
I do not try to bribe politicians to add more exemptions for me. I ask politicians to create a pure level playing field to allow the market and individual ability to decide our fates.

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM

the problem with this argument is that the GOP is even more corrupt. And most candidates are corrupt. So, who does one support that is “not corrupt”?

I will vote for Cruz if he is the nominee, but the reality is he was for legalization until now, when he is forced into a corner. And, because of that, I don’t doubt that he will go back to legalization if elected.

Monkeytoe on December 22, 2015 at 8:39 AM

If Trump hadn’t run, though, Cruz could have still supported modest legalization (without citizenship) and been comfortably to the right of Rubio.

I also love the term “modest legalization”. What does that mean?

I suppose you mean only legalizing some small percentage of the illegals. Again, the problem with that is – as everyone knows – if you pass legislation that is intended to allow legalization of, say, 10% of illegals (only those who have been here for 15+ years, have no criminal convictions, have never used any form of gov’t aid), that will get bastardized in the bureaucracy and courts to legalize 75%.

Which is why it is impossible to compromise on this issue. We don’t trust anyone – not the GOP/DNC, not the bureaucracy, not the courts – to keep their word. If they say 10%, it will mean 75%. If they say in return they’ll give a wall, there will be no wall.

Monkeytoe on December 22, 2015 at 8:43 AM

If Trump wasn’t in the race, Cruz wouldn’t say “boo” about immigration.

bw222 on December 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM

Nice. Now Cruz is cribbing his lines from George Wallace. I’m looking forward to a speech from a schoolhouse door.

urban elitist on December 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM

I will vote for Cruz if he is the nominee, but the reality is he was for legalization until now, when he is forced into a corner. And, because of that, I don’t doubt that he will go back to legalization if elected.

Monkeytoe on December 22, 2015 at 8:39 AM

Until a few weeks ago Cruz was for a 500% increase in H-1B visas even though H-1Bs have been taking Americans’ jobs and bringing down wages since the turn of the century.

bw222 on December 22, 2015 at 9:40 AM

Ted’s “evolved” on the issue of illegal immigration over the last year — so what? Much like Obama and Clinton have evolved their positions re: immigration, SSM, etc, the polls will often dictate where a politician stands on a particular policy at any given moment. Ted may “evolve” again on illegal immigration if he wins the GOP nod, recognizing he may need to move to the center on the issue to counter Clinton’s open border promise.

Dan333 on December 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM

Ted’s “evolved” on the issue of illegal immigration over the last year — so what?

That is NOT what he says, he claims consistency. He’s changed his position on immigration AND TPA, which he was steadfastly defending in June until the polling told him the LIVs he targeted wouldn’t listen to facts.

As for the lying-about-lying that his amendment was a poison pill, he said the opposite in an interview with an old friend months AFTER the bill was defeated.

Sorry, Cruz should have just said he changed his mind instead of lying.

Adjoran on December 22, 2015 at 10:05 AM

The facts on Rubio, Cruz, and immigration

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-the-facts-on-rubio-cruz-and-immigration/article/2578838

Pork-Chop on December 22, 2015 at 10:25 AM

And using that phrase “Today, tomorrow, forever” is politically tone deaf. That’s just begging some amnesty group to make an ad juxtaposing Cruz and George Wallace.

Lamont Cranston on December 22, 2015 at 7:12 AM

It’s one of the most famous phrases from an infamous political declaration of intolerance.
So an odd choice of words to say the least.
I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was indeed fully ignorant of the Wallace speech.
Lord help him if anyone finds him ever referencing it anywhere before.

Regardless, he finally got around to directly answering the question.
I’m sure supporters like Bmore and others feel this was all part of his brilliant plan, but I’m thinking it might’ve been the collapse of it.
Nice to have him state a clear position, but I’m suppose the next question (what is his plan for th about 11 million in question) will get the same non-answers.

verbaluce on December 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM

Ted Cruz is lying through his teeth.

All this talk about “poison pills” obscures a very important truth: no amendment to the Gang of 8 bill ever had a chance of getting through. Schumer and company, including Rubio, had made it clear that the bill was a done deal, hermetically sealed, ready for delivery.

The entire amendment process was political posturing, designed to pin down the Democrats on certain positions, information to be used later. Every amendment was bound to fail, simply because the Republicans did not have the votes.

In Cruz’s case, he was laying the groundwork for his future Presidential run. He was staking out the “conservative” position on immigration, as defined by GOP Inc. after the 2012 loss. That meant border security first, legalization, no citizenship. That was why Cruz was so consistent in repeating this mantra right up until early this year – he was going to be the “right-wing guy” on immigration, but not so extreme that it would automatically turn off Hispanics and middle-of-the-roaders.

This explains why Cruz ostentatiously voted against Sessions’s amendment capping legal immigration. As the “compassionate conservative” on immigration, Cruz (“there is no stronger proponent of legal immigration in the Senate”) could not have that cap on his record. His “no” vote strengthened his compassionate bona fides. If we remember the mood after Romney’s defeat, with the party redefining itself, appealing to Hispanics, broadening the coalition (remember Hannity moderating his immigration views?), Cruz’s machinations make perfect sense.

But then Trump happened, forcing a national conversation that GOP Inc. did not want to have. Suddenly, Cruz was in the mushy middle, with Trump on his Right. And Trump was winning! So Cruz has had to lie, rewrite history, tack Right, in order to reclaim his ground, and status.

It seems to be working, so good for Cruz. But the question remains – what are his real views, and what will he do if elected. According to Institutionalist, Cruz intends (or intended) to lie in the general about supporting legalization, and then deport everyone when elected. We’ll see.

Joseph K on December 22, 2015 at 10:35 AM

We’re being awfully prissy about amnesty, aren’t we? Cruz has the best stand of all the candidates, it seems to me, and it just got better.

How about turning some of the wrath on the other candidates, too?

BTW, the entire stand on immigration ought to be characterized as a defense of the working class, who have lost at least 5 million jobs to illegal aliens. Democrats (and squish Republicans) are waging a war on the working class.

RedBaker on December 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM

citizenship, they cannot vote. And, why do the democrats want millions of uneducated criminals to become citizens? You got it.
One poison pill is enough. The one that kills the democrat’s efforts.

HornetSting on December 21, 2015 at 11:09 PM

Whether illegal aliens become citizens and get to vote now or not, their children will be voting straight Democratic 15-20 years from now.

bw222 on December 22, 2015 at 11:25 AM

BTW, the entire stand on immigration ought to be characterized as a defense of the working class, who have lost at least 5 million jobs to illegal aliens. Democrats (and squish Republicans) are waging a war on the working class.

RedBaker on December 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM

Until Cruz’s latest flip-flop, the legislation he wanted would have cost over 2 million additional American jobs to H-1B visa holders and their spouses, who can now legally work in the US.

bw222 on December 22, 2015 at 11:34 AM

Sure. Right. Uh, huh!! And monkey may fly out of my butt today also!!!

gwhh on December 22, 2015 at 11:58 AM

I don’t believe you, Ted.
And that makes me sad.
It’s not that I would fully agree with you if you were actually being honest.

But, what makes me sad is that now you are proving yourself to be just another lying, pandering politician in the mold of Trump.

I had hopes for you, my friend.

Ah well.

RightWay79 on December 22, 2015 at 12:23 PM

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at12:00 AM

You haven’t been here long, if you think Hornetsting is a guy. Lol, and you are not even in her league, little man

lovingmyUSA on December 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM

Ted is an expert at saying what he wants you to hear. No details, just big story lines.

leader4hru on December 22, 2015 at 1:36 PM

Will you deport every last one of the little alien invaders, Ted?. I mean,since you are such a believer in the rule of law.

redware on December 22, 2015 at 3:33 PM

Constitutionalist on December 22, 2015 at 12:01 AM

Trump put his immigration policies in writing, co-authored with Jeff Sessions. In fact, he was probably the first to do so, and definitely the first with that much detail to his policies.

You do know how to read, right?

He hasn’t changed his policy. The media is trying to bring him down him by nitpicking soundbytes. Why do you trust the media instead of written policy??

(Btw, you do know you just admitted to supporting most of Trump’s proposals, right?)

dominigan on December 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM

You haven’t been here long, if you think Hornetsting is a guy. Lol, and you are not even in her league, little man

lovingmyUSA on December 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM

I don’t care if HornetSting is a self processed man or woman, just like I don’t care that you are a gender obsessed freak posing as a conservative.

NWConservative on December 22, 2015 at 10:53 PM

Cruz never answers what he will do with the 11-20 million illegal aliens. His mantra is “lets secure the border and then we can ask the American people”. What farce. Cruz changes his position constantly and has refused to answer the reporters questions.
Hillary would eat him alive in the general election.

leader4hru on December 23, 2015 at 6:41 PM