Her name is listed as a member of the council. Not as a co-author of the position paper. Trust me, you can serve on a committee and not co-author a position paper.
I DID address your claims about mass legalization.
TPA and TPP needed to be passed by both the House and the Senate because they are revenue/tarriff bills and that is a Constitutional mandate (that such bills originate in the House). TPA is not presidential over-reach.
AGAIN: ONE of Mrs. Cruz’s lefty professors stating that she would “not be in these circles without Ted” is HIS opinion. They met while working on the Bush campaign in 2000. She’s worked with Bolton. She might not be the fire-brand conservative that Ted is, but she’s certainly no closet Hillary.
So let's look into the report and see what she specifically wrote under her name. This is officially her "dissenting" view:
“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.” http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
No opposition to anything in the report of any substantial weight, aside from recommending a more "free market approach" to some of the report's recommendations. She still favors these measures that allegedly "make us safer":
“Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of “visa waiver’’ countries; Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists); By 2010, “Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be . . . the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.“
Among other things.
I DID address your claims about mass legalization.
You did no such thing. You falsely claimed that my explanation of Cruz's immigration plan was based on one "unattributed NYtimes quote." The article only makes that reference to Cruz's shyness for self-deportation. Cruz's position on mass legalization is absolutely proved by that article.
TPA and TPP needed to be passed by both the House and the Senate because they are revenue/tarriff bills and that is a Constitutional mandate (that such bills originate in the House). TPA is not presidential over-reach.
Surrendering the need for a super majority on two horrible bills that will only hasten the destruction of this country is definitely overreach.