Skip to comments.Ted Cruz’s hard-line stance renders border crisis key 2016 issue
Posted on 08/01/2014 8:23:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the short term, the House GOPs failure to pass an emergency immigration bill on Thursday over tea party opposition was another embarrassing moment for Speaker Boehner in a growing list. But the political damage may be limited: Americans tend to pay little attention to process stories in Congress, and the 2014 elections havent been particularly focused on immigration.
Something Americans do pay attention to, however, are presidential elections. Heres where this weeks border skirmish starts to look more significant.
The key player in this drama is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has been working to corner the market on grassroots conservative support ahead of a likely White House bid next year.
Cruz was never on board with immigration reform, but in recent months hes gone from throwing the occasional potshot to embracing a starring role in the anti-amnesty wing of the party. While hes downplayed his role in this weeks affair, House conservatives credited him with helping kill Boehners initial bill and revving up demands to undo the White Houses Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects DREAMers from deportation.
The only way to stop the border crisis is to stop Obamas amnesty, Cruz told Politico ahead of the vote. It is disappointing the border security legislation unveiled today does not include language to end Obamas amnesty.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Stopping people from walking across our borders by the hundreds of thousands is a "hard-line stance?"
Desiring that immigration laws be enforced is a "hard-line stance?"
Could you elaborate? Your response seems to giving mixed messages.
Don’t forget Senator Jeff Sessions steely spine!
1837 - Supreme Court Rules in New York v. Miln That States May Take Precautionary Measures Against the Importation of Paupers, Vagabonds, Convicts, and Infectious Articles
Fact: Every dollar spent on a real double border fence will save $100 in the cost of maintaining an illegal alien.
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,
and there is a plane carrying the 2 ebola patients here to the US and and a new presidential exec order on quarantine of people with symptoms of respiratory infections diseases. ebola here we come.
and we need to say that there is no reason for an undocumented worker in this country. we are wanting that you be documented, working and protected.
Sorry, but I don’t really think a fence is the answer.
Everyone lauds the fence in Israel. I do too. But that fence is relatively short and manned 24/7 by military.
We can’t do it now...or won’t.
Cut off the benefits. No free schooling, no access to free medical, no access to government benefits. Fine the employers that hire these folks in a huge way. (=no jobs). NO...NO anchor babies.
As long as there are ladders and shovels to dig tunnels a fence is an illusionary fix.
Cut off the benefits and use the savings to built a fence in the places that need it most.
OK...I’ll go for that as well.:)
Naturally, a serious double fence would be heavily manned, by today’s current BP. At the present, they must “defend in depth” from the border back 40 miles. 2.000 miles X 40 miles = 80,000 square miles to play hide and seek with coyotes, aliens and drug smugglers.
Question, do you bother to lock your doors and windows when you go on vacation? After all, a cat burglar could pick your locks and disarm your security system. So why bother?
Using your same “logic” the White House and every military base etc should get rid of their fences, because fences are not 100.00% effective at stopping every type of incursion.
I agree 100% about cutting off the benefits, but building a fence "only where it's needed" is as foolish as putting a fence only 10% of the way around a swimming pool, where kids have been usually seen sneaking in. Putting up border fencing only in "high travel areas" just moves the "high travel areas" to another location.
Those against the fence typically have some special interest, such as land that might abut the border. No one in their RIGHT MIND can argue that not having a fence is better than having a fence, or that it won’t affect the number of people crossing illegally.
We, conservatives, practically every day, make the (correct) argument that ANYTHING that drives up the cost (or hassle) of gun ownership will drive down the number of gun owners. Yes, maybe there is some way to breech the fence with ladders or tunnels, but then what? You’re on the other side with no transport, unless a collaborator tries to meet you...and then he has to hope to not be seen going there.
By the way, the $8B is on the high side, as there are areas that don’t need the fence, at least initially - maybe half of the border can use it. If people still manage to get around it, then finish the job.
“I agree 100% about cutting off the benefits, but building a fence “only where it’s needed” is as foolish as putting a fence only 10% of the way around a swimming pool, where kids have been usually seen sneaking in. Putting up border fencing only in “high travel areas” just moves the “high travel areas” to another location. “
I just responded to that...I’m cool building the entire fence too - just not sure it’s needed. In any case, definitely build out from the high-traffic areas - drive the cost of crossing up and up.
You’re kidding doc; right? Or did you forget the “sarcasm” symbol? Tom’s comments in Post #2 were perfectly clear to me.
“only where needed” is the trick part.
Eventually it will need to be all the way across
Cruz will make the finest candidate and President this country has seen since even long before Reagan.
Cruz has the facts right at the tip of his mind and knows very well how to articulate them, every one from the Rino’s, the Demonrats and the Lameist Meanstream Media are frustrated by him, they have no idea how to assault, demean, mis-characterize, lie about or otherwise destroy his honesty, integrity, determination and good will.
As evil is in full bloom, God will raise up a man to stand in the gap.
Cruz Control 2016!!!
Read his bio:
Then remember that he’s only 43!!
It’s simpler to just build to a set pattern and go all 2,000 miles at one go. Break it into 20 sections of 100 miles, bid it out, and apply bonuses for early completion and severe penalties for being late. It would be finished in less than one year.
A half a fence is not much better than no fence. A half a fence around a swimming pool will not keep neighborhood kids out, they will just walk around it.
I agree. I like the double fence idea with the road in the middle patrolled by Humvee’s and hungry Rottweilers.
“A half a fence is not much better than no fence. A half a fence around a swimming pool will not keep neighborhood kids out, they will just walk around it.”
It’s a LOT EASIER to walk around 20 feet of fencing than it is to walk (or drive) around 100 miles of fencing in an inhospitable region - LET’S GET STARTED ON IT. And if they do get some Russian ATVs to get through those areas, then FINISH THE FENCE.
That’s all I’m saying...right now, I hear NOTHING regarding a fence.
Great text and picture comment! Thanks!
I agree in principle, but history teaches that a bill to build 750 miles of fence gets downgraded to 100 to 50 to “congress certifies the border is secure.”
Only an ironclad bill to build all 2,000 miles, or nothing, will mean a damn in the end.
I can tell that you are very passionate about a border fence. The same way I am about other measures to curb illegal immigration. Sadly, I doubt that either of our solutions will be enacted given the present political and societal climate.
A fence might be a deterrent...no doubt. But using your “locking the house” analogy...of course I lock my house. But if I put a huge sign in the front yard that says I have electronics and a million dollars inside and I won’t prosecute you if you break in and rob me? People will tear the roof off in order to get in.
I have wondered why illegal immigration has risen. I have wondered why this recent influx did not migrate to South America where most border fences are a strip of barbed wire. If they are indeed in danger (which I don’t believe), going to one of those countries would be closer and they could understand the language and culture. There is no benefit to going there.
There a whole host of reasons as to why this is happening. We can debate the value of our ideas until the cows come home...but it really won’t make any difference in the long run. The powers that be aren’t going to do jack squat.
“Only an ironclad bill to build all 2,000 miles, or nothing, will mean a damn in the end.”
You’re on to something. One you add fuzz, as in not quite a complete fence, then you give discretion to whoever is president. If we get another Bush-type in office, that will mean 600 miles of fencing in areas so remote that no one crosses there anyway, while simultaneously hanging out a big “WELCOME ALL” sign at the easy points to cross.
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.