Oh please. You sound not only weird but derranged and pro-establishment.
See that "Pro-Establishment" thing makes you look stupid. I've been talking about this for months on FR. When even National Review is defending Cruz's bonafides, you have to wonder whether or not they see in Cruz the last answer to Donald Trump if Ben Carson falters. What's really deranged is accepting the whole "Cruz was lying back then and didn't really mean anything he said, in any interview, anywhere" line of argument.
CHUCK TODD: You still didn't say what you’d do with the 11 million.
TED CRUZ: Well, my view is first, we secure the borders and solve the problem of illegal immigration. And then I think we can have a conversation about what to do about the people who remain here. I don’t think the American people will accept any solution until we demonstrate step number one, we can secure the border.
CHUCK TODD: So anything's on the table? Potentially deportation or not deportation, but anything’s on the table for the 11 million-
TED CRUZ: I think we should secure the border and then have a conversation at that point. Stop using the Washington approach of I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. The American people aren’t going for it.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/05/ted-flops-cruz-falls-asked-solve-immigration-problem.html
These kinds of replies by Ted Cruz don't square with the idea that Cruz never supported the granting of legal status. We shouldn't have to vote for someone first to find out what they'll do about the illegals already here.
Your comment is on the money, but you’ll only succeed in engaging yourself in a mind-bending exercise in illogic with this guy. Save your breath. He’s not amenable to reason.
“The current intramural battle over immigration policy among GOP 2016 hopefuls, a most welcome and most necessary controversy, is a useful example of why the Senate is such a tough place from which to run for president. Few senators make it , only John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama in the last 60 years , and only after short Capitol Hill stints that yield thin voting records. The reason is clear: To be a good legislator and to move public opinion on important issues, a senator sometimes must make proposals that, taken out of context, can distort the senator’s overarching position, creating the illusion that he favors what he clearly opposes, and vice versa. No one should know this better than Senator Marco Rubio. Yet Rubio, a major culprit when it comes to foolish immigration policy, is now straining to defend his walk on the wild side by misrepresenting the record of his rival, Senator Ted Cruz.
“Cruz has cast himself as the Republican field’s most consistent voice against “amnesty” for illegal aliens. Yet Rubio, with an assist from former Senator Rick Santorum, claims that Cruz has actually advocated granting legal status to illegal aliens. Taken out of context, the charge seems colorable. But under the circumstances as they actually occurred, the proposal Cruz made was a case of intelligent legislating designed to expose the fraudulence of the pro amnesty position. It was, in this way, reminiscent of smart legislating by Rubio (and, for that matter, by Cruz) that highlighted the folly of President Obama’s Iran deal. It would be disingenuous to portray Rubio, an ardent Irandeal opponent, as an Iran deal supporter on this basis. Yet that is exactly what Rubio is trying to do to Cruz on immigration.”
This entire point is lost on some. Waaay over their heads, it is a waste of time trying to engage them on the issue.
You nailed it.