Rules!
Posted on 02/23/2016 12:20:55 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Malkin Says Cruz's Immigration Comments Were Right, Don't Fall for Liberal Spin...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
|
If you would like to be added to the
|
I find MM to right just about 100 percent of the time.
Me too. I got a little mad at her way back when for sounding as though Sarah Palin was perhaps not a genuine Tea Party conservative...but now I even agree with Malkin on that too.
Searching for some good reasons to vote for Trump? Click here:
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2016/02/reasons-to-vote-for-trump.html
Oh we’ve talked.
FAIL!
I like Malkin and the new Conservative Review website is great with Mark Levin as executive editor!
Is this Michelle Malkin or Evgeni Malkin?
LoL
She is a cutie, and so much more so because she gets Conservatism.
Thanks Sam ! ! No post that mentions the name Michelle Malkin should be read without PICS !
I think Cruz’s answer was very good, and I think he means it, and will stick by it as President. He makes a very important point that existing law is tough in many instances, but Obama is not enforcing existing law. O’Reilly kept cutting Cruz off, which is unfortunate. I think Cruz had more to say.
O’Reilly makes it sound like you have to knock down doors if you are to get anywhere. Had Cruz been given an opportunity to expand, he might have mentioned self-deportation, which happens once we show a modicum of resolve in protecting our borders.
I guess Michelle must be a liar. Right, Donnie?
But then, he did call her a “dummy” and “born stupid” and wouldn’t back down on it. I expect now he’ll throw in “anchor baby”, the lib’s favorite smear of any conservative minority.
"One is glad to be of service."
O’Reilly is cutting off Cruz because the word is out at Fox News...treat Ted badly, assume the worst, take him down a notch, keep him off his message, promote Marco Rubio, etc, etc, etc...
In case you haven’t guessed...I don’t watch Fox anymore.
On a repeat viewing, I noticed that Cruz effectively challenged O’Reilly’s assumption that the courts would stop deportation. It actually is a bonus to know the law. (Stopping O’Reilly cold was fun to watch).
Cruz reminds me of the founders who said they loved English law; they only wished the King and Parliament would abide by it.
Cruz did better than Rubio facing O’Reilly on this topic, IMO. Cruz was better on the substance and on the mechanics. He also faced O’Reilly better. Maybe Rubio was more “likeable,” in the eyes of O’Reilly at least.
Who is the candidate who is tough on illegal immigration and amnesty?
Here is Senator Cruz’s position as of June 2013:
“This Gang of Eight bill is a disaster. It is the exact same thing we saw in 1986. The last big immigration reform was in 1986, and the federal government told the American people, we’re gonna grant amnesty for the three million people who are here illegally. And in exchange for that we’re actually gonna secure the borders. We’re gonna solve illegal immigration, and the problem is gonna go away.
“Now, we saw what happened. The amnesty happened, the borders never got secured, and now three decades later, instead of three million people, it’s 11 million people.
“11 million, 12 million. We don’t have an exact number, but it is three to four times bigger than what it was in 1986, and we’re hearing the exact same empty promises. What the Gang of Eight bill does is it grants legalization now. It takes everyone who’s here illegally and says, “You’re legal,” and then just like in 1986 it promises, “sometime in the future, trust us, wink-wink, we’ll secure the border.” I don’t think the American people are that foolish. You know, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If this bill is enacted, it will make the problem worse. If this bill is enacted, in another decade or two we’re gonna be back here not with 11 million, but with 20 million or 30 million people here illegally. This is a broken system. I think what Americans want is fix the problem, stop playing political games, actually secure the border and make a legal immigration system that works.
“Well, the Democrats want this for pure politics. Chuck Schumer was very candid in the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said, “If there is no citizenship, there can be no reform.” This is all about their endeavor. They want to grant amnesty, and they hope to get a lot more Democratic voters, or they want this to be voted down and use it as a political issue in 2014 and 2016.
“On the Republican side, sadly, a lot of the support of it is political as well. You know, after 2012, all of the Washington political consultants and all the mainstream media came to Republicans and said, “You’ve got to do better with Hispanics, and the way to do better with Hispanics is to embrace amnesty.” And, look, a lot of Republicans in Washington were scared. I gotta tell you, I think that political argument is complete nonsense. If you look at the last time we enacted amnesty in 1986, the next election was 1988, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote went down. It is not the case — Hispanics are not the single-issue, monolithic voters.”
I see nothing there that is incompatible with what he is saying now. And furthermore, Cruz (with a couple of others) led the fight against the bill — and put up a petition against it.
Meanwhile, here is Donald Trump’s position as of A FEW MONTHS AGO (2015):
“Now, a lot of these people are helping us, whether it’s the grapes, or whether it’s jobs, and sometimes it’s jobs, in all fairness, I love our country, but sometimes it’s jobs that a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I mean, there are jobs that a lot of people don’t want to do. I want to move them out, and we’re going to move them back in.
“I mean, a lot of people don’t understand that, but the DREAMers, it’s a tough situation, we’re going to do something, and one of the things we’re going to do is expedite — when somebody’s terrific, we want them back here.
“I have to tell you: Some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job. You know, in some cases, sadly, they’ve been living under the shadows. ... If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out.”
[The article continues] This is in line with what CNN’s Chris Moody reported Trump saying during a press conference in Chicago at the end of June. When asked what he would do about the illegal immigrants already residing in the country once the border was secured, Trump replied, “give them a path,” according to Moody.
https://soundcloud.com/glennbeck/beck-blitz-donald-trumppro-amnesty
(As of July 14)
http://liberteanow.us/2015/07/14/2601/
Trump: You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.
(As of August 10 — remember all these dates on the Trump quotes are 2015!)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422351/donald-trump-immigration-amnesty-build-wall
“Asked about his immigration ideas on CNN, Trump was a mess, beginning with the old “jobs Americans won’t do” canard favored by open-borders proponents (a canard because it always leaves out the relevant qualifier: “at current wages”), then suggesting that we should deport the millions of illegals who are already here only to turn around and bring them back (”I want to move them out, and we’re going to move them back in, and let them be legal.” This process would include those brought here as young children, who will be deported and recycled based on the criterion of whether they are — Trump’s word — “terrific.” What might constitute a federal terrificness standard remains unclear.
“We’re going to do something,” Trump said. “I’ve been giving it so much thought. You know you have a, on a humanitarian basis, you have a lot of deep thought going into this, believe me. I actually have a big heart.”
[The article continues] Deporting some 11 million illegals who have for many years evaded deportation only to reimport them under an expedited legal immigration system, the contours of which currently are undefined, and then granting them some sort of permanent legal status is simply another variation on amnesty, and a complicated, expensive, and thick-headed version of amnesty at that. Like the proposed reform program of 2007, which would have purportedly required illegals to be present in their country of origin when applying for legal status, this isn’t just amnesty — it’s also amnesty-laundering.
These are pro-amnesty positions Trump took JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO (2015)! By contrast, Ted Cruz fought the amnesty bill in the U.S. Senate two years ago. So who is tough on amnesty?
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.