I also don’t like how she framed Trump kicking out the Univision reporter. The guy was clearly being obnoxious. I thought Trump was being gracious to the weasel.
Meg is a Hillary voter disguised under the fair and balanced moniker to dupe low info Repubs into being swooned over to the loser Jeb. Cruz totally mastered the interview...Megs should go on vacation permanently.
Everyone should learn not to answer a question with a false premise. FLIP IT! Have you quit beating your wife Ted? Answer: Why are you asking a question that is false? And why do you you continue to ask fallacious questions?
The candidates, like the rest of us, should boycott Kelly and if Fox doesn’t take the hint, we should boycott Fox.
The 1st answer on the thread...ill call it a winner!!
>>>>telling her it was something he’d expect to be asked from a “liberal journalist<<<<<
Redundancy senator.
Be careful or you will get tagged with the “stupid” label by folks with a degree in journalism or English; most of whom would not get past the first week of Navigation (applied trigonometry) in Flight School, unlike a “stupid” former president that managed get flight certified in supersonic jets.
Cruz was in the position of a guy trying to keep a biting dog off his ankles while carrying on a conversation.
If you listened carefully, he was saying that after all of the things were finished to keep illegals from entering the country, Congress and the people would need to decide what to do with those that are already here.
That is what he meant when he said repeatedly that we would need to have a conversation.
In other words, the president should not unilaterally kick people out if the congress and public will not support it.
Kelly's premise is: Two illegal immigrant parents, with children that are American citizens.
Kelly's real question is: "Are you heartless?" and the answer can be framed in ways that are not at all heartless.
1) We don't deport actual American citizens.
2) We don't know if the children are Citizens -- that's why we need to pursue either a Congressional statute or a Constitutional Amendment so that we can clearly state exactly what the status would be.
3) Because we value families, we would certainly want to keep the family together. Now, since the parents are here illegally, it's clear that the parents need to go. That's the bottomline. Of course, if the family expresses interest in staying together, we would help them, and we would provide assistance so that the children could join their parents in Mexico. That's not really up to the government -- that would really be a choice that the family would be free to make.
If both parents are illegals, their kids should be illegal, too.
Remember, during the debate, Bimbaleena insulted Cruz’s religious faith
Just say ‘Yes’ and leave it at that. Put the ball back in her court.
Ted and the rest of the candidates better work on their response to this question because it’s going to keep coming. Not only in the form of questions, but in the form of ad’s that will pull on the heart strings and demand reasoned responses.
These candidates need to quit whining. They’re campaigning for a job that’s much harder than sitting for tough interviews.
No sympathy from me for any of them. Goes with the territory.
Deport the parents and give them the choice of taking their children with them or giving up ALL parental rights forever. Adopt the children out. If the children are very young then take them to be adopted out anonymously.
Ouch. That’s gonna hurt. Megyn may have to say adios to FOX and sneak over to CNN like others before her.
what I don’t understand is WHY Cruz don’t simply read out what the Constitution said instead of saying some serious scholars think this and some serious scholars think that. Read it out loud and its pretty plain language what it says
Ted Cruz handled it with class as usual.
Wow, the picture at the linked site is one unhappy & miserable looking woman. Things have not been going Miss Megyn’s way.
Cruz should have said.
“Megyn...there you go again.”
Then proceeded to tell her that she is playing the “anchor baby gambit,” and that he has serious questions whether any such children should be, or really, can be considered to be US citizens.
That he does not believe that such children of obvious illegals are “subject to the jurisdiction,” of the US.