Ted Cruz called for legalizing illegal aliens...in 2013

A rather astonishing video has surfaced courtesy of the Rick Santorum campaign showing Ted Cruz, apparently during a debate over Marco Rubio's Gang of 8 "Amnesty Bill," calling for a provision that would legalize all 11-plus million illegal aliens. He even used the liberal code phrase "out of the shadows." I encourage you to watch the video and see for yourself.

Ted Cruz has stood for securing the border along with Donald Trump and Ben Carson, but he has been conspicuously silent on the issue of deporting illegals. I think the reason why is now clear. He doesn't want to deport them; he wants to legalize them. Now, Ted Cruz would be the first to say he doesn't want to give them a path to citizenship, but, realistically, once they are legalized, the left won't long tolerate a class of people here who don't have citizenship, and the left will act, through the judiciary or the executive, to legalize them. So Ted Cruz saying he opposes a path to citizenship but supports legalizing is not a tremendous difference.

Ted Cruz speaks frequently about the rule of law and constitutionalism; how can he say he supports the rule of law when he supports rewarding millions of lawbreakers with legalization? It's worth noting that Cruz has also called for expanding H1-B visas, but in that process we can at least screen for people who are educated and have marketable skills. It's not just a random set of people who decide they want to come to America. But that unvetted group, too, is what Cruz wants to legalize.

The campaign claims that the amendment, like the other four, were doomed to fail because they were considered poison pills by the Democrats in the Gang, led by Chuck Schumer. No path to citizenship, Schumer insisted, no immigration reform. Killing Cruz's amendment proved that, says the campaign.

Cruz's amendment would deny citizenship to the Gang of Eight's Amnesty bill.

RE: Cruz’s amendment would deny citizenship to the Gang of Eight’s Amnesty bill.

That’s OK by me, but here’s the next question — If they have children born here ( which current US law considers citizens ), should we allow them to stay legally?

The way the law is currently interpreted, those are the ‘anchor babies’ who are citizens at birth.

I’m sure if you deport the parents, that they’ll take the child.

However, since the child is a US citizen, I’m sure the courts will block that deportation.

What that means is that the courts will force us to accept that some illegals will be permitted to stay. Smart illegals will immediately get someone pregnant on arrival or bring a pregnant spouse with them.

Unless you want to deport the parents of these children and leave them in foster homes, this is not an easy question to answer.

It is not up to the US government to decide what parents in the US illegally do with their US born children. Most responsible parents would take their children with them if they are deported back to the nation of their lawful citizenship.

The illegal parents created this situation, not the USA.

RE: However, since the child is a US citizen, Iâ€™m sure the courts will block that deportation.

_____________________________

That’s what I was driving at. Some things are MORE COMPLEX than those debaters would like us to believe.

Not even Trump as President has the power to control what the courts decide.

However, since the child is a US citizen, Iâ€™m sure the courts will block that deportation.

Why are you sure? Remember the well publicized case of the illegal woman who was harbored in a Chicago church with her US born son? She was finally deported and the US born son went with her.

Can't immediately recall their names, but it was only two or three years ago and there would be huge numbers of links.

Yes, any candidate in favor of “the wall” or “the fence” should emphasize 2 things:

1. That ‘the wall’ is a metaphor for a physical high tech wall, but it includes complete control of ports, coasts, airports, visas, and foreign delegations.

2. That the candidate will propose legislation or amendment that will rid us of the anchor baby interpretation.

Citizenship is just the cherry on top. Being allowed to stay and work here allows them to jump the line ahead of the estimated 4 million intending immigrants waiting overseas for their turn to enter. They have completed all the paperwork, background checks, etc. Depending on what category they are in, this can take many years.

Legalization will still cost us $6.3 trillion if there are only 12 million.

Recall this case. The mother had a US born son and she was deported and her son went with her. Just recently, seven years later, she was able to get back into the US and is living freely since you know who is deporting almost no one. Her now 15 year-old son returned with her.

Activist Deportee Elvira Arellano Released In San Diego

They can be deported with a president who enforces the law, even when they have US born children.

Former Cruz-staffer Amanda Carpenter explains, Ted didnâ€™t actually support amnesty. He only put this amendment forward in order to show to voters that the Gang of 8 wasnâ€™t telling the truth about whether or not their amnesty plans would eventually result in a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

The bill passed in the Senate without the Cruz amendment which also included increasing H1B visas by 500% and taking the country caps off for China, India, and Mexico. Cruz had absolutely nothing to do with stopping the bill.

It is amnesty whether there is a path to citizenship or not. Cruz supports legalization of the lawbreakers. He said so.

Iâ€™m sure because Obama has been appointing judges for 7 years now. Someone someplace will shop for the right judge who will make a national ruling.

You've certainly thrown in the towel. A new president can change Obama's no deportation policies and immigration law judges have to follow the laws as passed by Congress and signed by the president once the asinine, sweeping "prosecutorial discretion" scam is ended.

“Context folks, context.

I remember the point Cruz was trying to make here and itâ€™s dishonest, to say the least, to try to spin this as support for Rubio’s bill.”
*********************************************************************************
skeeter, context escapes some FReepers and MANY of the low-information voters extant in this country. The GOPe and other anti-Cruz forces in this primary campaign can be expected to engage in a FUD (i.e., sow fear, uncertainty and doubt) campaign against Cruz and hope enough folks are confused by it. IMHO the FUD won’t work long term.

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.