Posted on 11/21/2015 2:49:49 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
"If we put in place a strong E-Verify system and deport criminal illegal aliens, the number of people here illegally will drop significantly, particularly if there's not a continual flow of people coming in illegally," Cruz said.
"At that point, once we've demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally," Cruz added. When asked if that conversation included the potential for a pathway to legal status, he repeated, "We can have that conversation with the American people once we secure the border."
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Fair enough, but I trust the guy who has stood up to Obama on every issue, who stood up to GWB on issues of national and sate sovereignty, and has a proven record of doing what is best for our country no matter how unpopular it makes him.
{”Actually, it sounds like an adult has entered the room. It’s refreshing to hear sanity and common sense. Go Ted!”}
The spirit of Trump’s idea is understandable, but it is simply impractical and will not happen. We need to stop the flow and evaluate.
Go Ted.
Thank you.
.... at your own risk. Trump is a celebrity billionaire and the ONLY reason you have ever heard of him at all is not because of his skill in business or politics, but because of his skill in marketing himself and creating a brand image.
You will trust a celebrity billionaire with zero political compass but a flair for showmanship.
I will trust the less-than-perfect guy with a true political compass: Ted Cruz.
The “we will have a conversation” about the ones already here once the wall is built — weasel words for amnesty. How many years have we had a conversation about the ones already here?
It’s going to be a long 4 months, that’s for sure.
Yeah sorry, right after I posted it I saw that you’d already been informed that Cruz is still advocating for the wall, as he always has.
Mea culpa for the spam :)
I like your optimism, but I think it will be closer to 5 or 6 months before this fight is over.
While I agree that removing services does cause them to move back to their nation of origion, I’m not liking what I’m hearing now about an evaluation of what to do once the border is secured.
In the past (when others talked that way) it meant mumbo jumbo talk, and plenty of weasel room.
Legal status and citizenship are two different things. I have no problem with work visas but never citizenship, even for the children of non-citizens. Non-citizens should not be able to access any welfare services.
We’ve never reached that point before.
That expresses my tendency to look down on it.
Can’t help it folks. I’ve been snookered so many times that I want a concrete plan.
This new talk right now may be a smokescreen against Cruz, and if so I don’t like it. If it addresses some morphing policy decisions, I don’t at all like it.
Cruz was supporting a border wall in 2011 when Trump was still supporting amnesty. Vinl posted the 2011 Cruz interview on a thread a couple of days ago.
I didn’t consider it spam.
You posted his policy and I appreciated it.
It’s good to have it out there.
That is blatantly false.
"Now, as for what to do about illegal immigration, we should follow the repeal of the anchor baby provisions with a five-point program to create a smart and humane plan to get illegal immigration under control. It starts with securing our borders. Look, if a nation can't protect its own borders, it ceases to be a country. We're not just some landmass that anyone who wants to can trample on at will. I believe America is an exceptional nation worthy of protection. That tough on border enforcement. We can and should have a robust debate over whether that means continuing to build the physical border fence or utilizing "virtual fences" that use lasers as trip wires to monitor illegal border crossings."
Trump, Donald J. (2011-12-06). Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again (p. 146). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Well that’s true, but it’s also true they telegraphed that right up front. They conceded it.
You can vote for that at your own risk. I’ll stick with Cruz.
===============•••=======•===============================
So, let’s examine that logic....we have before us a candidate that has been in business in liberal NYC and has been all across the board in party affiliation, but who is now running as a Republican, funding their own campaign, beholden to no one, kicking a*s and taking names, and is now advocating a position on illegal immigration that we’ve been waiting for (wall, deportation, etc) vs. a career politician who previously supported a wall and deportation, but now, being funded by specious PACs takes a position of having a “conversation” and “nothing is off the table” (re: amnesty), and you’ll go with the latter.......
Didn't know about Mrs. Cruz? Check out her work on the Council on Foreign Relations website HERE:
“This new talk right now may be a smokescreen against Cruz”
He has stated that in the past.
LMAO here. I have one too.
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.