Posted on 12/01/2015 10:41:52 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
The best part is when she asks the obvious follow-up -- is a path to legalization "amnesty"? -- and he won't even make eye contact.
There's a spectrum of answers to this question on the right, of course:
1. Amnesty is citizenship without preconditions. That's the strictest definition, and naturally the one preferred by Beltway Republicans like Marco Rubio in his Gang of Eight days. (Marco Rubio circa 2010 had a different view.) As long as you're forcing illegals to jump through some sort of hoop, be it learning English, paying back taxes, going to the back of the line, etc, that's not amnesty -- even if you're granting them citizenship. Anything short of immediate voting rights for illegals, no questions asked, is A-OK.
2. Amnesty is citizenship. That's Jeb Bush's position, as I understand it. Jeb will legalize 'em, let 'em stay in the U.S. and work, but allowing them to become full citizens with voting rights goes too far in rewarding them for breaking our laws. The most an illegal can aspire to be is a permanent legal resident. Beyond that lies amnesty.
3. Amnesty is legalization unless you've improved security first. That's Ted Cruz's position (and Marco Rubio's current position), again as I understand it. This isn't so much a literal definition of "amnesty," which is a matter of legal status, as it is a political compromise between the two prongs of comprehensive immigration reform. Legalization (i.e. work permits) is on the table if and only if we see concrete improvements in internal enforcement first. Border hawks got suckered in 1986 by accepting promises of future border security in return for immediate grants of amnesty; despite the Gang of Eight's best efforts, they won't get suckered again.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
We are talking about immigration plans...why change the subject....you don’t have an answer for this subject?????
“Cruz refuses to say what he would do until after he is elected”
Part of the reason he will not be elected. Slippin and slidin don’t get it this time around.
Then maybe you can tell us how he defines amnesty?
This should not be difficult and should be able to be answered in a couple of sentences.
“Additionally, IMHO, I believe Trump has no intention of letting the illegals back in once they are gone.”
Smart gal : )
Anyone and everyone who broke the law to enter this country illegally can expect to be deported.
See Ted, that’s a statement so simple and so clear that even a politician can say it.
“Cruz refuses to say what he would do until after he is elected”
Can I get a quote or link? Thanks!
Nice!
I think this may be a special ‘Trump supporter mutual masturbation society’ caucas thread. Beware the conjectures and such things and don’t waste your time.
I don’t need to search....I’ve heard him say it, plenty of times!!
I MUCH prefer Trump’s proposal of deporting ILLEGALS, then expediting the process (we have a pitiful process, now...takes YEARS, in some cases) to let the GOOD ones come back, LEGALLY, through the door of the Trump Wall....rather than just automatically grant them ALL amnesty, from the get go.
If they meet all of the requirements, then why should they not be allowed to apply to immigrate here, LEGALLY? How many do you honestly think will even do that...with welfare benefits likely taken away and jobs taken by Americans? See? That leaves the good ones.
Back to the top.
That is my single objection to Cruz....his stand on illegals. He has said he is for path to legal status for illegals. Which means, the next democrat admin will give them voting rights saying ^it is unAmerican to deny voting to legal immigrants^ etc etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI&feature=youtu.be
I disagree - it is a big expense if done wrong, but it should be a one-time expense, instead of the ongoing expense of all the government benefits they get forever.
And, if done right, many, if not most, will self-deport. Especially if we make it more painful to stay than it is to leave.
Not sure we have the balls to do that, though.
“From Wikipedia: Amnesty ...”
Thanks. I just looked it up in dictionary.com.
It has nothing to do with granting of citizenship, correct?
Therefore, politicians should be asked specifically about the granting of citizenship. Don’t let them hide behind the various interpretations of ‘amnesty’.
Has Cruz said he will reward lawbreaking?
I’d like to see that.
Yeah—ya notice what’s missing from your list of Cruz’s positions on immigration?
That was a very DISGUSTING reply...even for you.....
“Cruz refuses to say what he would do until after he is elected”
Why would he refuse or withhold this information on his position?
Does this mean you refuse to respond as well?
It's not the "pitiful" process that takes years. It's the yearly quota limits. I believe the legal wait time because of the quotas is 5 to 10 years.
So when you expedite the good ones back in, you are not just eliminating the red tape. You are circumventing the quotas and the ones who are already waiting on the long line.
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.