From Wikipedia: Amnesty (from the Greek ἀμνηστία amnestia, "forgetfulness") is defined as: "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted."[1] It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense.
PING
Do they ask sanders/clinton the same questions?
Cruz loses on this. Anything that legalizes and rewards illegal behavior is AMNESTY. There is no gray area here. Shame on Cruz for still trying to play games with this one. He loses.
And Ted Cruz has been avoiding the question.
I don't think he has the will to tell the GOP primary voters what his position is.
And Trump will not let that stand. He will force Cruz to respond clearly.
Then, the fight is on.
Bookmark
ill O’Reilly: Now, the 15 million illegal aliens already in the United States, what do you do with them? Donald Trump: I think right now you’re going to have to do something. It’s hard to generalize, but you’re going to have to look at the individual people, see how they’ve done, see how productive they’ve been, see what their references are, and then make a decision. Bill O’Reilly: All right, on a case-by-case—going to take a long time and a lot of people. Donald Trump: A long time, but you know, you have some great, productive people that came. 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.
CRUZ: All across this country, Republicans campaigned, saying: if you elect a Republican Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty. We need to honor what we said. We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have to rein in the abuse of power of the executive. Step #1 is if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees.
CRUZ: We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have to rein in the abuse of power of the executive. Step #1 that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty. That is an explicit authority given to the Senate.
Q: Are you saying the Senate should refuse to confirm the president's new nominee for attorney general?
CRUZ: We have to rein in the executive. In the Federalist Papers, our Framers talked about a president who would behave like a monarch. And step #2, we've got is the power of the purse, and we should fund one at a time the critical priorities of the federal government, but also use the power of the purse to attach riders.
Both agreed that the US has failed to secure its border with Mexico, and said they oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and the Obama administration's new directive allowing many young illegal immigrants brought to the US as children to be exempted from deportation.
Dewhurst: I have always been against an amnesty program. "If they want to be a citizen, they ought to go home and reapply."
Dewhurst says he was against tuition for children of illegal immigrants.
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales, urging the strictest enforcement of laws punishing those with prior felony convictions who entered the country illegally.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Ted_Cruz_Immigration.htm
From the article:
***************
“Trump position: They broke the law by coming here illegally so we can’t reward them by letting them stay and work. They’re all going home. And then, per Trump’s plan, the “good†ones are going to come right back in legally once they’re been removed. Why that’s any better in practice than Cruz’s position, I don’t know; arguably it’s much worse since it would involve the enormous expense of mass deportations with no intention of barring the deported permanently from the U.S.”
Maybe Cruz didn’t want to open himself up to Trump attacking him for the “maniacal” idea of self-deportation:
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/19/trump-on-romney-i-dont-need-angry-advice-from-the-guy-who-pitched-self-deportation/
Why can’t Rafael Edward Cruz simply tell us his plan?
Why would it be a secret?
Cruz gets money from the Big Donors, no? That would require that he has promised them that he will not stem the flow of immigrants and will find a way to legalize the illegals. Trump is the only safe bet on this subject. All if them have hedged or fudged on this subject, so even Trump but he can be turned around once he sees the enormity of it all. He is not beholden to the Amnesty donors.
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.
Back to the top.
“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’.
This will be the winner take all debate in this election.
The other side will want some form of amnesty or legal status for all illegal aliens. Either will lead to citizenship and or the right to vote. Our liberal judges will see to that. Only way to prevent it is to enforce the law, deport them all and secure the borders.
Enforce the law, build the wall, secure the borders, deport them all, end sanctuary cities, end anchor babies, tighten up immigration policy, control who enters the country!
Our successful nominee will be in 100% opposition to the treasonous dhimmicrat plan on this. Border security, national security is THE issue in this election. Our side needs to harden up and stay hard on enforcement!
History proves if you give an inch on border security, you lose it all.
This one is for all the marbles.
Go, Cruz, GO!!
Go, Trump, GO!
Amnesty is when the rules/laws are bent, broken or ignored, accruing to the benefit of the law breakers.
Don't enforce the border? Amnesty on a timer. (They've been here 20 years, you can't send them back, etc...)
You can't deport 11~~30 million...amnesty by neglect.
Issue work permits for those ineligible...amnesty by fiat.
We'll secure the borders FIRST...amnesty by distraction.
Ted Cruz is a brilliant guy. Surely he understands that a democratic republic relies upon the consent of the governed. That is obtained through the principle of inalienable rights, and the Rule of Law.
That means, simply, that laws shall be faithfully executed.
It doesn't mean those in power will enforce only laws with which they agree, or ignore those they do not. It doesn't mean they will enforce the laws after a wall is built, or enforce the law next time, or enforce the law after we get a new one. Why would we believe that laws are anything but suggestions for the 'right' people? Why would we believe that any immigration laws would be enforced, ever?
And that's how a representative democracy becomes a banana republic. Ted Cruz is smart enough to understand this. Does his background cloud his judgment? I don't get it.
Cruz is going to have to decide.
Is he on the side of the Cheap Labor Express, the US Chamber of Commerce, SEIU, etc.—or is he on America’s side.
He can’t have it both ways.