Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump: Who's Stronger on Immigration?

American Thinker ^ | 08/24/2015 | Ricardo R. Galvan

[SeekAndFind]

An assumption made by a lot of conservatives ever since Trump's recent release of his immigration plan is that, though Trump is clearly creating the most buzz out of all the candidates, Ted Cruz essentially mirrors the bombastic billionaire in his immigration policies.  I saw a recent example of this on Limbaugh's program on August 17, where the talk radio host listed Trump and Cruz as being on the forefront of the anti-amnesty fight and, by implication, that both support the deportation of illegals in this country due to being equally strong on the subject.

 I admit that I also had made this assumption previously, since I had forgotten entirely the specifics of Cruz's fight against the Gang of Eight bill.  It is easy to come to this conclusion, after all, when we hear Cruz seemingly lambasting Obama's executive amnesty for shielding illegal aliens from deportation.  However, after reviewing more of Cruz's statements on immigration, I remembered that this isn't really the case.

Technically, Rush is correct that both candidates oppose "amnesty," but how has Ted Cruz actually been defining amnesty all this time?  Cruz has consistently defined amnesty as interchangeable with "a pathway to citizenship."  A good example of this is in this interview with Shark Tank where Cruz frequently moves back and forth between saying he "opposes amnesty" and "opposes a pathway to citizenship," as if they have the same meaning.

It is important to watch Cruz's language in detail here, as it is clear that out of all the candidates, Cruz is the most careful and deliberate in how he uses words (most likely as a result of years of legal training and debate experience).

[fifedom]

OK, I gave you a link. Now you give me a link that describes in detail how Trump is going to get rid of birthright citizenship.

---

crickets

---

How exactly is he going to do it? Constitutional amendment? Act of Congress? Dictatorial decree?

---

No Constitutional Amendment necessary. The 14th has been improperly interpreted.

---

Oh my goodness, I did not realize that! That makes me feel better. I am sure that now that you have said that the courts will immediately stop the way they have been ruling for the last 150 years./s