Ted Cruz Chides Megyn Kelly for Question on Illegal Immigrants
“That’s also the question every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask”
Megyn Kelly returned to the Kelly File last Monday after an eleven day break from her show, and she’s made some headlines over the decision to interview, and purportedly “bond” with, Jorge Ramos after he was escorted from a Trump presser after demanding that his question be answered out of turn.
In an interview with Ted Cruz, Kelly asked: “If you have a husband and wife who are illegal immigrants, and they have two children here who are American citizens – would you deport all of them? Would you deport the American citizen children?”.
Cruz was not willing to address the question as framed, and instead, he accused her of asking a question that “every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask” and one that “Barack Obama wants to focus on.”
He has a point. One of the reasons that there has been no action on illegal immigration for decades is not that there are tough questions to consider—such as what to do with the children of illegal immigrants who were born and / or raised here—but the fact that these questions tend to take center stage in any debate about closing the border or other piecemeal approaches to immigration reform. This, in turn, causes a stalemate that perpetuates the status quo and gives both sides something on which to campaign.
In an attempt to break this stalemate, Cruz wants to take incremental steps that prioritize and address the questions associated with illegal immigration and immigration reform. He states that he wants to start with the place where there is bipartisan support, and secure the border before having a debate about what happens next. Stopping the influx of illegal immigrants needs to be done first, he states.
This interaction between Cruz and Kelly prompted the folks over at Salon to ponder whether Trump has “made it okay for all candidates to blow her off”:
So now Megyn Kelly is a RINO squish intent on doing the liberal media’s dirty work. The same Megyn Kelly who once insisted that Santa Claus, a fictional person (spoiler, sorry), is a white man. The same Megyn Kelly who prattled on for months, maybe years, about how the Obama administration was in cahoots with The New Black Panther Party. Yadda yadda yadda, and so on and so forth. She is now considered an accomplice to the left-wing’s hate crimes, and Barack Obama’s dastardly plan to transform the American fabric.
It makes you wonder what sort of mail Fox News has been getting about Megyn Kelly. That Trump has been trashing her for so long, and the best her coworkers and boss can do is tweet a few cowardly lines asking him to pwease, pwease stop, Mr. Trump, pwease, suggests that Fox’s audience has sided with Trump on this one and has lost a certain amount of faith in Megyn Kelly.
What Trump’s campaign has done, then, is give other candidates an excuse to blow off questions from Megyn Kelly.
Trump and Cruz are not, of course, the first Republican presidential candidates to tangle with Kelly or to take Fox News hosts and debate moderators to task for asking “gotcha questions,” and I doubt they will be the last.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
There are rumors Kelly wants to go “mainstream”, so maybe she was just tuning up some with some “gotcha” questions that would make ABCNNBCBS see her as the next “barbarw wa wa”.
What you meant to say is that there is A rumor…flogged by a Kitty Kelly-level POS who makes money writing books of fabulism about FOX…about Kelly thinking about leaving FOX.
I mean, if you were truthful…
For all you “down-twinkies” out there, you got any FACTUAL stuff?
Or are you just haters?
Rags, lately when facts are offered you resort immediately to adhominem attacks. Who’s the “hater” here?
Once upon a time I enjoyed your witty repartee. It’s been sadly lacking lately, as has your vaunted sense of humor, in any instance re: Trump.
For lots of facts- and intelligent discussion without all the rage, you could try The Conservative Treehouse; but you probably won’t. It’s much easier to call everyone who disagrees with you names; at least that’s the path you’ve been following lately.
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
Why, that’s just a damn lie, dear.
I ask pointed questions, and, USUALLY, get called names for it.
Like you’ve done. That can be implicit, as above, or direct.
Then I push back. I won’t stand for abuse from anyone.
See, I do this for a living.
Yeh, you called me a RINO a while back because I interrupted your tongue bath of T-rump.
Clean out your litter house…
A better question would be, why should American citizens have to put up with this continuing folly of catering to people who came illegally, stayed illegally and then had children given citizenship, which was never the intent in the 14th amendment?
Kelly has made it ok for candidates to blow her off, just as most of mainstream media should be treated.
Kelly is just a good example of what has been happening to Fox News over the past few years. They have moved more and more to the left. Instead of being the objective new agency that they were they are now merely the best of the worst.
Kelly asked a necessary question, one that hangs in the air on this issue and will REQUIRE an answer, and Cruz dealt with it in his usual, masterful way.
Kelly pressed…like she just DOES in interviews…and Cruz just stuck to his guns.
Everybody did their job.
Why are you carrying Salon’s water?
Um, how I am carrying Salon’s water? I point out that they are incorrect because Newt was doing this long before either Trump or Cruz. Maybe I should be more direct?
I would say, “By quoting extensively from their piece”. Not too big a bitch here on my part. I would have noted their blather without the quotation, and left it to readers to read them with a link.
Still love ya, Fuzzy…!!!
Heh, thanks, Rags, dittos. I was amused by the . . . um, level of discourse this Salonite engages in, but perhaps I should have kept that to myself. Duly noted.
Personally I would expect responsible parents to want their children with them (or relatives), needn’t alter the citizenship issue. If the parent’s country refuses the children entry the parents have created a problem to work on.
Has Janet Reno weighed in on the question?
For days after the debates, the Fox moderators were interviewing themselves about their preparation, question selection, etc. It was, in the end, all about them. I expect questions about policy and position at a debate, and that’s it.
I think we were typing at the same time. I shouldn’t have wasted the virtual ink!
I am more than a little tired of interviews of presidential candidates being more about the reporter/reporter-ette conducting the interview than about the candidate. I am also more than a little tired of the objective of the reporter/reporter-ette being to capture a shocking newsbite with ridiculous gotcha questions. Our public discourse has become shockingly coarse and stupid. Perhaps that’s why I assiduously avoid television “news.” (Insert “eye roll” here.)
I happen to agree with part of your…er…complaint.
You need to direct your stern letters to the candidates and their staff. Because, see, they AGREED to the format of a NOT debate, knowing the terms and conditions.
IFFFFFF you want to see a real debate, take it up with the candidates, who are…after all…big boys and girls.
Kelly’s question was designed to provoke an emotional response from her viewers, not a logical response. Cruz is correct in not taking the bait. We’ve done nothing to actually secure the borders and prevent illegals from entering the country but she wants to talk about individual circumstances?
AWWWW for pity’s sake (see what I did there?)!
When I ask a mother how she felt when she watched pint after pint of whole blood being administered to her dying child in a wrongful death case, THAT is emotional. It’s HUMAN.
When I ask a dad what he felt when he was first confronted with the burned body of his healthy teenager who will never walk again because his legs were burned off when he was trapped in a car, THAT is emotional. It’s HUMAN.
Cruz has DONE that same kind of work, and he knows what questions HAVE to be addressed. They CANNOT be fled from.
He gave the RIGHT answers to the questions: we take this in bite-sized chunks, and we start from the first principles that almost everyone can agree upon. He declined to go to the most emotional question, as you note. But he would have asked the same question if the shoe was on the other foot and it was his job to ask.
This presidential campaign has become all about the immigration issue.
That’s all smoke and mirrors.
I agree with Cruz. There is only one immigration issue that needs to be dealt with: secure the border. Talking about anything else is pure BS.
Time to change the topic:
Let’s talk about jobs.
Let’s talk about the American economy.
Let’s talk about lowering the debt.
Let’s talk about
fixingrepealing the obamacare disaster.
Let’s talk about fixing the Common Core disaster.
Let’s talk about the higher education bubble.
Let’s talk about bringing the U.S.A. back to its leadership position in the world.
You are quite right! Lots of smoke and mirrors about the immigration issue.
Fortunately, there’s ONE candidate who is talking about all the topics you mention: Donald Trump!
He’s also the only one- the ONLY one- giving a detailed plan of actually securing the border. You can read it all here:
How do you feel about his “touch back” amnesty, Crazy Cat Lady II?
Or have you studied that…???
If Mr. & Mrs. Joe Plumber rob a bank, go to trial, get convicted and receive jail sentences – are the sentences suspended or otherwise changed because Mr. & Mrs. Plumber have kids?
No. In fact, in many cases, if one commits a crime and is pregnant, that baby will be born in jail and taken away from the mother and she may never get custody once she leaves jail.
Why is the discussion different on this issue? American citizens that commit crimes will be forcefully separated from their children. Why isn’t the same principle applied when the parents are illegal aliens?
These questions aren’t challenges or hints of my opinion on the matter – I just want to understand why the standard is different. I believe if we answer this, we may arrive at a much better discussion of this topic.
Part…perhaps all…of the answer lies in “due process”. Your bank robbers are going to get due process as to their crime. Chances are in most jurisdictions, the fate of their kid(s) will also be adjudicated.
We don’t want to give illegal aliens that level of due process (believe me, that would be a nightmare). If they’re here illegally, we should just make it impossible to be gainfully employed OR receive any government benefits (individual states could buck that, but let them).
They will leave in a matter of a remarkably short time on their own dime. No muss, no fuss. Parents with a choice may leave kids born here (prior to a change in “birth-right” law) with anybody who will take them.
Kelly, Baer and the Wallace all decided to argue with Trump rather than just ask good questions.
Go look at the transcript of the debate. Brett Baer asked his question “Raise your hands…” and then asked Trump 3 or 4 times if he REALLY MEANT IT.
Bush league like Candy Crowley and Kelly did the same as did Wallace.
Fox need to clean them up.
I think that the question had no answer because, under current Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, these children are natural born citizens and I know of no legal way to “deport” a natural born citizen. To change this interpretation would require an amendment – highly unlikely – or a law which would have to work its way to the SCOTUS for uncertain review.
We could deport the parents and then let the family decide if the children stay here or go with them. As citizens, they would be able to return if they go.
I agree with Cruz: chip away at the problem by harvesting the low hanging fruit rather than doing nothing waiting for the perfect solution.
Hypocrite Harry Reid in 1993: “No Sane Country” Would Permit Birthright Citizenship
What it does is set a marker in time before the Collective came out in full-throated bay, barking at the moon, anti-Americanism.
See, there was a time, not long ago, when even they knew it was suicide to act as they can now.
Y’all are really taking the bait from Salon?
Ask yourselves why Salon is focusing on the reporter, instead of the candidate.
I submit it is because the candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, gave a very rational, capable, Presidential quality response to one of their favorite kinds of questions on immigration. That answer is one, I suspect, many, many Democratic voters could not merely tolerate, but respect, or even agree with. First, he calls out the question, and then he gives his approach.
Sen. Ted Cruz gave a response that shows him to be sane and thoughtful. This goes against the Democratic narrative.
So of course, Salon focuses on something else, in an effort to deny the candidate his say.