Ted Cruz disputes MSNBC claim he supports legalization of illegal immigrants
Let’s play ‘Parse the Words’
Earlier today, MSNBC published a story suggesting Senator Cruz supports legalization of undocumented individuals currently in the United States.
Derived from the fact that Senator Cruz hasn’t specifically stated he does not support legalization of undocumented individuals, the inference is that Cruz must therefore support legalization of undocumented individuals. It’s a nice little semantic game, really.
MSNBC referenced a Texas Tribune article from 2013 which they claim indicates, “that he [Cruz] supported giving some undocumented immigrants permission to stay in the country with more limited legal status.” This summation is not accurate.
The Texas Tribune article, written around the time of the Gang of Eight immigration fight, makes the same incorrect assumption as MSNBC. The first statement is correct while the latter is only partially so:
When it comes to immigration reform, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made it abundantly clear what he opposes: giving citizenship to people who broke the law to come here.
What has not been as evident is what he supports: legal status for millions of people here already, while making it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door.
Going on to discuss the Gang of Eight legislation, the Texas Tribune reported:
Immigration-reform legislation from the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight passed that chamber in June and includes a 13-year path to citizenship. Cruz pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would have, among other things, eliminated the citizenship component.
Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.
“The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.
Neither in the Texas Tribune nor at any other time has Senator Cruz ever said he supports legalization for undocumented workers currently residing in the United States.
Senator Cruz’s campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told us Cruz’s goal in the Gang of Eight amendment was three fold: to get Senators on the record showing where they stood on the issue, that it was a good faith effort to improve the bill, and to stop a pathway to citizenship. Frazier explained it was not intended to suggest support for legalization.
“Cruz supports strengthening the border and fixing our legal immigration and interior enforcement systems before we deal with those who are here illegally,” Frazier said. “It’s premature to discuss what to do with those who are still here illegally until we have made these reforms. Indicating that there may be the potential for amnesty in the future, only encourages more illegal immigration.”
Frazier reiterated Senator Cruz’s consistency on the issue, that the Senator is in favor of expanding legal immigration, and that he vocally opposes President Obama’s executive immigration overreach.
While MSNBC’s claim that Senator Cruz has not specifically detailed his stance on legalizing undocumented immigrants is true, the inference that he supports legalization, is false.
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Cruz needs to take a page from the life of Coach Bear Bryant.
“Defamation suit
In 1962, after Bryant lambasted The Saturday Evening Post for printing an article that accused Bryant of encouraging his players to “engage in brutality” in a 1961 game against the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, the magazine claimed that Bryant and Georgia Bulldogs coach Wally Butts had conspired to fix their 1961 game together in Alabama’s favor. Butts, also on Bryant’s behalf, sued Curtis Publishing Co. for defamation. The case went to the Supreme Court. As a result of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts 388 U.S. 130 (1967), Curtis was ordered to pay $3,060,000 in damages to the plaintiff.”
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/bear-bryant/defamation-suit.html
Cruz is a public official. No way would he would he win a lawsuit against the press.
Would we want politicians using lawfare to silence the press anyway? The chilling effect it would have on free speech would be horrible.
Politicians lie. Journalists lie. We’re grownups. We deal with it.
So MSNBC has the knives out for Cruz, surprise, surprise,not! They obviously saw what a stink was made when Walker got caught telling his big donors that he supported a path to citizenship, and tried to get the same stink going about Cruz. Hard luck morons, Cruz is solid on immigration. he does support expanding legal work visas, the emphasis being on legal. He does not now, and never has supported a path to citizenship.
I did read a very interesting piece on NRO that gave insight into Cruz’ experience and his work:
“While Cruz’s time in the Senate is best known for fiery speeches and high-profile gestures like his 21-hour filibuster, in his earlier time in Washington he demonstrated a wonkish eye for detail and an eagerness to take on powerful industry groups that he saw as stifling competition.”
and
“Rolling back regulations has been a perennial promise of GOP presidential candidates for a generation. Every Republican presidential hopeful says he’ll cut red tape; very few make it a top priority once they’re in office. Cruz faces a steep climb to the nomination and the presidency. But if he can defy the odds and claim the White House, he’ll bring a level of hands-on experience with the regulatory state — and a proven zeal for cutting it down to size — that few, if any, of his predecessors could match.”
The entire article is a short read, but worth it.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416074/ted-cruz-bush-years-jim-geraghty
We will know how solid Cruz is on immigration – and in what way he is solid – when the campaigning hits full swing later this year. Don’t watch him, or any other candidate. Watch the donor list. See who is buying the most influence, and you will then know what his position is if he is elected. What he says is meaningless.
The same is true for any other candidate.
The prog media will make all sorts of baseless accusations and play semantic games trying to pit various factions of the conservative base against all Republican nominees.
Meanwhile, we have Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and countless other Dims skating by without so much as a half-assed attempt to investigate their countless scandals.
Exactly right. And it’s not just the prog media playing this game, plenty of the so called “conservative” blogs are playing right along.
Not a single dem will be held top account from now till November 2016, all the so called “conservative” blogs which used to do that will be busy shooting down various conservatives for perceived Ideological Impurities.
This is how we ended up with Obama’s second term.
Cruz is solid. This is the lamestream media trying to get inside the heads of conservative primary voters. In wars, what they are doing would be called PsyOps. It is part of the Democrats (and their fellow travelers in acadamia, media, and entertainment) political stratagem.
Here is the Alinsky msm rule. Bring up a false narrative about any conservative and make them spend as much time as you can on that subject that is false in its original premise. Remember Akin and how what he said was not very artfully worded but was not what the msm made it out to be. Don’t think the msm can’t decide an election? Think again. Watch the questions asked the R’s by the msm and then watch the questions asked of the D’s. They are never the same and the D’s never get anything to do with limiting anything like excess spending, welfare, crime, school choice, abortion, college reformation and anything that would require sacrifice by the average citizen for the good of their country.
Exactly. It’s why the GOP should tell the media to pound dirt when it comes to who hosts the debates. They won’t but they should.
In the same vein, its the reason why the GOP needs to chose as a nominee someone who is certain of what they believe, and that they can speak through and over the heads of the media. That’s the first reason why they don’t like Cruz. He knows why to answer there questions that speak truth to power.
This needs to be thrown back to the second and third-world nations where conditions exist that motivate mass emigration. Immigration cannot and should not preceded assimilation and integration of American citizens. Nor should it should compensate and offer comfort to abortion proponents and consumers. The dream begins with American children first, then legal immigrants, and everyone else through association and shared achievement.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/senator_ted_cruzs_contradictory_position_on_illegal_immigration.html
What Cruz knows, or should know, about his immigration stance:
Look, we all know the score when it comes to what to do about million of illegal aliens in the country presently. The main objective of any Republican plan for immigration reform should be to promote legal immigration, while ending to the “illegal immigration-magnet” caused by the passage of the 1986 Reagan amnesty, so we can avoid yet another massive build up of illegal aliens ten years down the road.
What Sen Cruz knows, or should know, is through direct experience gained since the Reagan amnesty, we cannot count on there being any real political will in Congress to in force any statutes designed to”Beef Up Border Security First”, “Limit Illegal Immigration”, implement E-Verify, or to carry out any significant “Deportations”. Republicans fell for this ruse back in 1986, only to have it exploited by both Democrat and Republican administrations and Congress, itself. This cannot be allowed to happen again. The first incentive that should be removed before any serious immigration reform can possibly take place is the withdrawal of birthright citizenship to the offspring born here of illegal aliens. Has Cruz ever talked about removing any of the present incentives in place, or supported Rep King’s and Sen Vitter’s Birthright bills in Congress?
When he has done this, then, and only then, can his supporters be reasonably assured Cruz’s immigration stance is any different that JEB’s, Walker’s or Hillary’s immigration plans
These two paragraphs show that Frazier has a problem:
“Senator Cruz’s campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told us Cruz’s goal in the Gang of Eight amendment was three fold: to get Senators on the record showing where they stood on the issue, that it was a good faith effort to improve the bill, and to stop a pathway to citizenship. Frazier explained it was not intended to suggest support for legalization.”
“Cruz supports strengthening the border and fixing our legal immigration and interior enforcement systems before we deal with those who are here illegally,” Frazier said. “It’s premature to discuss what to do with those who are still here illegally until we have made these reforms. Indicating that there may be the potential for amnesty in the future, only encourages more illegal immigration.”
There are two problems with what Frazier said. First, she said that Cruz’s Gang of Eight proposed amendment “was not intended to suggest support for legalization.” It may not have been intended to do so, but Cruz’s Press Release about his proposed amendments stated that his “proposed amendments will effectively address the current problems with this bill.” As I explain in my article at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/senator_ted_cruzs_contradictory_position_on_illegal_immigration.html, this means that Cruz was supporting legalization to a status less than citizenship. Frazier is being disingenuous here. Cruz should step in quickly and correct here and clearly state his full position.
Secondly, Frazier said: “It’s premature to discuss what to do with those who are still here illegally until we have made these reforms.” It is not premature. Present law requires their deportation, in most cases. There is no authority for the President to suspend enforcement while we wait for true border enforcement. Is Frazier saying that if Cruz becomes President he will not do anything regarding the illegals presently here until he gets the border truly controlled? I am hoping that is not Cruz’s position. Again, Cruz needs to step in now and deal with this issue and Frazier’s statements.