El Rushbo, Melting Down On Rubio v. Cruz v. Reality, Backs Cruz

Rush Limbaugh made a heroic effort to sort out the Rubio/Cruz gang of Eight dispute but ended up contradicting himself and making no sense. [UPDATE: NY Times 9/12/2013 - "Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration", which was amnesty but no path to citizenship.]

Early on Rush explained that the Gang of Eight plan had two components. The first was legalization, also called amnesty, which would resolve the, hmm, undocumented status of the 12-20 million illegal aliens (his estimate) already in the US. Such a feat could be accomplished by awarding, for example, green cards, which authorize residence and employment and may provide access to some public benefits.

The second component was a "path to citizenship", which would include the right to vote.

The unholy alliance (my hardly original) backing this was the Chamber of Commerce Republican establishment seeking cheap labor and the Democratic party seeking new voters. For the Chamber of Commerce, legalization would be sufficient; Democrats needed the path to citizenship.

Over to Rush, my emphasis:

And those are the two factors here all of this is revolving around.  The Gang of Eight bill contained two key elements:  legalization of those in the shadows, and the path to citizenship, and the path to citizenship is where they can go register to vote.  And the key, the focus on defeating the bill was to show people that its real purpose was to provide immediate citizenship and the right to vote for however many illegal aliens are in the country.  And that number is anywhere from 12 to 20 million, and maybe more. 

It was not just legalization.  It was not just granting them amnesty for violating the law, being here illegally.  The Gang of Eight bill also contained a provision that put them on a path to citizenship.  And you know damn well, if that had passed, and if the path to citizenship required a five-year wait, Chuck Schumer would have been to the cameras and microphones within two hours of the bill passing and signed by the president and said, "This is unfair.  We've just granted 'em a path to citizenship and they have to wait five years?  That's not fair.  We need to move this up.  They should be able to register to vote tomorrow."  And that would have passed.  And so the effort to defeat the Gang of Eight bill was to expose to as many people as possible that the real purpose of the Gang of Eight was not legalization, but the path to citizenship. 

Rush explains the Ted Cruz poison pill, which was legalization without citizenship. His theme is that this would never have been acceptable to Democrats:

And this is where Cruz enters the picture here.  Ted Cruz proposed a series of amendments in committee that were intended to make sure that the legislation did not end up being a path to citizenship.  And people involved in this didn't want to admit that that's what was going on here.  A lot of people who supported the Gang of Eight bill did not want to admit that it contained a path to citizenship, Republicans and Democrats.  I mean, it was total deceit here that was underway.  The proponents of the bill were trying to hide behind the fact that all it was was legalization, humanitarian, compassionate legalization.  They wanted to make sure nobody knew or as very few people as possible knew that it contained a path to citizenship, because a path to citizenship equals right to vote. 

Now, one of the amendments that Ted Cruz proposed stripped out the path to citizenship portion of the bill, but it left the legalization part in.  And that has opened the door for opponents of Cruz to say, "He voted for legalization."  And Cruz is saying, no, I didn't vote for legalization. I did vote, but I was voting to keep citizenship out of it.  I put my amendment in to expose the path to citizenship. 

So, was Cruz sabotaging the bill with a smile on his face but ice in his heart (the current Cruz story), or did he really think that long-term green card status with no path to citizenship might be a responsible compromise (which he said at the time, but maybe that was just the smile on his face).

He was clear not just in proposing it, but in the appearance he made at Princeton talking about this, that he offered the amendment as a compromise because he wanted to see it pass.  See, the two stories of Cruz are that he actually offered this amendment to take out the citizenship plank because he wanted the Gang of Eight bill to pass so that he could say down the road that he had voted for and been a participant in a compromise piece of legislation, that he had worked with people and had helped get something done, and so he was not presenting his amendment as a poison pill when he was talking to certain groups. 

That is the opposite of a poison pill.  He did this in an appearance at Princeton with a law professor who is a close associate and friend of his.  Cruz was actually in a Q&A that he had with a professor there named Robbie George.  Cruz: "The amendment I introduced affected only citizenship; it did not affect the underlying legalization in the Gang of Eight bill." Robbie George said, "Would your bill pass the House, or would it be killed because it was proposing ‘amnesty’?" Cruz said, "I believe that if my amendments were adopted, the bill would pass. My effort in introducing them was to find solution that reflected common ground and fixed the problem."

So far, this is all comprehensible, consistent, and jibes with what I have read elsewhere (and would link, on a better day). But then Rush loses his own storyline (my emphasis):

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Okay.  So in the limited time remaining in this segment 'cause I went long, I'm gonna give you the end result of this again and in the next segment go back and pick up in order.  The bottom line is Ted Cruz has never voted for amnesty.  The proponents of the Gang of Eight bill have, including Rubio.  But Cruz did propose an amendment in 2013 which would have authorized legalization.  Of course, what legalization meant then versus what people think it means today are two different things, probably. 

But Ted Cruz never supported amnesty.  He wants to say now that his amendment was designed to kill the Gang of Eight bill, but in 2013 he was telling people that he really wanted the bill to pass, that he wanted a reform package that he was instrumental in having passed, but that did not include amnesty, it just included legalization.  And of course the Democrats, nobody wanted anything but amnesty

So the bottom line is the Gang of Eight bill failed, and people are attempting to make others believe that Ted Cruz secretly supported amnesty at one time and is lying about it, and that didn't happen. 

Huh? Cruz supported legalization but opposed amnesty? Earlier in the show those were two different ways of saying the same thing, and were distinct from the path to citizenship.

The Cruz amendment would have delighted the Chamber of Commerce Republicans without swelling Democratic voter rolls. Of course, working class natives worried about their inability to get jobs or raises are worried about amnesty maybe even more than the path to citizenship.

In any case, Rush came out for Cruz, although he emphasized he wasn't taking sides:

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, another way to look at this is that powerful forces are trying to rewrite the history of the debate on the Gang of Eight bill.  Because the history of the Gang of Eight bill is not particularly helpful to -- and, by the way, I like Marco Rubio.  This is why I don't endorse, folks, in primaries.  This exact circumstance is why I do not endorse in primaries.  I don't want to get caught in something like this -- having to defend somebody on something that I didn't know was gonna come up -- and just be in my best interests.

So I'm defending nobody here.  I'm trying to cut through all of this noise and get to the essence of this for you.  Because it's all over the media, and it's clear that Trump and Cruz are under assault.  It's a primary.  This is normal.  This is what should and does happen, and I am not angry at anybody.  I'm just trying to decipher this for you. That's what we do here; we make the complex understandable.  And there are some people that would very much like to have you think that Ted Cruz was much more for amnesty or involved in it, because that would take some pressure off other people who actually were. 

It was the Gang of Eight. 

It wasn't the Gang of Ten or the Gang of 12. 

Yeah, it was a confusing half-hour.

UPDATE: The NY Times (9/12/2013):

Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration

When it comes to immigration reform, Senator 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.

“I have said many times that I want to see common-sense immigration reform pass,” he said. “I think most Americans want to see the problem fixed.”

After explaining that Cruz has Tea Partiers on one side and business interests as well as a growing Hispanic population in Texas on the other, they deliver some quotes:

What Mr. Cruz has tried to articulate in both word and deed is a middle ground. It got no support from Democrats in Washington, but it goes further than many on the far right want to go by offering leniency to undocumented immigrants here already: A path to legal status, but not to citizenship. A green card with no right to naturalization.

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. Mr. 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. Mr. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.

Mr. Cruz said recent polling indicated that people outside Washington support some reform, including legal status without citizenship. He said he was against naturalization because it rewarded lawbreakers and was unfair to legal immigrants. It also perpetuates illegal crossings, he added.

It is clear that he understood the Democrats would never accept the bill without a path to citizenship, but his own words certainly suggest he thinks -or thought - his suggestion does represent a plausible compromise.

Mickey Kaus described the charade back in Sept 2013.

 

Comments

[peter]

first two times in a row, wow.

[Lazybusy]

Second.

[daddy]

Let’s Redesign Every NFL Logo As Donald Trump And Make The League Great Again.

[henry]

We need your video mashup ideas at the top Peter.

[daddy]

Da Bears!

[daddy]

Here's a better link

[new lurker]

Reposted from other link--The Five is piling on Cruz, and Goody Two Shoes loves it!

[Stephanie]

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/continuation-executive-business-meeting-2013-05-21

Retweeted Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter):
For bloggers: Here is Schumer admitting Go8 was all about citizenship, as a result of Cruz's tactic. 5:38 mark

[daddy]

Sometimes a picture really is is worth a thousand words.

[Puddin Floppy-Feet]

Flak over target as narciso would remind us. Collars get tighter, journalists see pink slips, newspapers need advertisers, Fox needs less JEB! heroics and viewers. Its all complicated but I suggest we follow the money.

[daddy]

Just as reminder: (Via Powerline in 2013)

2009 Rubio: “I never have and never will support any effort to grant blanket legalization amnesty to folks that have stayed in this country illegally.”

Here's the tape: Rubio in 2010: I'll never support amnesty

I fully admit that I do not get into the weeds on this stuff, but it seems to my simple mind that FOX, the GOPe, and the Left are overlooking the beam in Rubio's eye in order to focus on the mote in Cruz's eye.

[MarkO, brimming with the spirit of E. Scrooge]

This may help clarify things.

"There is no Republican Party! You know, we don't even need a Republican Party if they're gonna do this. You know, just elect Democrats, disband the Republican Party, and let the Democrats run it, because that's what's happening anyway. And these same Republican leaders doing this can't, for the life of them, figure out why Donald Trump has all the support that he has? They really can't figure this out?"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/17/gop_sells_america_down_the_river

[buccaneer morgan]

Re muammar, he was an ally of convenience his spy chief the Spartan musa musa has given up some chips before the big reveal in 2003, but he had pursued ap's lfg franchise

[JMHanes]

I won't try to re-post it, but here's my earlier comment on Cruz' weaseling legalese, so to speak.

daddy:

People have been piling onto Rubio over amnesty for years; I'm not sure why Cruz should get a pass on telling us what he would, in fact, do about the 11+ million established illegal aliens. His (newly minted?) "attrition through enforcement" is just another dodge.

[Threadkiller]

Is it true to say that Rubio voted for amnesty more times than Cruz voted for amnesty?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Since we were talking about IS refineries this story on Syrian makeshift backyard refining is interesting.
I especially like the picture of the guy holding up a shot glass full of distillate with a lit cigarette between the fingers not on the glass. No wonder those Arabs self immolate.

[lyle]

Not enough of them do, Ig, IMO.

[Puddin Floppy-Feet]

Iggy,

Lit cig would not be hot enough to light up a crude distallate. Don't know its grade or whether its naphta like but most of the Iraqi products are not J1 or J2 or even 86 Gasoline. Volatility is below the burn rate of a cigarette ember.

[JMHanes]

TK: What would the opposite of granting amnesty be?

[Threadkiller]

Not voting.

[Threadkiller]

From TM's Rushbo quote:

The bottom line is Ted Cruz has never voted for amnesty.  The proponents of the Gang of Eight bill have, including Rubio.

Is that true?

[clarice]

Make sure your child's school has a plan in case of attack:

Tom Lipscomb
2 mins ·
SINCE OBAMA HAS REASSURED US TODAY HE KNOWS OF "NO IMMINENT THREATS" I AM REALLY WORRIED... He lies all the time.
Here is a recent analysis from someone who doesn't and commands a lot more credibility, as you will see:
I am sure you have read about Juval Aviv. Here's an UPDATE! (He was
Golda Meir's bodyguard and the Israeli agent upon whom the movie
'Munich' was based. Golda Meir appointed him to track down and bring
to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes
hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.)
In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, Aviv shared information
that EVERY American needs to know, but that our government has not yet shared with us.
A little background: Aviv predicted the London subway bombing on the
Bill O'Reilly show on 'Fox News', stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him, saying that in a week he wanted Aviv back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Juval Aviv also gave intelligence to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred. His report specifically said that they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. I think we all know what happened, right? Congress has since hired Aviv as a security consultant.
Aviv predicts that the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try hijacking a plane again, as they know the people on board will never go down quietly again.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate, such as Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as in rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.). The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.
Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at laces like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U.S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts. The world, however, is soon going to become 'a different place', Aviv says, where issues like 'global warming' and 'political correctness' will have become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, Aviv says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. He says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons.
Instead, they like to use suicide, as it's cheap, it's easy, and it's effective and they have an infinite abundance of young, ignorant, fanatic militants who are more than willing to 'go see Allah'.
Aviv also says the next level of terrorists over which America should be most concerned will not be coming from abroad. They will instead be 'home grown' meaning they will have attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U.S. These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for its intelligence.
Instead, we need to follow Israel's, Ireland's and England's hands-on examples of human intelligence, from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U.S. Government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for Congress by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities.
The result? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago, someone tried to steal the briefcase!
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.But, unfortunately, America hasn't been 'hurt enough' yet by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's the citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children who were at the time in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, children who were basically 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until their parents could get there. In New York City, in some cases this was days! He stresses the importance of having a plan that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of action, as they do in Israel. He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency?
Aviv says that the U.S. Government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.
How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot use phones, internet? Bottom line, you need to have a plan!
If you believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send it to every concerned parent or guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whatever and whomever. Nothing will happen if you choose not to do so, but in the event it does happen, I promise this particular email will haunt you.
Don't be in the category of saying, "I should have sent this to...", but I didn't believe it and just deleted it as so much trash.
LikeCommentShare

[JMHanes]

TK:
Assuming he voted for his own amendment "authorizing legalization," I guess we'd have to call it false, no?

[daddy]

Wanna' watch legal sausage being made?

More on "The Keymaster" arrest from the FOX reporter on the ground in San Bernardino:

Host Liz: What happened with the Press Conferences from the Government on this case?

Reporter: Honestly it's been a complete cluster behind the scenes. I can tell you that it started yesterday when we were first tipped off that this could get crazy today. They planned on bringing him in today, but there's a chance it could be moved into Friday. The first plan was to bring him in this morning. That got pushed back for a number of reasons. We are told that on the National level the DOJ was having issues with some of the Federal Agencies on the Regional level here. There was even arguments over which quotes to put into a release when it finally went out, and we were told that there was a massive Press Conference planned for today that was going to urge local people to come out and look at their surveillance video one more time, because a lot of surveillance video turns over after one month, and they're still looking for more leads as to what these people did between the time of the attack and the time of the shootout, which is about 3 and a half hours. That never got to happen. The Conference was cancelled by the DOJ. And it wasn't the DOJ who was giving it (the Conference) but they told the local authorities, the Regional authorities, "You know what, you're not doing it now. We're going to put out a Press Release." So a lot of behind the scenes stuff Liz, a lot of politics involved, a lot of frustrations involved, on many different levels. and people are suggesting that why this happened was because the FBI declared it "Terrorism" before the President did...As of about 5 minutes ago I was told don't expect anybody from the Federal Govt to say anything today.

[Puddin Floppy-Feet]

Interesting that the 3 reporters: Iowa, NH and SC all say national security if the number one issue but the NH guy says Heroin is number 3 in his state. Marlene has talked about this before in Maine and I think MaryD has mentioned it for NH.

Wow. Heroin is an issue in NH. Wonder what Trump's yuge solution will be for that.

[Threadkiller]

I guess I need to do the research.

[crazy]

This is why Cruz was better off sticking to his strategy of not fighting other republicans. No matter who ultimately wins the argument they both look bad and are wasting valuable time that should be spent on how Obama and Hillary are leading us to ruin.

[Puddin Floppy-Feet]

Ailes reaches bottom in trying to piss me off. David Gregory? Really?

I think Fox has watched too many Star War movies and trucked over to the Dark Side.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Don't we need a little defining of terms?
Is amnesty mere legalization or a path to citizenship?
Is legalization granting legal guest worker status without a path to citizenship?

[JMHanes]

daddy:

"people are suggesting that why this happened was because the FBI declared it "Terrorism" before the President did...As of about 5 minutes ago I was told don't expect anybody from the Federal Govt to say anything today."

Man, Comey must have pure-T wrecked Obama's Christmas vacation. Sounds like the thumbscrews are being applied to the FBI, not terrorist suspects.

[daddy]

Great, now we've David Gregory on the Panel with Brett Baire to push his new book "How's Your Faith."

I'm confident his religious views will be as insightful, maybe even more so, than Sally Quinn's or Michael Moore's.

A grimacing DrK is introduced next, and looks to me like he has a terrible case of indigestion.

[new lurker]

WTF???? David Gregory, really????

[maryd]

Puddin -- you bet heroin is a big deal in NH. Not a day goes by that there is not a big story on some aspect of the problem in the Union Leader. People are starting to be arrested for murder because they gave others what turned out to be fatal doses.
As usual, the politicians are doing great jaw-jaw but little fix-fix.

[JMHanes]

daddy:

It's been so long since I actually watched the news, that a lot of folks look quite a bit different to me, but I have to wonder if Dr. K isn't ill. He has a swarthy look that doesn't seem healthy, and his posture, while always stiff of course, seems more strained.

[Threadkiller]

From Cruz's 2013 press release:

Providing a path to citizenship undermines the rule of law and is an insult to the millions who have immigrated to the U.S. legally. This amendment prevents those who have broken the law to enter this country from obtaining citizenship.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=128

Ig asks the correct question. How are we defining "aamnesty?"

[Threadkiller]

Trump has not been good to Dr. K's system.

[maryd]

JMH -- I agree. This is a horrible thing to say, but I think he's been on borrowed time for a while now.
God bless him.

[henry]

Heroin would be top 3 in WI too. The key is it takes a toll on suburban teens. They passed a law a couple years ago to allow whoever gave the dose causing an OD the ability to call 911 w/o getting arrested... to many OD bodies dumped on suburban lawns before that. The only surprise to me is it isn't on the radar in Iowa.

[new lurker]

JMH, You do know he is a paralegic and speaks with a breathing machine attached to a trach?

[JMHanes]

Yes, new lurker, thanks though. He just seems to have a less healthy look these days than he used to, but it may be that I haven't really seen him on air for quite some time.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Iggy,

Lit cig would not be hot enough to light up a crude distallate. --

As you say JiB, we don't what was in the glass, but more importantly the cig had to be lit by something, most likely an open flame.

[Threadkiller]

I've made it to this page which shows vote totals for various ammendments but not who cast the votes:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/

[Captain Hate on the iPad]

That Loretta Lynch is just doing a bang up job with the DoJ. Brilliant votes to confirm imo.

[JMHanes]

TK:

I'm assuming amnesty = legalization. I.e. you are granted some sort of legal status, without being deported or going to jail. This would not preclude other penalties/fines of some sort. It should certainly not be anything remotely like a "blanket amnesty," either, but should hinge on specific criteria. That's why I think "legalization" is the term we should be using. "Amnesty" is deliberately fraught political coinage.

Eligibility for citizenship, however, would be a separate, subsequent, issue, with its own set of qualifying criteria.

I think Cruz is wriggling all over the place on this, because he thinks the Gang-of-8, Schumer crony, amnesty charge is his most potent weapon against Rubio, and he doesn't want to have to give it up. It's certainly been the slam on Rubio we've heard the most from the outset.

[new lurker]

JMH, Why can't you see that Cruz only wanted to put a "poison pill" in the bill to legalize the immigrants but not give them citizenship and have them eligible to vote for the dems and therefore expose the dems for their hypocrisy? The bill failed.

[Threadkiller]

I'm assuming amnesty = legalization. I.e. you are granted some sort of legal status, without being deported or going to jail.

I will concede that and ask who voted for legalization more times? Cruz or Rubio?

I look at it from a different angle than the pot calling kettle black viewpoint.

Instead of some sort of exoneration of Rubio because Cruz did it too, it should be looked at as Cruz did something that is a DQ, and Rubio did it worse.

[JMHanes]

new lurker:

That's not the issue I think Cruz is avoiding. There are any number of forms of legal status, from seasonal visas to green cards, none of which carry any guarantee of citizenship. Cruz is saying that he does not now, never has and never will support legalization, which is patently false. He may never have supported a path to citizenship, but unless he is planning to deport 11+ million illegals, then legalization of some sort is clearly in the cards. If he's saying he will neither legalize, nor deport them, then it's pretty much the same kind of de facto amnesty we've got right now.

[Centralcal on iPad]

I am dismayed by how much passion and energy is being expended on Cruz vs. Rubio. BOTH are fine candidates and a far cry better than anything on the Dem side. I would happily vote for either of them. The scale is a little heavier on the side of Cruz (for reasons Jimmyk stated on another thread), but only a little.

We always destroy our candidates before the left does. We leave them weak and limping, so the left can pick 'em off easy peasy.

[boris]

On the issue Cruz has plausible deniability and Rubio does not.

He may never have supported a path to citizenship, but unless he is planning to deport 11+ million illegals, then legalization of some sort is clearly in the cards. If he's saying he will neither legalize, nor deport them, then it's pretty much the same kind of de facto amnesty we've got right now

Long as we are clear that inferences are not facts.

[JMHanes]

TK:

I haven't slammed Cruz for his position on legalization, I'm slamming him for deliberate obfuscation, at best, and at wors,t lying about what he really has in mind.

I, personally, think anybody who takes an absolute position against any form of legalization has got to be crazy, so from my perspective, this is not a pot/kettle scenario at all.

[boris]

"I'm slamming him for deliberate obfuscation"

Even if all you inferences were facts still doesn't look like obfuscation to me. YMMV

[JMHanes]

boris:

"Long as we are clear that inferences are not facts."

If Cruz were willing to make his intentions and position clear, then we voters wouldn't be left with nothing but inferences to work with.

[buccaneer morgan]

The end point is citizenship, but it requires legalization, as the road. Why did 2.5 need be legalized then, and a multiple now, to grow the democrat constituency. Labour admitted as much to prevent another thatcher, after the deed was some.

[Threadkiller]

I haven't slammed Cruz for his position on legalization, I'm slamming him for deliberate obfuscation, at best, and at wors,t lying about what he really has in mind.

I with you on that. But Rubio is as bad:

"...Senator Rubio. You co-authored a bill with Democrats two years ago that allowed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Do you still support that path to citizenship, which means giving those immigrants rights, like the right to vote?

RUBIO: Yeah. Immigration is not an issue that I read about in the newspaper or watch a documentary on PBS or CNN. It's an issues I've lived around my whole life. My family are immigrants. My wife's family are immigrants. All of my neighbors are immigrants.

I see every aspect of this problem. The good, the bad, and the ugly. And here's what we learned in 2013. The American people don't trust the Federal Government to enforce our immigration laws, and we will not be able to do anything on immigration until we first prove to the American people that illegal immigration is under control. And we can do that. We know what it takes to do that.

It takes at least 20,000 more additional border agents. It takes completing those 700 miles of fencing. It takes a mandatory e-verify system and a mandatory entry/exit tracking system to prevent overstays. After we have done that, the second thing we have to do is reform and modernize the legal immigration system. And after we have done those two things, I think the American people are gonna be reasonable with what do you do with someone who has been in this country for 10 or 12 years who hasn't otherwise violated our laws -- because if they're a criminal they can't stay. They'll have to undergo a background check, pay a fine, start paying taxes. And ultimately, they'll given a work permit and that's all they're gonna be allowed to have for at least 10 years. But you can't get to that third step until you have done the other two things, and that was the lesson we learned in 2013. There is no trust that the Federal Government will enforce the law. They will not support you until you see it done first.

BASH: Senator, you haven't answered the question. You described a very long path but does that path end at citizenship?

RUBIO: But I've answered that question repeatedly. I am personally open -- after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card.

That may not be a majority position in my party, but that's down the road. You can't even begin that process until you prove to people -- not just pass a law that says you're gonna bring illegal immigration under control. You're gonna have to do it and prove to people that it's working.

And that was the lesson of 2013. And it's more true today, than it was then. After a migratory crisis on the border with minors coming over that you're seeing start up again now, after all these executive orders the President has issued. More than ever we need to...

BASH: Thank you, senator."

He still didn't answer the question.

[buccaneer morgan]

It was clear to Byron York back in 2013, although admittedly he isn't always correct.

Re the libya question, we intercepted bel hadj on a flight from malaysia, the UK rendered another militant out of Hong kong.

[Threadkiller]

Keep in mind, the districts are based off of how the states read the Census. Citizenship is a step to voting but legalization is a step towards population count.

SCOTUS, IIRC, is about to or already has taken a Texas case on what set or subset of the population counts for redistricting. "Coming out of the shadows" may make a big difference in states other than California.

Did Ted's ammendment take that into account?

[Threadkiller]

Here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/27/how-the-supreme-court-could-overhaul-our-congressional-map-explained/

[JMHanes]

TK:

"He still didn't answer the question."

Actually, he did. When you have had your green card for 5 years, you are eligible to apply for citizenship. It is, in fact, the "primary pathway" to citizenship.

That could be changed, of course. Residents who got here illegally, for example, could be granted some sort of legal status which does not include the possibility of citizenship. Rubio may be deflecting with his new emphasis on border security, but he did not attempt to deny he has been, and remains, in favor of such a pathway.

[boris]

To paraphrase Mencken it is a complex problem where all the simple clear solutions are unworkable.

In fact IMO there is no workable solution as long as something like 30 to 40 % of the population considers living here a fundamental human right.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Another thing that needs to be defined is what is and isn't possible.
The idea a few powerful disincentives and strong enforcement wouldn't result in the large majority of the ~11 million either self deporting or being deported is IMO mistaken.
At least as important, it would end the continuing flood even more than a wall.

[Threadkiller]

Then why didn't he say "yes" to Bash?

My point was that he is a splendid obfuscator himself.

[(A)Nuther Bub]

Happy Birthday JimmyK!

Good luck on your hernia operation A(B)

Thanks for the warm birthday wishes, everyone, and for the hernia get-well card, daddy.

It's one of those damnable BIG birthdays that everyone hates, but I take solace in recalling that today I'm younger than I'll ever again be, so that's cause for rejoicing (and my hernia barely interferes with my tabletop dancing, daddy.)

Henry, two days ago I received a birthday package from my friend on Oahu: two cans of Spam, two plastic bags of "our-kind-of-rice" rice, nori, a bottle of seasoning and a musubi press. Only problem was the postman carried the parcel up to our door in a USPS plastic bag, with grains of rice falling all along the pathway. Seems the Ziploc bags my friend had used for the rice had exploded from the pressure changes (daddy? Cecil?) at 39,000 ft. and somewhere there must be a 757 cargo bin covered in rice, as the floor of our local post office now is, according to the mailman. Horrible waste. I swept the small remainder from our kitchen floor, while my son tried to enjoin me to save the dustpan contents: "Heck, Ma -- you're going to wash and boil it anyway," Didn't seem right though.

Thank y'all again. I like Savannah a lot but we have to return to Hawaii in January to sell our house (I think. It's difficult to do). Meanwhile I try to remain calm as the world collapses and I've completed EIGHT decades. How the hell did this happen?

[Captain Hate on the iPad]

Wow, HB (A)B; that is a milestone.

[Centralcal on iPad]

How wonderful, (A)B! Listen to your son.

[clarice]

Luckily there's good sushi rice available here..oterwise what would you do with all that spam? XOXO