Cruz’s comprehensive immigration plan — 16 Comments
Wow. Call me impressed. He covers everything in minute detail.
Still waiting to see how Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states shake out before I decide on my vote.
I know many online believed Cruz was an ‘amnesty’ supporter…not sure why. Maybe because he did not come out strongly enough against H1B visas and other things. Reading this policy page tells me there is nothing to worry about.
Thanks for the link!
“Reading this policy page tells me there is nothing to worry about.”
Yeah. Right.
ON the other hand there’s not much there to dislike at all.
Then again there’s nothing in it about suspending Muslim immigration into the US until all his fixes are in place, so there’s that short fall.
K-E:
Many online said he’s an amnesty supporter because they say that about everyone who isn’t Trump.
Very well conceived plan.
One thing I’d like to see the US also address is the violence caused by criminal illegals (especially gang members) being returned to their home countries. Many communities have been devastated by these people and lack resources to deal with them. America needs to start leading again and maybe some sort of conference between the US, Mexico and Central American states to at least acknowledge the problem would be a good start.
An ounce of prevention….
I’m impressed. He has really thought through the issue and recognizes that the problem won’t be fixed by simply building a wall with a door. The point about verifying that foreign degrees don’t come from phony institutions is also important, as is the point about birthright citizenship for children of tourists and illegals.
If neo’s readership likes it, I like it.
Trump won’t commit to paper with details like this.
Big, big difference.
I agree with most of the Cruz plan, but it does require, and I support, some form of national ID card. It also will cost us, and I think we really need to face up to it, almost immediate “bankruptcy” of the Social Security system as it loses billions of dollars that are paid in annually by illegal immigrants who are working “grey” under phony social security numbers who will never collect from the system. (Yes, I know Social Security can never really go bankrupt since the whole thing is a phony, but people think if its revenues fall below its expenditures it is bankrupt, so let’s just use the term.)
It’s a start. But insufficient as it stands. At this point, it stands at the edge of what is acceptable enough to pass as legislation.
More American innocent dead, certain in its predictability, will convince the LIVs. Nothing less than the slaughter of children will suffice to awaken the sheep.
Nailed it.
Of course.
Barry Soetoro is simply not acting lawfully, and is in gross violation of his oath of office.
Which is to be expected of a Muslim.
Atheists and agnostics would not give a dang about Islam, one way or the other.
Barry is obsessed with its advance.
By their deeds you shall know them.
I will caucus for Cruz. BUT I will strongly let his operatives know I do not support half measu
oops… measures.
“Giuliani never ran in the general, so we have no idea how he would have done. All we know is that he didn’t win the nomination, and dropped out fairly early in the race because he was doing poorly.” -Neo-neocon
We can be reasonably sure. The problem would have been that once you win the nomination, you still can’t afford to lose much of your base vote. You have to add extra voters while holding on to most or all of what you had in the primaries. Giuliani would have been facing the Dem machine, and all they’d have to do is remind the GOP voters, day and night from summer to E-day, of Giuliani’s social issue positions. A chunk of his voters would have been alienated by that, even if he’d managed to somehow sneak past them in the primaries. Nor could he have done much to stop it, because the allegations would have been true.
What would Giuliani have done when TV ads from “The Committee To Protect the Unborn” (meaning the Center For American Progress under a shell, or some such) started reminding his voters of his abortion positions? Or his gay agenda positions? He couldn’t really argue the point, so he’d have been watching his base vote erode out from under him even if he could have brought in ‘independents’.
In fact, he never had a real chance of winning the primary. The reason he tried to jumpstart in Florida, skipping Iowa and NH was that he didn’t think he could get past the social issue problem.
But suppose he somehow managed to finesse the issue in the primaries. The MSM would have been cooperative at that stage, since they’d want Giuliani for the fall because he’d be easy to beat. Once he had the nomination, he’d suddenly be a target, though.
I remember a radio interview I heard with Giuliani months before the event, in which he admitted that he would lose big swaths of the South on E-day, but that he could supposedly make up for it by being competitive in the Northeast. Almost his exact words.
That was fantasy, to put it mildly.
But it’s the same fantasy that underlay the establishment’s thinking about McCain, who supposedly had some kind of ‘crossover appeal’. This was based on the primary vote in 2000, but a close look at the spread there shows that even then, McCain’s supposed crossover appeal was an illusion.
“Dole lost because (a) he was running against a very popular incumbent, and (b) Dole was a terrible choice as candidate, uncharismatic and unappealing, as well as old (73) facing a much younger and more attractive man. Neither (a) nor (b) apply to Rubio at all. ” – Neo-N.
This is a slight myth. Clinton was not so hugely popular as the press and establishment tried to portray. But Bob Dole ran, in effect, the exact same campaign that McCain would later run, and that the business-wing GOP insists is the key to victory now. I can still remember the frustration on the part of GOP voters waiting for Dole to take it to Clinton, and Dole kept waffling around and trying to avoid saying anything controversial
Toward the end of the campaign, he made a point of running from city to city in a marathon campaign round, proving…what?
Yet with his inept and weak campaign, he ended up losing by only about 8 points, rather than the ~20 most of the polls were predicting, and with Perot pulling from him. Clinton was much more vulnerable in 1996 than is widely remembered now.
“Bush Sr? When last I checked, he actually won a general election in 1988. So obviously he could win–because he did win.”
Actually, it would be more true to say that Ronald Reagan won a third term in 1988, GWHB ran as the third term. In 1980, on his own, he flamed out, and base dissatisfaction with him grew all through his four years, which is a lot of what made the GOP so vulnerable to the Perot hit. Perot couldn’t have undercut Bush Sr. if Bush Sr. hadn’t spent four years frustrating and infuriating his own voters.
“What’s more, you leave out Bush II, a non-conservative Republican who won, twice, although the race was extremely close in 2000 and quite close in 2004 as well. ”
Yes, he won. After 8 years of scandals, he barely won, and he won both times because ‘value voters’ turned out in surprise upsets, esp. 2004. It’s often forgotten now that Bush Jr. deliberately ran as being more conservative than his father, and just barely managed to carry it across the line against weak opponents (Gore and Kerry).
This year, though immigration was an issue in public discussion, the GOP intended to refuse to talk about it all. Their whole game plan was the try to moneyball Jeb into the nomination without having to reach out to the base voters at all, esp. on immigration. As late as the debates, Jeb was still referring to his ‘comprehensive’ plan to make immigration an asset, which shows a basic lack of grasp of where the base voters are.
(The word ‘comprehensive’ has become toxic in this context.)
Trump mentioned several things in his initial speech, but the immigration issue didn’t take off because of the press, it took off because that’s what the voters in the GOP base were waiting for, and he was the one who tapped into it.
You have a theory about who would win or not, and then you take the past and rationalize and quibble away the facts that don’t fit your theory. You’re entitled to your speculations, but that’s all they are.
Clinton was indeed a very popular incumbent, as I wrote; I don’t know your definition of the phrase “hugely popular,” but it’s yours, not mine. And Dole was indeed one of the worst nominees of any party I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, and I’m not primarily talking about strategy, I’m talking about the man himself and his lack of appeal. I never for a moment thought he had any chance of winning, and I could not believe the Republican Party had nominated him. He had no personal magnetism at all. And you say Dole “only” lost by about 8 points (actually, it was 8.5, but close enough). There’s nothing “only” about 8 points. It’s not quite a landslide, but it’s an extremely decisive win.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Wow. Call me impressed. He covers everything in minute detail.
Still waiting to see how Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states shake out before I decide on my vote.
I know many online believed Cruz was an ‘amnesty’ supporter…not sure why. Maybe because he did not come out strongly enough against H1B visas and other things. Reading this policy page tells me there is nothing to worry about.
Thanks for the link!
“Reading this policy page tells me there is nothing to worry about.”
Yeah. Right.
ON the other hand there’s not much there to dislike at all.
Then again there’s nothing in it about suspending Muslim immigration into the US until all his fixes are in place, so there’s that short fall.
K-E:
Many online said he’s an amnesty supporter because they say that about everyone who isn’t Trump.
Very well conceived plan.
One thing I’d like to see the US also address is the violence caused by criminal illegals (especially gang members) being returned to their home countries. Many communities have been devastated by these people and lack resources to deal with them. America needs to start leading again and maybe some sort of conference between the US, Mexico and Central American states to at least acknowledge the problem would be a good start.
An ounce of prevention….
I’m impressed. He has really thought through the issue and recognizes that the problem won’t be fixed by simply building a wall with a door. The point about verifying that foreign degrees don’t come from phony institutions is also important, as is the point about birthright citizenship for children of tourists and illegals.
If neo’s readership likes it, I like it.
Trump won’t commit to paper with details like this.
Big, big difference.
I agree with most of the Cruz plan, but it does require, and I support, some form of national ID card. It also will cost us, and I think we really need to face up to it, almost immediate “bankruptcy” of the Social Security system as it loses billions of dollars that are paid in annually by illegal immigrants who are working “grey” under phony social security numbers who will never collect from the system. (Yes, I know Social Security can never really go bankrupt since the whole thing is a phony, but people think if its revenues fall below its expenditures it is bankrupt, so let’s just use the term.)
It’s a start. But insufficient as it stands. At this point, it stands at the edge of what is acceptable enough to pass as legislation.
More American innocent dead, certain in its predictability, will convince the LIVs. Nothing less than the slaughter of children will suffice to awaken the sheep.
Nailed it.
Of course.
Barry Soetoro is simply not acting lawfully, and is in gross violation of his oath of office.
Which is to be expected of a Muslim.
Atheists and agnostics would not give a dang about Islam, one way or the other.
Barry is obsessed with its advance.
By their deeds you shall know them.
I will caucus for Cruz. BUT I will strongly let his operatives know I do not support half measu
oops… measures.
“Giuliani never ran in the general, so we have no idea how he would have done. All we know is that he didn’t win the nomination, and dropped out fairly early in the race because he was doing poorly.” -Neo-neocon
We can be reasonably sure. The problem would have been that once you win the nomination, you still can’t afford to lose much of your base vote. You have to add extra voters while holding on to most or all of what you had in the primaries. Giuliani would have been facing the Dem machine, and all they’d have to do is remind the GOP voters, day and night from summer to E-day, of Giuliani’s social issue positions. A chunk of his voters would have been alienated by that, even if he’d managed to somehow sneak past them in the primaries. Nor could he have done much to stop it, because the allegations would have been true.
What would Giuliani have done when TV ads from “The Committee To Protect the Unborn” (meaning the Center For American Progress under a shell, or some such) started reminding his voters of his abortion positions? Or his gay agenda positions? He couldn’t really argue the point, so he’d have been watching his base vote erode out from under him even if he could have brought in ‘independents’.
In fact, he never had a real chance of winning the primary. The reason he tried to jumpstart in Florida, skipping Iowa and NH was that he didn’t think he could get past the social issue problem.
But suppose he somehow managed to finesse the issue in the primaries. The MSM would have been cooperative at that stage, since they’d want Giuliani for the fall because he’d be easy to beat. Once he had the nomination, he’d suddenly be a target, though.
I remember a radio interview I heard with Giuliani months before the event, in which he admitted that he would lose big swaths of the South on E-day, but that he could supposedly make up for it by being competitive in the Northeast. Almost his exact words.
That was fantasy, to put it mildly.
But it’s the same fantasy that underlay the establishment’s thinking about McCain, who supposedly had some kind of ‘crossover appeal’. This was based on the primary vote in 2000, but a close look at the spread there shows that even then, McCain’s supposed crossover appeal was an illusion.
“Dole lost because (a) he was running against a very popular incumbent, and (b) Dole was a terrible choice as candidate, uncharismatic and unappealing, as well as old (73) facing a much younger and more attractive man. Neither (a) nor (b) apply to Rubio at all. ” – Neo-N.
This is a slight myth. Clinton was not so hugely popular as the press and establishment tried to portray. But Bob Dole ran, in effect, the exact same campaign that McCain would later run, and that the business-wing GOP insists is the key to victory now. I can still remember the frustration on the part of GOP voters waiting for Dole to take it to Clinton, and Dole kept waffling around and trying to avoid saying anything controversial
Toward the end of the campaign, he made a point of running from city to city in a marathon campaign round, proving…what?
Yet with his inept and weak campaign, he ended up losing by only about 8 points, rather than the ~20 most of the polls were predicting, and with Perot pulling from him. Clinton was much more vulnerable in 1996 than is widely remembered now.
“Bush Sr? When last I checked, he actually won a general election in 1988. So obviously he could win–because he did win.”
Actually, it would be more true to say that Ronald Reagan won a third term in 1988, GWHB ran as the third term. In 1980, on his own, he flamed out, and base dissatisfaction with him grew all through his four years, which is a lot of what made the GOP so vulnerable to the Perot hit. Perot couldn’t have undercut Bush Sr. if Bush Sr. hadn’t spent four years frustrating and infuriating his own voters.
“What’s more, you leave out Bush II, a non-conservative Republican who won, twice, although the race was extremely close in 2000 and quite close in 2004 as well. ”
Yes, he won. After 8 years of scandals, he barely won, and he won both times because ‘value voters’ turned out in surprise upsets, esp. 2004. It’s often forgotten now that Bush Jr. deliberately ran as being more conservative than his father, and just barely managed to carry it across the line against weak opponents (Gore and Kerry).
This year, though immigration was an issue in public discussion, the GOP intended to refuse to talk about it all. Their whole game plan was the try to moneyball Jeb into the nomination without having to reach out to the base voters at all, esp. on immigration. As late as the debates, Jeb was still referring to his ‘comprehensive’ plan to make immigration an asset, which shows a basic lack of grasp of where the base voters are.
(The word ‘comprehensive’ has become toxic in this context.)
Trump mentioned several things in his initial speech, but the immigration issue didn’t take off because of the press, it took off because that’s what the voters in the GOP base were waiting for, and he was the one who tapped into it.
You have a theory about who would win or not, and then you take the past and rationalize and quibble away the facts that don’t fit your theory. You’re entitled to your speculations, but that’s all they are.
Clinton was indeed a very popular incumbent, as I wrote; I don’t know your definition of the phrase “hugely popular,” but it’s yours, not mine. And Dole was indeed one of the worst nominees of any party I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, and I’m not primarily talking about strategy, I’m talking about the man himself and his lack of appeal. I never for a moment thought he had any chance of winning, and I could not believe the Republican Party had nominated him. He had no personal magnetism at all. And you say Dole “only” lost by about 8 points (actually, it was 8.5, but close enough). There’s nothing “only” about 8 points. It’s not quite a landslide, but it’s an extremely decisive win.