Part 3: Cruz on Immigration: An Investigative Report

This post was contributed by guest blogger, Facts Matter.

 

Resolution: LEGAL STATUS –AMNESTY: Ted Cruz for/against, systematically reexamining the evidence

5. December 2015 Claim #1,2,3: (1). Ted Cruz adamantly claims that he does not and has NEVER supported legalization of Illegal Immigrants nor has he ever supported an Amnesty. (2). Ted Cruz’s argument that since his Amendment did not specifically mention legal status, he has then never supported legal Status. (3). Cruz’s contention that there is no proof he would have ever supported the Gang of Eight Legislation, even if his Amendments where included.   
(C-1) Analysis of all 3 points: Technicalities and realities are 2 different things. Technicalities are most  often used to avoid a resolution to a case that one side or another would like to find a different verdict for, so they raise technicalities because the factual merits of the case don’t hold up to their choosing.
Ted Cruz is using a technicality to claim innocence when he says his Amendment did not say anything about Legal Status and that there is no proof he supported or would support the legislation. So the question becomes did he support Legal Status and the legislation it in other ways? The answer becomes evident when you look at the evidence all laid out and side by side.
(1.) Just listen to the video recording of Ted Cruz in 2013 and you can see he was in support of removing the Citizenship requirement and that he was well aware of and intentionally left the Legal Status and Worker permit provisions in the legislation to pass with the legislation. Also anyone would be hard pressed to say that Ted Cruz did not in fact actively advocate for the adoption of his Amendments to include his no Citizenship Amendment and that he further actively advocated for the legal status and worker permit provisions to pass with the legislation, as a way to bring the Illegal Immigrant “Out of the Shadows”. Most times it would appear he was advocating for Illegal Immigrant who appeared to be his client! Cruz definitely was not advocating for the American Worker and the American People that he is supposed to represent (Ted Cruz now claims to be so concerned for the American Worker on Immigration.)  
(2.) At no time can I find anywhere during the legislative process that Ted Cruz spoke out actively or negatively against the Legal Status or Worker Permit provisions included in the legislation. Yet he continuously advocated against the Citizenship requirement. A day and night contrast which can say little more than he thought legal status was not an issue or that he supported it. His deafening silence and opinion of legal status and workers permits definitely did not show he was opposed to it. Silence is golden!  As a matter of fact after the legislation passed the Senate and up until Cruz’s recent December 2015 debate claim of being against legalization, Ted Cruz did everything he could to AVOID answering the question of legalization: What would he to do with the 11+ million Illegal Immigrants already here? Ted Cruz continuously was found sidestepping and changing the subject to something else  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=cuupFByd-4o&app=desktop (until he was boxed in recently on the legalization topic and the subject began to hammer him on the campaign trail). 
When Ted Cruz avoids the legalization question he usually yields to the No Citizenship excuse (See: Part 1 of this report/ (B ) The beginning Point: Gang of Eight Legislative Battle 2013, the battle lines are drawn: #4: Where I explained why Citizenship is not a real component of Amnesty-this is a important point). Ted Cruz also often yielded to saying that after the border is secured then we can have national conversation on what to do with the 11+ million Illegal Immigrants already here. A national conversation has already occurred. What’s that mean anyway? Smells more of avoidance. A candidate running for president owes the American People a clear explanation of where he stands on such an important issue of what to do with Illegal Immigrants already here. It wasn’t until the heat got too hot that Cruz conveniently back peddled to the “Rule of Law”. So to change positions under serious pressure raises credibility questions we have all seen far to often in so many politicians.
(3.) This recent article found on the internet appeared to attempt to exonerate Cruz of the Legalization issue. Yet it actually directly implicates Ted Cruz in his support for Legal Status and yes Amnesty. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-the-facts-on-rubio-cruz-and-immigration/article/2578838  According to the article, Ted Cruz voted for 3 Amendments during the legislative battle that where grounded in having Enforcement Triggers in place before different levels of legal status could occur. Legal status before or after triggers is legal status. All 3 of the  Amendments in fact directly mentioned Legal Status as a major provision of the Amendment and Ted Cruz supported all 3 Amendments, up until the time they all died on procedural votes. So unless Ted Cruz wants to redefine support, supporting these amendments showed some type of support for legal status! Of course in the final vote Ted Cruz could have voted against any of these items (that we will never know)! If Senator Cruz had chosen to vote against them and they had still passed, would it not appear as an attempt to play both sides of the issue while keeping his fingerprints off of the controversial legal status Amnesty so he could claim innocence? Purely voting for something to occur directly or indirectly is in fact a form of permission and or support.                                                                      
Examine the three amendments yourself (remember a Yes and No vote does not always mean you do not or do support the Amendment, it depends on the procedure that is being voted on). All of the quotation marked excerpts come from this official linked page: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:S.744:
*SPECIAL NOTE ON THESE LINKS IN THIS SECTION:  Many of these amendment links may not work because of how they are formatted on the web site. So if that is the case and they do not work you can gain access to them by using this link below and then  clicking “S744” on the top right line:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
Amendments:
a. S.AMDT.1195 to S.744 To prohibit the granting of registered provisional immigrant status until the Secretary has maintained effective control of the borders for 6 months. 
Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] (introduced 6/11/2013)      Cosponsors (2) 
Latest Major Action: 6/13/2013 Motion to table amendment SA 1195 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 – 43. Record Vote Number: 148.”                                                                    
  Interpretation: The motion to Table the Amendment (which basically kills the amendment) won by the “Yes” votes. Cruz and all the other Opposition to the original legislation all voted “Nay” to keep the legislation alive for possible passage.                      
b.“  S.AMDT.1197 to S.744 To require the completion of the 350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing described in section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 before registered provisional immigrant status may be granted and to require the completion of 700 miles of such fencing before the status of registered provisional immigrants may be adjusted to permanent resident status. 
Sponsor: Sen Thune, John [SD] (introduced 6/11/2013)      Cosponsors (2) 
Latest Major Action: 6/18/2013 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1197, under the order of 6/17/2013, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, was not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 39 – 54. Record Vote Number: 151.”                                                                                                            Interpretation: The amendment did not meet the 60 vote requirement to come up for an actual vote for passage in the Senate. In most cases a vote of yes is considered a show of support for the amendment or at least for the vote to be considered for passage and a vote of Nay is a vote to kill the Amendment. Ted Cruz and all the other Opposition Senators to the original legislation voted “Yes” to keep the legislation alive for final debate and a passage vote, which is normally the next and final step.                                                                         
c.S.AMDT.1228 to S.744 To prohibit the temporary grant of legal status to, or adjustment to citizenship status of, any individual who is unlawfully present in the United States until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the US-VISIT System (a biometric border check-in and check-out system first required by Congress in 1996) has been fully implemented at every land, sea, and airport of entry and Congress passes a joint resolution, under fast track procedures, stating that such integrated entry and exit data system has been sufficiently implemented. 
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (introduced 6/12/2013)      Cosponsors (3) 
Latest Major Action: 6/18/2013 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1228, under the order of 6/17/2013, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, was not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 36 – 58. Record Vote Number: 152.”                                                                                   
 Interpretation: The amendment did not meet the 60 vote requirement to come up for an actual vote for passage in the Senate. In most cases a vote of yes is considered a show of support for the amendment or at least for the vote to be considered for passage and a vote of Nay is a vote to kill the Amendment. Ted Cruz and all the other Opposition Senators to the original legislation all voted “Yes” to keep the legislation alive for final debate and a passage vote, which is normally the next and final step.                                                                                                                  
(4.) From the Dear Colleagues letter dated June 4, 2013 that appeared “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren December 18, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_nHsS5LIoM  The letter clearly states on the last page “Critically, the Committee rejected an amendment (Cruz 3) that would have allowed immigrants here illegally to obtain legal status- to come out of the shadows and work legally-but not be eligible for citizenship. The bill proponents said that citizenship is essential to reform; indeed, a senior Democrat confessed. “If we don’t have a path to citizenship, there is no reform.”       
First, the letter shows that Ted Cruz knew his No Citizenship Amendment SA1322 written the way it was allowed Amnesty via Legal Status and Worker Permits to occur and he signed the letter knowing that would occur if the legislation passed.  What if legal status was substituted with permission for abortion and he freely allowed that to occur, is that OK?         
Senator Cruz contends that his Amendment did not mention legal status, putting that aside for now that is not what the Dear Colleagues letter said and what the letter does say is quite different. Even if the letter is just portraying the effects of his Amendment SA1322 in coordination with the main piece of legislation, legalization is being allowed to stand as an indirect result of Cruz’s inaction and silence on the legalization issue I mentioned in (C-1) Analysis of all 3 points #2 above. The Dear Colleagues letter does appear to have been, at least in part, written by Ted Cruz himself. Senator Cruz being a Lawyer should know very well that you never sign anything you do not agree with or that even remotely implicates you in something you don’t agree with. Especially of this importance! Yet Cruz signed it and the letter says- what it says! Further it is quite hard for somebody to morally claim innocence to supporting something this publically opposed to by in effect- looking the other way!
Note: Senator Cruz could have just as easily put an additional amendment forward to also stop any efforts at legalization of any of the 11+ million Illegal Immigrants and avoided most of this debate, but he chose not to.
(5.) Ted Cruz’s no Citizenship Amendment itself reads (from what limited information is available in the Congressional Record):http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r113:FLD001:S04593 (click on pages S4593)
SA 1322. Mr. CRUZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 744, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
    On page 1076, strike line 20 and insert the following:
  SEC. 2215. IMMIGRANT CATEGORIES INELIGIBLE FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.”
(Congressional Record reads con’t) “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, aliens granted registered provisional immigrant status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2101, including aliens described in section 245D(b)(1) of such Act, and aliens granted blue card status under section 2211 are permanently ineligible to become naturalized citizens of the United States, except for aliens granted asylum pursuant to section 208 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1158).”                
Note: Ted Cruz’s claim that his amendment was silent on legalization, in the interview with Greta at 2:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_nHsS5LIoM is not true, unless you are playing technicalities again.
End Part 3 Resolution:
Continues in part 4: Conclusion and Final Notes