Part 1: Ted Cruz on Immigration: An Investigative Report

This post was contributed by guest blogger, Facts Matter. 


Unraveling the Truth of Ted Cruz’s Position on Legalization of Illegal Immigrants (Part 1 of 4) 

 ted cruz 2

There are 2 ways you can examine this issue: Either by examining the issue as a Policy position or as an issue of Integrity and Moral Character. This investigative report is more of the latter, while at times I may give short positional explanations for clarification and to avoid attempts to excuse the facts and conclusions of this investigation.
From the onset I must say this is a tangled mess of unsupported hearsay and claims of unsupported fact with underlying and almost undisputable Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. The challenge is getting through the muck that has been generated by the deception, evasiveness, gamesmanship, and doublespeak of this issue evolving over the last three years, due to a lack of frankness and candor. I have tried to rely on letting the facts speak for themselves.                                                         
Note: This report is as of the of December 15, 2015 debate time frame. Due to the Immense amount of evidence and topic matter in this issue, it will be sub-divided into 3-4 parts. The recent January 14, 2016 Debate having just occurred will be reviewed and any additional pertinent issues will be answered in the remaining parts of this report.  
(A)The latest claims of Ted Cruz: Arising for the December 15, 2015 debate, it appears to have found him claiming seven things.
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.   
4.    Ted Cruz’s “No Citizenship Amendment” was intended to be part of a strategy or a Poison Pill to defeat the Gang of Eight Legislation.
5.    Ted Cruz’s and others portrayal of him as the Night in Shining Armor that destroyed the legislation with one swift strike of ingenious strategy, revolving around his Amendment or Amendments to the Gang of Eight legislation.
6.    Ted Cruz’s latest claim that all five of his Amendments were intended as Poison Pill Amendments.   
7.    That Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions support for Senator Cruz in the disagreement between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio unquestionable backs up Ted Cruz, as being the Honest Broker and Rubio a liar.   
There is no easy way to unravel this issue by starting with the December 2015 episode. The best and most logical place is where the facts are the strongest and based on the best Direct and Circumstantial Evidence, as well as, the easiest place to decipher the content. That point is at the beginning in 2013.
**Opposition Senators to the Gang of Legislation while in the Senate: Jeff Sessions, Chuck Grassley, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee.
(B ) The beginning Point: Gang of Eight Legislative Battle 2013, the battle lines are drawn.
This seems to me to be the best summary of the strategy of the Opposition Senators to the Gang of Eight Legislation as it was originally written, based on the facts I found available. I am not considering unsupported, after the fact hearsay of what transpired.
1.    The original Gang of Eight Legislation was a disaster waiting to happen for the American people if passed.
2.    Ted Cruz openly pointed out the Citizenship Provision in the Legislation was the Poison Pill and that it was designed to destroy the legislation. The opposite of Ted Cruz’s claim today which is that his No Citizenship Amendment was the Poison Pill. Yes, that is correct the Poison Pill was the Citizenship Provision in the Legislation initially and Ted Cruz’s Citizenship Amendment was designed to remove the Poison Pill, thus making the Legislation passable with the Legal status and Worker permit Amnesty for Illegals Included. Which appears to be a position to compromise (see#3).
3.    Since the legislation was such a disaster and destined for failure the Opposition Senators decided a compromise position consisting of several amendments was the best avenue to resolve the issues and salvage the legislation. Amendments:Focusing on what the Opposition Senators perceived to be needed improvement to the legislation to make it legislation that could be supported and passed. To include but not limited to: More Enforcement Provisions & Triggers, Streamlining, Enhancing, and Improving (Ted Cruz’s words not mine) the Legal Immigration system. Ted Cruz’s Amendments included provisions to greatly increase the numbers of Immigrants and H1B Immigrant workers who entered the country. Lastly, he included an amendment that removed Citizenship provisions from the Legislation but intentionally allowed the Legal Status and Worker Permits to remain in the Legislation, so as to bring Illegal Immigrants “Out of the Shadows” (Cruz’s own words) and to resolve the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty impasse. Note: Legal status and Workers permits is clearly Amnesty it rewards the Illegal Immigrant with the exact “Fruits of the Crime” they took illegally and is widely accepted as a position of Amnesty (probably why Ted Cruz has himself in his current position).  Legal status also allows Illegal Immigrants to legally cut in line (into the country) in front of Legal Immigrants, since Illegal Immigrants are allowed to stay. Cutting in line is something Ted Cruz says he is adamantly opposed to as unfair to Legal Immigrants.
4.    A concerted effort appears to have been put forth (mainly by Ted Cruz) to blur the Amnesty issue by stressing Citizenship as the pivotal factor as to what defines Amnesty (which is a totally false narrative and is a common tactic used by those who support amnesty. Why? Illegal Immigrants generally have done no crime Involving Citizenship and you must have a crime to give Amnesty.Theirs is a violation of Status in the country NOT Citizenship. So thus a Non-Violation is not a Violation you can Amnesty.)  The concerted effort also appears to have intentionally included the downplaying and writing off of Legal Status and Work Permits as just a minor detail that would be allowed to pass with the Legislation to resolve the issue. Note: What the Opposition Senator Amendments didn’t address was what the American people actually wanted and what was best for the American Worker and People, in respect to the Illegal Immigrants already here.  
5.    Ted Cruz Proposed 5 Amendments to meet the above goals in #3 and he actively advocated for the passage of his amendments and the legislation. Specifically to the Citizenship Amendment, evidence show Ted Cruz aggressively advocated for the passage of the legislation with his Amendment Included and he actively advocated for the Legal Status and Worker Permit Provisions, as a means to bring the Illegal Immigrants “Out of the Shadows”
6.    The end result was the Amendments on the Opposition’s part failed and were not adopted to the legislation.
7.    The Gang of Eight Legislation easily passed the Senate by a Yea-Nay Vote of 68-32 and over a year later it died in the House of Representatives of a natural death at the end of the 2014 Congressional calendar year. 
Whether good or bad that the legislation failed is a totally different topic. I will say in my opinion it was a good thing the legislation failed. Although, in fact the Opposition Senators put forth many good Amendments. Specifically in the case of Ted Cruz, he had some good Enforcement Amendments but his amendments on Legal Immigration would have spelled disaster for the American Worker (Cruz’s legal immigration and Visa proposals were much worse numerically than the Gang of Eight’s original proposals).                                   
My conclusion: Even if all the good amendments of the Opposition Senators had passed, the underlying Amnesty of Legal Status and Worker Permits would in fact still be in the legislation and would spell disaster. Ultimately the passage would have set in motion another 1986 Amnesty scheme all over again. Just with different rules, regardless of the enforcement triggers. That’s a simple logical fact!