Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be fair, I think this is a pretty poor job of journalism. Ted Cruz came out a couple of weeks ago and stated that there would be no mass deportations, either. So, what are the differences in the positions of these two?
Rubio was not asked if he would allow the enforcement of the current laws, especially the labor and INS laws regarding these people, which Ted Cruz would support. Donald Trump has stated he would pursue mass deportations, although there is no law or system in place to facilitate that process. Neither Rubio or Cruz would.
As far as the "long time" criteria, that sounds a bit like what Newt Gingrich proposed back in 2012. I expect that if you have someone here for over 20 years that is an integral part of their community and has always been an upstanding citizen, on what basis would you go after that person to deport them? Neither Rubio or Cruz would, as they have both stated their will not be any mass deportations, but apparently Trump would.
Sen. Marco Rubio says people who immigrated to the U.S. illegally but haven't committed any major crimes could be allowed to stay.
In an interview airing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," the Florida Republican contender for the presidency said felons shouldn't be allowed to stay, but those who commit lesser crimes could still qualify. He didn't specify if the people allowed to stay would ever be able to become citizens.
"If you're a criminal alien, no, you can't stay. If you're someone that hasn't been here for a very long time, you can't stay," he said. "I don't think you're gonna round up and deport 12 million people."
And the one difficult part of this presentation is that if they are here illegally, they are criminals, so to say that "If you are a criminal alien, no, you can't stay," that interpreted literally would suggest that no illegal aliens can stay. So, Marco Rubio is likely to still have a bit of 'splainin' to do on this topic.
All that being said, Rubio and Cruz are close enough on their positions on this that this could well turn into a tar-baby trap for Cruz if he does not respond to this carefully.
Last edited by Spartacus713; 01-17-2016 at 08:12 AM..
To be fair, I think this is a pretty poor job of journalism. Ted Cruz came out a couple of weeks ago and stated that there would be no mass deportations, either. So, what are the differences in the positions of these two?
Rubio was not asked if he would allow the enforcement of the current laws, especially the labor and INS laws regarding these people, which Ted Cruz would support. Donald Trump has stated he would pursue mass deportations, although there is no law or system in place to facilitate that process. Neither Rubio or Cruz would.
As far as the "long time" criteria, that sounds a bit like what Newt Gingrich proposed back in 2012. I expect that if you have someone here for over 20 years that is an integral part of their community and has always been an upstanding citizen, on what basis would you go after that person to deport them? Neither Rubio or Cruz would, as they have both stated their will not be any mass deportations, but apparently Trump would.
And the one difficult part of this presentation is that if they are here illegally, they are criminals, so to say that "If you are a criminal alien, no, you can't stay," that interpreted literally would suggest that no illegal aliens can stay. So, Marco Rubio is likely to still have a bit of 'splainin' to do on this topic.
All that being said, Rubio and Cruz are close enough on their positions on this that this could well turn into a tar-baby trap for Cruz if he does not respond to this carefully.
Um, why are you calling illegal aliens "citizens"? They live a life of lies, stealing and cheating so how can they be upstanding? So, if someone manages to evade the law for 20 years they should be rewarded for it?
Um, why are you calling illegal aliens "citizens"? They live a life of lies, stealing and cheating so how can they be upstanding? So, if someone manages to evade the law for 20 years they should be rewarded for it?
No, not in a legal sense. That was more in a civic sense. They are not legal citizens and they should not be allowed to become legal citizens without successfully completing the "path to citizenship" that is outlined in the US Constitution. Sorry to so casually misuse such a sensitive word.
as far as I'm concerned, Rubio is a trader and certainly not a conservative....so many of them throw us under the bus when they refuse to acknowledge the law....and how they get away with it, scares me. It is ruthless and corrupt.....they are no better than those breaking laws/criminals......
Trump has the only position that he doesn't have to twist and turn to defend. That's why the Q&A with him about immigration is very short. If you are here illegally, you leave and apply from abroad like every one else. Just about the only thing he is accused of is that it can't be done. Cruz's jackbooted comment finally outed him as no better than any Democrat on this.
Trump has the only position that he doesn't have to twist and turn to defend. That's why the Q&A with him about immigration is very short. If you are here illegally, you leave and apply from abroad like every one else. Just about the only thing he is accused of is that it can't be done. Cruz's jackbooted comment finally outed him as no better than any Democrat on this.
yes, but beliving it and accomplishing it are two different things...it's got to be voted on to do so, and I'm wondering if they will vote to do the right thing, or be once again, led by those that run this country.
No, not in a legal sense. That was more in a civic sense. They are not legal citizens and they should not be allowed to become legal citizens without successfully completing the "path to citizenship" that is outlined in the US Constitution. Sorry to so casually misuse such a sensitive word.
Calling them "citizens", even in a civic sense, humanizes them, and we all know right-wingers won't tolerate that. Refer to them as "pieces of trash" next time, please.
Calling them "citizens", even in a civic sense, humanizes them, and we all know right-wingers won't tolerate that. Refer to them as "pieces of trash" next time, please.
Project much? The only person who has thought or said any such thing is you.
Calling them "citizens", even in a civic sense, humanizes them, and we all know right-wingers won't tolerate that. Refer to them as "pieces of trash" next time, please.
Or we could call them "angry, ranting nuts." Which is what we call you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.