Thread: CRUZ IMMIGRATION PLAN SUMMARY

CRUZ IMMIGRATION PLAN SUMMARY

It’s not that we don’t know how to solve illegal immigration. What is missing is the political will to get it done. And, as president,I will get it done. We will secure the borders.” – Ted Cruz

SECURE THE BORDER

A Cruz Administration’s first priority for immigration reform will be to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. We will:

• Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American soil. I will complete the wall.
• Triple the number of Border Patrol agents. Securing the border is the federal government’s obligation. I will dedicate the force necessary to do that.
• Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border. Adding boots on the ground is not enough. Eyes in the sky and other equipment are necessary to find and detain all illegal entrants.
• Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry. It is disgraceful that our federal government cannot keep track of those who enter the country. I will complete a biometric entry-exit tracking system.

RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

We need a President who will follow the law, hold those who break it accountable, and take seriously the duty to protect Americans. To restore the Rule of Law, a Cruz Administration will:

• End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. President Obama has issued over 20 illegal executive memoranda rewarding illegality. I will rescind each and every one on my first day in office.
• Increase deportations and end catch-and-release. Our laws are not being enforced. I will restore our commitment to enforcement, public safety, and the Rule of Law by rededicating DHS to fully enforcing the law, including through deportations and returns.
• End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants. There are about 340 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States. They make a mockery of our laws and endanger our citizens. I will end support for these jurisdictions.
• Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify. American taxpayers should not be funding benefits for those who are here illegally, and American jobs should not go to those who are here illegally. I will protect Americans’ wellbeing by stopping the flow of taxpayer dollars and instituting a strong e-verify system.

REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

In order to strengthen our immigration system, protect national security, and better serve American workers, we must:

• Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program. New allegations detail appalling abuses of the H-1B visa program – a program meant to create American jobs and spur economic growth. I will suspend the program for 180 days to investigate abuses.
• Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high. The purpose of legal immigration should be to grow the economy, not to displace American workers. Under no circumstances should legal immigration levels be adjusted upwards so long as work-force participation rates remain below historical averages.
• Enforce the public-charge doctrine. Current law requires legal immigrants to certify that they will be economically self-sufficient. A Cruz Administration will ensure they do not receive government assistance, which defies the law and harms American taxpayers.
• End birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship was not intended to legalize the children of people who are breaking the law by entering and staying in the country illegally. I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

“We stopped the Gang of Eight bill. Ted Cruz led the fight against the establishment. We would be living under amnesty right now if Cruz had not succeeded.” – Rush Limbaugh


https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan-summary/

MW, Thank you for posting the immigration plan for Senator Cruz.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

MW, Thank you for posting the immigration plan for Senator Cruz.

You're welcome, GP.

As usual he says nothing about punishing business's that hire illegal aliens to any extent. He also says end *financial* benefits but why say the world *financial* at all? It could be easily twisted saying they don't consider food stamps as *financial* or HUD housing as *financial*. Same for medicaid expansion, and numerous other programs. What about education for illegal aliens as well?

I don't see illegal immigration being handled matter what else is done unless they are willing to be very serious about punishing business's extremely hard who hire illegal aliens. E-Verify can be great if strengthened but it just helps the business's who are either honest trying to do the right thing get legal workers. The rest will still hire illegal aliens when they want knowing they won't face any real punishment and if raided they lose the illegal workers and hire more tomorrow after a petty fine compared to how much they saved hiring illegal aliens.

I don't see how anyone can claim to solve the illegal immigration problem without deporting en masse all the ones who are here. It's like having a gated community but feeding the thieves who already broke into your homes before you gated it.

Notice this point here:

End birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship was not intended to legalize the children of people who are breaking the law by entering and staying in the country illegally. I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

This highlights the grim contradiction Ted Cruz himself represents. He wants to end "birthright citizenship"? And he says that he is opposed to "legalizing" the children of people who are here illegally?

What about the children -- born in the US -- of just one parent who is here illegally and the other is a US citizen? How is that much different from Ted Cruz himself who has only one parent who was a US citizen and Cruz was not even born in the US. Does he want to continue granting birthright citizenship to children born of one US parent no matter what the immigration status of the other parent is?

If we want to restore birthright citizenship to its intended practice, that means both parents must be US citizens in order to bestow birthright citizenship and that certainly excludes Cruz himself.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between those cases where the non-citizen parent is here legally or not and what difference would it make since we obliged to consider Cruz himself a citizen when he wasn't even born in the US. If you want an anchor baby like Cruz, and you can't get into the country legally, the solution is simple, just grab yourself a US citizen and squirt one out anywhere outside of the US. Done.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

As usual he says nothing about punishing business's that hire illegal aliens to any extent. He also says end *financial* benefits but why say the world *financial* at all? It could be easily twisted saying they don't consider food stamps as *financial* or HUD housing as *financial*. Same for medicaid expansion, and numerous other programs. What about education for illegal aliens as well?

I don't see illegal immigration being handled matter what else is done unless they are willing to be very serious about punishing business's extremely hard who hire illegal aliens. E-Verify can be great if strengthened but it just helps the business's who are either honest trying to do the right thing get legal workers. The rest will still hire illegal aliens when they want knowing they won't face any real punishment and if raided they lose the illegal workers and hire more tomorrow after a petty fine compared to how much they saved hiring illegal aliens.

It is a kind of myth that "business" is somehow itself unrelated to the immigration crisis outside of simply responding to labor market forces and available labor. The real problem is legal immigrants who are in business and hire the illegals. This is especially true of illegals from China and South and Central America. These illegals do not speak English and in order to get employment the people who employ them must be fluent in those languages. They must themselves be immigrants from the illegal's country of origin. Many of these legal immigrants come into the country fully expecting to start businesses utilizing illegal immigrant labor. They come here already knowing where to look for the illegals.

We have to confront legal immigrants and threaten their immigration status, especially their citizenship if they employ illegals. Just generally, it should be against the law for legal immigrants to issue green cards. Nobody who is a recently naturalized citizen should be able employ migrant labor. And if you applied for citizenship, you should be able to be stripped of your citizenship if you hire illegals.

You raise a good point. It's also immigrants who work in businesses who then want to hire the illegal aliens and want those green card and visa workers, too, so they have their culture within their employment. Why would Americans want them? We don't, we want them all to leave and get out of here.

Those business's are still considered legal business's and they need to go after them as well. Plenty of business's held by illegal aliens, immigrants, and even citizens look specifically for illegal aliens while more so business's held by illegal aliens and immigrants. But when they are at risk of losing their business and a huge chunk of their money as well then things could change.

Far as birthright citizenship as long as 1 parent is a US citizen at time of birth then no issue. But citizenship should pass through the mother if not married and if a US citizen father signed the birth certificate at birth should be able to claim US citizenship as well. Cases like Cruz wouldn't be at odds as long as 1 biological or through marriage parent at birth is a US Citizen. The issue would come down to classes of Citizenship such as a Natural Born Citizen or a plain old Citizen.

Yet Cruz talks on legislation or changing the Constitution. Not enough balls to do it through Executive Order requiring Congress or the SCOTUS to rule on the issue to overturn him. Thanks to Obama even if Obama's DAPA and DACA fall a President could cite through Executive Order interpretation (but cite the grounds for interpretation) that bars citizenship based on just being born on US soil w/o having a parent who has US citizenship. Trump *might* have the balls to do that if congress or the SCOTUS won't take it up but def not Cruz or anyone else. Its the best way to force the issue to get handled.

This includes his stated desire to build a wall, not just about eminent domain.

TED CRUZ is FOR EMINENT DOMAIN!




BestPoliticalVideos

Published on Feb 8, 2016
Eminent domain (United States, the Philippines), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (South Africa, Canada, Brazil) is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. However, it can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.[1]

The property may be taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties, who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for government buildings and other facilities, public utilities, highways, and railroads. However, it may also be taken for reasons of public safety, as in the case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. Some jurisdictions require that the condemnor make an offer to purchase the subject property, before resorting to the use of eminent domain.
Constitution

The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[4] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest", or "public benefit".[5]

The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain: the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid. Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, soldiers forcibly sought housing in whatever homes were near their military assignments. To address the latter problem, the Third Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner's consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate "just compensation," a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the Fifth Amendment.[6] All U.S. states have legislation specifying eminent domain procedures within their respective territories.[7]

The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes. The legislature may take private property by passing an Act transferring title to the government. The property owner may then seek compensation by suing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land. Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government's right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwHHnjnndWA