An old tweet from Ted Cruz in 2013 has resurfaced and it has some on Twitter suggesting that it’s proof Cruz changed his stance on legalization.

First up, here’s the tweet:

But here’s that tweet along with others from the same day to put what he said back in 2013 during the Gang of 8 debate in the proper context:


  • RblDiver

    I thought “It was taken out of context” is a defense only Hillary or Teh Wun could use. Everyone KNOWS everything said by a conservative is gospel, never tongue-in-cheek, part of a larger argument, etc >.>

    • alanstorm

      “It was taken out of context” only matters for liberals.

      For them, it’s critical. For everyone else, NBD.

  • Ragnar__Danneskjold

    Cruz is the the most qualified candidate to restore the republic.

    • Hillarybilly

      I have to disagree with you. I have been following all the republican politicians records and policies so if you ask me Jim Gilmore is the man.

      • Petrucio14


      • bil_g

        +1 for ulterior motives.

      • JD Son✓MyWizIzTheShiz


      • Conservative4Ever

        Hmm Jimmy has no chance. Ted Cruz is the only conservative in the race, therefore, because of his conservatism, is the only one who can restore our Constitutional Republic.

    • kayerob

      Example please

  • Maxx

    I know my observation isn’t going to be a popular one here but every one of these politicians has, prior to their declaration to run, supported some form of amnesty. I read all of Ted’s tweets above and it didn’t convince me he’s been opposed to it from the start. Book end the subject tweet with all the others and it doesn’t take away from Ted talking about a pathway to legalization in 2013. Rubio was for some form of it, Jeb too. It doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them. It is what it is. Circumstances and current climates put forth situations in which we all change our minds about any host of issues. It’s why Dennis Miller is no longer a liberal.

    I’d be more impressed with any of them if they just flat out admitted it but in their race to out-Trump Donald, they need to be reminded that HE too, spoke of amnesty in the context of priorities.×598.png

    • DeplorableMessMan ✔ JesseMessy

      You’ll pardon the nonsequitur, but a good starting point is for the Trumpeters to admit to themselves that their guy is a pandering populist being passed off as a conservative, whereas flawed conservatives like Cruz are still “conservative”.

      • kayerob

        7 People Resigned From Cruz Campaign Today. He Hit These with Legal Papers. He HasHad All His Records Sealed. The Only Candidate To So This. So Yea Trust Ted

        • DeplorableMessMan ✔ JesseMessy

          Trumpeter alert, my friends, Trumpeter alert. (How do I know this one’s a Trumpanzee? His/her/its profile is “open”.)

        • ArmchairMike

          I am sure that happened and they only told you about it because you would never say a word.

    • ArmchairMike

      So you are saying that these folks are changing their positions? When Trump changes every position he is on record to have, how is that different? Well is’t that convenient. It is ok if you think Trump is the guy that can fix this country but it a little shitty that he has to bitch about other people for doing the same fucking thing he does. Doesn’t that seem a bit silly or am I just a buttface dildo licking fatass bastard for saying it?

      • Maxx

        You can’t possibly think I am a Trump supporter. My profile and all of its history would reveal my disdain for him. As for politicians changing their opinions, there is a difference between two conservatives changing their opinion on how to handle a conservative issue. It’s another for a lifelong liberal to convince me he’s now totally behind conservatism when he’s never bothered to vote in a Republican primary.

        Like never.

        • ArmchairMike

          I did read it as you being a Trump fan, I apologize. I never check anyones profile, hell I can barely read.

          • Maxx

            No problem at all. I think he’s a Trojan Horse liberal posing as a conservative and if you dig deep enough into his history, it’s clear this fella is center-left…like significantly left. For example, the guy wants a national health care system. Which true conservative do you know supports Ted Kennedy’s lifelong dream?

          • ArmchairMike

            I agree, I just read the first couple of sentences of your post and just assumed you were a Trump boy so I replied as I did.

    • John Kerry’s Forehead

      Refreshing post.

    • JD Son✓MyWizIzTheShiz

      Ted never supported Amnesty, and never will. Megyn Kelly was the latest one to get slapped down on that silly notion at the debate on Thursday night. She even admitted she was wrong.

      • Conservative4Ever

        Which means not many heard her retraction. She should’ve been informed at the debate she was wrong. Her ego got in the way when Cruz corrected her. So she waits until after the debate & corrects herself on her show. Meaning millions who watched the debate, but missed her show, never heard her retraction.

        • JD Son✓MIB

          Of course, and it was by design on Megyn Kelly’s behalf.

    • Marla Hughes

      Exactly. *EVERYONE* speaks about securing the borders and then talking about legalizing the illegals in some way or another. It’s disingenuous of Cruz to try to have it both ways. Now he tries to maintain that he’s never supported legalization and that’s simply not true.

    • Conservative4Ever

      Donald Trump stated on MSNBC last week that he wants to work out deals with Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer. He also stated on NBC that he is “very pro choice” & supports “partial birth abortions.” He also stated that his New York values is different than values in Iowa.

  • ArmchairMike

    Megyn pissed on Cruz last night. During the debate he questions her and she says it’s on tape we just play it do you want to hear it again? She had an interview with him immediately following the debate and said that they have had an exhausting investigation and found he was telling the truth.
    That was rather odd that she didn’t tell everyone about their exhaustive investigation when he was telling her it was wrong. It happens at 4:20 of the video/

    • Regular Rufus

      Fox is all in for Boobio now, but that’s not a surprise. Fox has never been a “conservative” news network, they have been a “republican” network.

    • Alex

      Megyn Kelly was wrong about that. The truth is, Cruz intentionally delayed committing to any stand at all on what to do with illegal immigrants currently living in the country. He delayed for years. He didn’t actually announce an official position until December 14th, 2015 – one month ago. Well, actually, he himself didn’t announce a position until December 15th during the debate, but his staff declared it the day before, and very few people saw it.

      Until then, what he did was engage in what we see from 2013, making people THINK he supported legalization, but using careful language and wording to avoid tying himself down. Whenever someone asked him directly, he walked away. Meanwhile, he did research to figure out what would and would not be popular. And he waited through nearly this entire primary season to see what would serve him best.

      He has not chosen based on his beliefs or what he thinks is best for the country. Make no mistake about this. He has chosen based on what serves him best. He even avoids calling his plan “self-deportation,” though that’s exactly what it is.

      Megyn Kelly did a fairly extensive search for Cruz’s comments. But she didn’t do the exhaustive search that this guy did:

      • ArmchairMike

        So sorry Alex you are wrong and just copy and pasting something doesn’t make it correct.

        • Alex

          I challenge you to find a source for that “copy and paste.” Hint: there isn’t one.

      • John Kerry’s Forehead

        So Cruz carefully waited to announce his position to best serve his campaign…but when Trump spins 180 degrees to run GOP because, “Republicans are stupid” (Donald Trump), it is ok. Sounds awfully left-wingish to me.

        • Alex

          Of course Trump switched. That’s a given. And he was right before and wrong now. And he knows it. He fully understands that it’s idiotic to round up 11 billion people, deport them, and then give most of them a fast path back into the country. It costs billions and badly hurts our economy.

          The other thing that people seem to fail to realize is that Congressional support is needed for all of these people’s “plans.” Cruz and Trump aren’t going to find it. We’ve been living in a little hole these last 9 months or so. We’ve forgotten that only 19% of Americans support deportation and 65% support a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants. With statistics like that, it’s impossible to push through any hardliner position. What Cruz and Trump are essentially advocating now is more gridlock and getting very little done. Talking tough on this isn’t as important to me as speaking realistically.

          • John Kerry’s Forehead

            I guess the 19% all live in Iowa and work with me and live in my community.

          • Alex

            I’m sure there is truth to that. But the various polls I’ve seen fall in that range. This is the one I quoted, and it’s useful because it shows the trend from 2007 to 2015.

          • John Kerry’s Forehead

            Bad night?

          • Alex

            Are you kidding? The candidate I support did really well and is now very well-positioned moving forward. And some real problems have appeared for one of the two people who finished ahead of him.

          • John Kerry’s Forehead

            But, but, Trumpkins were sooooo adamant that Iowa was a shoe-in and he was leading in the polls…now winning Iowa doesn’t matter? I see. I predict Trump wins NH easily. They are quite liberal there.

          • Alex

            I thought you might be confusing me for a Trump supporter. That’s why I tried to clarify that wasn’t the case in my last message, noting that two people finished ahead of my selection. Marco Rubio, whom I support, was never expected to win Iowa. But he was expected with far fewer votes than he did, at least by people who didn’t catch either of the two polls that were conducted entirely after the last debate. I’m very happy with the result. Rubio has more competition in his lane than Cruz and thus stands to gain more when people drop out. Cruz also had some unfortunate news come out of this primary, and Carson supporters are upset with the Cruz campaign. Carson was the candidate with the most cross voter appeal with Cruz, with the exceptions of Trump and Rubio of course. So this may help Rubio when Carson finally drops out. Cruz is also at risk of this issue as well as the issue of his mailers coming up in this next debate. If those things happen, it could be difficult for him.

            Trump must fail. He would be terrible for our country. Personally I believe Rubio is our best hope for stopping him.

          • John Kerry’s Forehead

            I actually predicted Rubio to finish ahead of Trump. I had my state:


            Sorry for confusing you for a Trumpkin. Forgive me.

      • constitutionminded

        I gave up on slate long ago. Can’t trust them.

        • Alex

          And you shouldn’t trust them in general. But I do encourage you to read that particular article. The sources are all given and can be verified. There’s nothing to take on faith, and it’s designed to let you draw your own conclusions from the data.

          • constitutionminded

            Alex, I did take your advice and read it. It didn’t leave an absolute opinion but my take was, is he using the word legalization different than the way we understand it. Does he meant to say that they would be legal to stay but not to become citizens. Or is he actually sitting on the fence. I wish we knew the truth but I guess that would make the election too easy.

          • Alex

            Thank you for reading it. I agree it’s ambiguous. I was looking at some polls today from that time period, and it looks like a majority of American voters, including Republicans, were supporting that 2013 immigration bill. That’s gotten a little lost this campaign cycle with all of the “amnesty” bashing. But it may have seemed like a big risk to Cruz to stand against legalization completely. I would be really curious to know what position he would have taken if he had gotten through this entire campaign and become the nominee without having to clarify his position. In that case, it could have served him better in the general election if he still had the flexibility to take a softer stance.

          • constitutionminded

            I think the most of us will agree that they can’t physically be deported. But, by making it harder for them to work, get welfare and food stamps, social security, we would make it very uncomfortable for them. Of course, any life in this country is better than where they came from and that is why they are here. I guess we should be glad that this country still is where people want to come. But I also think the majority are not for blanket amnesty. And if we don’t close our borders, at least for a time, we will never get this under control.

          • Alex

            I’m all for securing our borders so that we stop illegal immigration. But I definitely don’t want to stop immigration entirely. It’s critical for our economy that we continue to bring new talent that can help us compete in a competitive world economy. This has never been more true. We’ve just entered the beginning of something akin to the Industrial Revolution with our advancements in artificial intelligence and automation. With 7.3 billion people in the world, it’s a given that a huge portion of the best talent in the world isn’t born here, and we need to continue to encourage them to come here. If we don’t get them, someone else will. Immigrants who contribute to our economy create more jobs than they take.

            Regarding the people already here illegally, I neither favor deporting everyone nor letting everyone stay. I actually do like Rubio’s plan on this. First, it’s important to realize that the total number of illegal immigrants living in the country leveled off back in 2007. Since then it hasn’t been growing or shrinking substantially. This means that most of the 11 million people here have been here for a very long time and are to some degree integrated, especially into our economy. Deporting them all, or even pursuing policies that make it difficult for all of them to stay, would hurt everyone involved. In California for example, between a third and half of of the agricultural workforce is here illegally – and they grow half of our fruits and vegetables. We’d be unable to replace that labor for a very long time. Other industries have similar high concentrations, and they are concentrated regionally so that simply forcing people out would create exaggerated damages. We’d also have to deal with a very substantial reduction in tax revenue, social security revenue, and consumer spending. And these things would again be concentrated regionally, making their effect harder to manage.

            Instead of doing that, I’d rather go the other way around and try to make most of these people fit in better with our economy, tax system, and society. We can deport anyone who hasn’t been here for a terribly long time (Rubio calls for 12 years) and anyone who has engaged in other criminal activity. We can make people pay fines and taxes, require them to work consistently in our country, and learn English and American civics. Bringing people out of the shadows in this way will allow people to contribute more healthily to our economy and society. And letting people do this for an extended number of years in a sort of probational period where they are ineligible for any sort of government safety net programs will give them a chance to prove that they deserve a second chance to eventually apply for legal residence the way they should have done in the first place.

            This does seem like a position that can pass. In 2013, a Quinnipiac poll posed the following question: “As you may know, the U.S. Senate recently voted to pass legislation reforming the immigration system. The bill would allow illegal immigrants already in the country to become citizens after 13 years if they pay a fine and learn English. The bill would also double the number of border patrol agents, and double the amount of fencing along the Mexican border. In general, do you support or oppose this bill?”

            64% of Americans supported it. That broke down into 60% of Republicans, 73% of Democrats, and 61% of Independents. This compared to 31% of Americans who opposed it and 6% who were unsure. Other polls showed similar results.

          • constitutionminded

            You make very good points, except with 93 million out of work it is hard to justify bringing in more people.

          • Alex

            We definitely don’t have that many people looking for jobs. 🙂 There are around 140 million people working in the country all total. Now actual unemployment is certainly higher than the official figure. The U6 statistic is a better measure, since it includes part-time workers who are looking for work and also those who have given up. It’s at just under 10% now.

            In any case, though, I’m not arguing for bringing in more people because our unemployment rate allows it. I’m just saying that bringing in more people doesn’t really hurt Americans’ ability to get jobs. The number of jobs an economy can support is dictated by the number of people that can do work. Now it’s important for the sake of the quality of those jobs that we diversify our skills. And we absolutely should be making changes to our legal immigration system to make it based on merit. But immigration isn’t the reason people are struggling to find work today. The reason for that is the other stupid things we’re doing. High taxes and crazy regulations are making it difficult for businesses to start up or create new jobs. Regulations on banks make it more difficult for them to grant loans to small business owners. Our trade policies are causing some companies to invest outside of the United States to take advantage of free trade agreements that we don’t have. This is a big part of the reason Mexico is doing so well with attracting auto manufacturers. They’re way ahead of us in free trade agreements. And most importantly, too many Americans aren’t learning the skills they need to get jobs that pay decent wages. We’ve focused for far too long on college as being the only path to success. This is especially dangerous at a time when automation, machine learning, and other artificial intelligence advances are so sharply on the rise. We’re going to have a lot of people unable to find work if we don’t change the way skills are acquired.

            We shouldn’t stop bringing people here who can help us grow our economy. We need that. We just need to stop shooting ourselves in the feet. We’ve relied for far too long on our early lead. That’s just about gone now. We need to start making ourselves truly competitive again.

          • constitutionminded

            This is the argument that I took to the Hill site and got beat up over. Trying to explain this to liberals who like Bernie is like talking to a wall. We do need more young people going into Tech schools than college, which for most of them is a waste of time and money. The only works program I would want to govt to do is like they did in the ’30’s. And I thought the real unemployment rate has been just under 20% last year. Just proves you can’t trust the big government can we?

      • ArmchairMike

        In July of 2015 Trump wanted to give them a pathway to stay also, does that make him the same as Cruz and Rubio or is he above it all? Is this research?

        • Alex

          Of course Trump supported a less idiotic approach in the past. You’re making it sound like his current position is BETTER than his old one. It’s not. After the 2012 election, he was absolutely right when he said that Romney’s call for “self-deportation” hurt him and contributed to his loss. Incidentally, that’s nearly the same position that Cruz supports today, except that Cruz’s position is less humane and doesn’t allow for a temporary work permit like Cruz did.

          Do you think I’m defending Trump’s new plan? Of course not! Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars deporting people, ruining our economy in the process, and then more money bringing them back in to legalize them? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

          The FIRST thing we need to consider when we look at any of these plans is whether or not they have a chance in hell of passing Congress. Americans do not support deporting all illegal immigrants. They simply don’t. 65% support a path to citizenship. 19% support deportation. And those numbers are getting farther apart as population demographics and younger voters shift this more and more to favor the Democrats. And that last point is why it’s so critical that Republicans act NOW to find a realistic plan that’s as conservative as possible and can actually pass.

          There is no value in Cruz’s plan to essentially cut off the lifelines to all illegal immigrants, no matter how long they’ve been living here. It can not pass Congress. And even if it could, it would do terrible damage to our economy, particularly in states like Texas and California and to key industries. California provides half of the fruits and vegetables Americans consume, and up to half of their agricultural workers are illegal immigrants. We don’t have the people to cover this work. Illegal immigration leveled off back around 2007. Since then, the total number living in the country has been pretty steady. What this means is that the vast majority of these people have been living here more than a decade and are fully integrated into our economy. We have long since added new jobs that depend on the existence of the old jobs that these illegal immigrants fill and the money they pay in taxes and as consumers. We can’t hurt them without hurting everyone.

          Rubio’s plan makes much more sense, and that goes for the 2013 bill as well. Secure the border. Track the people when they come in so we know when they leave. Deport all aliens who have engaged in other criminal activity. Deport anyone who has been here less than 12 years. Put the rest on a temporary probational status that requires them to work, without aid of government safety nets, pay fines, pay taxes, and learn English and American civics. If they go through 10 years of that while proving that they can earn at least 100% of the poverty income level, we’ll give them a second chance to do what they should have done in the first place – get in the back of the line to apply for legal permanent residence (a green card). No special treatment. They’ll have to go through the same system as everyone else. This isn’t “amnesty.” This is giving people a way to spend 10 years of their lives proving they deserve a second chance to do things properly.

          The most important thing about the 2013 bill is that it was a realistic plan that could pass. It passed the Senate 68-32. It would have passed the House if they had allowed a vote on it. Rubio today is calling for essentially toughening that plan up some more and breaking it into steps, starting with securing the border. This is a realistic path to finally getting his problem solved. And after 30 years of this mess, I support that. I will not support a candidate who advocates for more gridlock and thus leaving our border insecure for another 4 years.

      • rae palmer

        I don’t know how you can say that about Cruz, it’s simply not true. I’ve been closely following politics for many years. I’ve had my eye on Cruz from the beginning whispers of presidential aspirations. He most certainly was clear about his stand on illegal immigration and immigration reform from the beginning. You (and many others who are not familiar with technical debating) are mistaking debate skills and techniques with flip flopping or avoidance. His proposed amendments to immigration bills and his video remarks on them are clearly debate techniques meant to unravel the oppositions arguments. And since when is it wrong to avoid being offensive when discussing your plan? Sure, Trump might get tons of populist support from the right by saying politically incorrect things, but that will absolutely work against him in the general election. There’s nothing wrong with avoiding polarizing comments while still standing up for your beliefs.

        • Alex

          No, he wasn’t clear. And you can’t go back and find a single article before December 14th that states that he will not allow legalization for any illegal immigrant in any situation. The article I provided showed a very detailed list of his statements. These weren’t in a debate. These weren’t just made on the floor of the Senate. He was deliberately giving the media the impression that he would support legalization without citizenship, but he was very careful with his language to avoid actually tying himself to that. He kept the door open for himself. There were plenty of comments in the media last year about how Cruz had avoided stating what he would do for people who were already here.

          Cruz has not been simply taking stands on his beliefs. He’s been settings his beliefs to match what will serve him best politically. This is what he did on immigration by waiting until the very last minute to commit, and then doing so only because he was forced into it. It’s what he did on the TPP deal when he switched from supporting it (as he should) to opposing it because it isn’t popular among Tea Party voters. It’s the reason he calls for a return to the gold standard, a truly indefensible idea in the eyes of economists.

          He makes his name on saying that he is not controlled by Washington. But he IS controlled by voters. And when voters are wrong, that produces effects that are just as bad and often worse. In a representative democracy like we have, it’s not enough for representatives to always do what we ask. Our representatives must also educate us to change our minds when necessary. If that wasn’t the intention for our voting system, we’d simply have allowed direct votes.

          Why does Ted Cruz need to change people’s minds on illegal immigrants? Because 13% of the kids in his state live with parents who are undocumented, and most of those kids are U.S. citizens by birth with no citizenship anywhere else. Because the economy of Texas would be devastated by the deportation of a huge portion of its labor force and consumers. Because his policies won’t make it through Congress, and we’ll be left with the same gridlock that’s screwed us over for 30 years. It’s time for him to stand up to people and help them understand why we need a different approach. And that’s where true political guts come in. It’s easy to stand up to other legislators in Washington and always do the thing that’s popular with your voters. It’s much tougher to make an honest effort to do what’s right and take the heat with your voters. THAT’S what Marco is being hit for on this immigration issue. Where is Ted’s immigration bill?

  • grais

    I wonder if Rubio wants @ImWithRubio spreading that untruth.

    • Marla Hughes

      It’s not an untruth. Cruz was for legalization before he was against it.

  • FreedomFighter

    Megyn Kelly argued with Cruz on this during the debate. After the debate, during an interview with Kelly, she said she did extensive research and found Cruz to be correct. After 12 million people saw her attempt to discredit Cruz.

    • csheel00

      Candy Crowley all over again. If moderators insist on arguing with the candidates, then they need to do their extensive research as debate prep like all other debaters.

    • Marla Hughes

      No, she said she accepted that he was lying to his constituents and the nation in 2013 and telling the truth now.

  • Giuseppe Franco

    Reports today are claiming that Team Cruz is now redirecting his attack ads against Trump to instead hammer Rubio the last few days before the Iowa caucuses.

    Team Cruz must have some pretty alarming internal polling indicating a strong Rubio surge there to make such a drastic strategic change just days before people start voting.

    We shall see.

    Admittedly, Rubio is my first choice based primarily on electability, but I’d settle for Cruz if he’s the nominee.

    I also think most of us can agree that either of these Freshman Senators would be a far better choice as the GOP nominee than the clown show that is Donald J Trump.

    What I will never do under any circumstance is vote for the clown.

    • Maxx

      Ted did not have a strong debate last night, which surprised me. I thought it was an opportunity that while, not entirely lost, was squandered somewhat. I knew the absence of Trump would hurt him and Trump suspected as much, since Ted would have been the lead polling candidate available to carpet bomb by all the others. Gotta admit…it was a savvy decision by Trump’s team. Bail so Ted and Marco could hammer each other.

      Marco could surprise on Monday night and I think Cruz knows this. It would be a serious blow to Ted’s campaign to finish third in Iowa. My concern with this process is how ugly it is going to get from this point forward. We all saw how Mitt was damaged by the primary debates. It was brutal. Death by a thousand cuts….from our own.

      All of these attacks against each other put the focus away from Hillary, where it belongs.

      • Giuseppe Franco

        Yeah, bloodying each other is most definitely a concern. Jeb has spent like $30M in attack ads against Rubio and he’s also been hammered the last few weeks by Cruz and Christie.

        It seems Rubio certainly responded with attacks of his own when he was attacked, but he’s really good at steering the message back towards Obama and Clinton, which I think is exactly what every candidate should be doing.

        It may very well turn out to be a genius move by Trump to skip the debate because he would have been hammered by the moderators as well.

        Both Cruz and Rubio got hit hard and I’m actually fine with that. We should be thoroughly vetting our candidates, unlike what happened in 2008.

        One could only imagine how Trump would have behaved to being challenged by the moderators, especially Megyn, if he had been hammered just as brutally as Cruz and Rubio was last night.

  • Kent Jenkins

    Cruz da man

  • Steve__Jacobson

    I don’t see what’s out of context. If you’re for “legalization”, before or after a wall is built, it’s the same as saying citizenship is the next step.

    • Maxx

      Agreed, as I noted below. I’m not buying that any of these fellas have been opposed to some form of it from the very start of their political careers.

      These ancient tweets speak for themselves. Ted’s, Donald’s, Marco’s, Jeb’s…etc.

      Just man up for Pete’s sake and admit it and stop trying to shill a false narrative and treat us voters like we’re all f’ng morons. I love Ted, I love Marco and won’t have a problem voting for either but you can’t run from the internet.

      • Giuseppe Franco

        Well, sad to say, most of the general public are fucking morons.

        How else do we explain Obama being elected TWICE and a buffoon like Trump being the GOP frontrunner since June?

    • tverle

      I thought I heard him say that he was in favor of building the wall, deporting, then they can become legal citizens through the proper channels……but I could be wrong.

      • DwellsInFire

        I don’t remember Ted Cruz saying anything about deporting, and that’s the problem. When you listen closely to the Republican candidates it sounds like we’re still going to have the same lawlessness as we do now with Obama.

        • constitutionminded

          The democrats want to legalize all of them because they think they will get the votes and never get out of power. The republicans want the same thing so they will have the power. Hence, nothing will ever be done because neither side wants to loose. Kind of like when states were admitted to the union before the civil war they had to be a pro slavery and a free state to keep the status quo.

          • DwellsInFire

            It wouldn’t help the Republicans to legalize aliens because most of them vote Democrat. In fact it’s that masochistic behavior of the Republicans that I don’t understand. Some say the Republicans want cheap labor for businesses, so that might be their motive.

          • Maxx

            ^ Your last sentence says it all. THIS

      • LimpingHenry

        That’s what Trump said. Cruz opposes a path to citizenship.

  • Dan Abbett

    S.O.S. Cruz 2016!

  • Meatzilla ✓ᴵᴿᴿᴱᴰᴱᴱᴹᴬᴾᴸᴼᴿᴬᴮᴸᴱ

    It’s all good. Rafael Cruz has his super-duper-anti-scofflaw-criminal-illegal-immigrant sidekick Glenn Beck arriving in Iowa for some sorely needed expert damage control — just as soon as he’s done visiting and reminiscing with his old bosom buddy pal, Megyn Kelly

  • kayerob

    Aww Poor Ted Couldn’t Have Happened To A Nicer Guy. Ted Was Doing The Same Thing To Trump A WeeK Or So ago

  • LJ Lab

    Ted Cruz is a flip flopping disgrace. Calgary Ted.

    • LimpingHenry


  • John Kerry’s Forehead

    It doesn’t matter… The insane left and the Trumpkims (but I repeat myself) will only latch on to anything that makes Cruz look bad.

  • constitutionminded

    I think he is saying that if the bill passed there would be legalization without a secure border. He wanted the border secured before legalization and knew that the Congress was not about to close the border and the bill should fail. With a secure border then the immigration problem could be worked on but not with open borders. But I may be wrong.

    • LimpingHenry

      You are not wrong.

  • JosephBloughs ✓Viagrafied

    Well that’s more than a little flailing from Rubio’s camp.

  • interestedobserver2

    More trumpoliberal attempts to smear a good man and a great leader. Nice try, but no cigar.

  • Jessica_Olson

    Wait — didn’t Cruz just cite a similar tweet from Trump that said secure the boarder before amnesty as proof Trump was pro-amnesty? How is this different?

    • Maxx

      It’s not. This is what is so frustrating with politicians. They all seem to dismiss previous opinions about positions if they fall out of line with the frontrunner. It’s a race to see who can out Trump, Trump. If you read Ted’s tweets above, it’s clear he felt amnesty was up for discussion as long as border security needs were met first. His tweets clearly point this out. Now, he’s claiming Jeb, Rubio and Trump are the only ones who have ever spoke of it. Nonsense. This shuck and jive, bob and weave Cruz is playing on this topic seems to line up with others who paint Ted in that light.

      He can’t hide from his previous statements though he’s certainly trying to morph them, which I find a difficult task when you clearly wrote “We need to secure the border. Any bill this body passes should have border security first & THEN legalization.”

      How on earth does that NOT sound like Rubio’s own position?

    • FramersForCruz

      amnesty grants citizenship (voting rights), legalization does not

    • Nos Nevets

      In that single tweet I don’t see Trump supporting amnesty.
      I don’t know what Cruz said about the tweet. If you’re right, he’s wrong.

  • Jessica_Olson

    Double standard at play?

  • Nos Nevets

    Am I missing something?
    I don’t see any support for amnesty.
    Even if he said that secure borders must precede amnesty, that’s not a statement of support for amnesty, but a criticism for those wanting to forget securing the borders & jump straight to amnesty.

  • Sanchez

    Legalization is not CITIZENSHIP.

    Legalization is something that will have to happen in any new immigration law.

    Who, how long to wait etc are all up for debate.

  • Meatzilla ✓ᴵᴿᴿᴱᴰᴱᴱᴹᴬᴾᴸᴼᴿᴬᴮᴸᴱ

    No worries! Just a misunderstanding. But, just to be sure, deploy haranguing Public Shaming tactics in order to elicit deep feelings of worthlessness and self-loathing… which is always a real vote getter for *Republican* POTUS candidates.

    • LimpingHenry

      Deep feelings of what? Seriously?

  • brotherStefan

    I suppose one could parse his words any way they please. I could easily interpret his remarks as an intention to adequately address border security first, before having any discussions about legalization. Seems to me that Cruz is just being rational with regard to the prioritization of national focus on the illegal immigration problem.

  • des111168

    How is it being taken out of context? He was clearly for legalization after a secured border.

    • LimpingHenry

      That was not clear at all. What was clear was that closing the border was the priority. It was not clear that legalization must occur after closing the border, but that it must not happen without first closing the border.