Rubio and Cruz are both against Trump's deportation stance


#1

Trump apparently wants to authorize a deportation force to get rid of all the illegal immigrants, however Cruz has come out against undergoing mass deportation through this method, and Rubio feels getting rid of everyone is unrealistic.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/marco-rubio-donald-trump-immigration-deportation/2015/11/12/id/701854/

*“I think both sides here have points to make that are valid,” the Florida Republican senator, a son of Cuban immigrants, told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” program. “We have to deport some people. If you’re not going to enforce your laws, what’s the point of having laws? People who are criminals or overstay visas will be deported.”

But he still does not believe that people who have been in the United States for several years, have not broken the law, and can pass background checks can be rounded up and forced out of the country.

“I’m talking about reality,” said Rubio. “People will have to be deported. But we’ve also have to deem realistically that we have 12 to 13 million people.”

“You have to prove to people you are actually enforcing the law, and illegal immigration is under control,” Rubio said. “And you have to reform the legal immigration system to make it merit-based and not family based.”*

cnn.com/2016/01/10/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-deportation-guns-terrorism/index.html

*“No, I don’t intend to send jackboots to knock on your door and every door in America. That’s not how we enforce the law for any crime,” Cruz told Tapper as his campaign bus ambled across northern Iowa.

Trump has promised to authorize a “deportation force” to remove those immigrants from the U.S., pledging to do it “humanely.”

Earlier this week, BuzzFeed captured Cruz on video arguing that his plan was stronger than Trump’s because he would not allow those back into the U.S., while Trump’s would.

But on the actual act of deportation, Cruz is taking a softer stance.

“We don’t have any system that knocks on the doors of every person in America,” Cruz told Tapper. “We also don’t have people going door-to-door looking for murderers. We don’t live in a police state. We do have law enforcement.”*


#2

Trump is not my favorite Repub candidate, but I think he does have a point if you take the whole of what he said.

He said he would deport illegal aliens, but would let most back in if they went through a legal process. There’s really nothing new in that, in a way. Right now, if an alien wants to become a legal resident, he has to apply at a U.S. consulate in his country of origin. That has been the law for a long time, and still is.

I can’t speak about all illegals, but the ones I know (and I know a lot) go back home quite a bit. The difference is that they don’t apply for legal residency while they’re there because they know they can flout the law with impunity and because they want to have advantages their own countrymen who obey the law don’t have.

Maybe some kind of expedited process can be enacted, but I think it’s corrupting to people wanting to come here to encourage them to break the law. If we give our blessing to it in one way, are we not doing it in other ways?


#3

#4

One of the biggest problems with Trump’s deportation plan is simply that it’s quite unworkable. First of all, the logistics of it are, simply put, insane - who is going to pay the hundreds of thousands of citizens who would be on this “deportation force”?

Second of all, even though not all undocumented immigrants are Mexican border crossers (in fact, according to some estimates, 45% of undocumented immigrants came to the US legally, but refused to leave when their visas expired), the stereotype is still of the Mexican border crosser. Because of this, there are many Hispanic Americans, especially those of Mexican descent, who are told to “go back to their own country”, especially if they are heard speaking Spanish or Spanglish. The thing is, though, many Spanish-speaking people in the US were born here. And there is a large group of Spanish-speaking Americans whose families have lived in the Southwest since the Spanish colonial era. This is especially true in New Mexico and Arizona, who had Spanish-speaking territorial governments until 1912. The states went in different directions after statehood, with Arizona rejecting most of their Spanish heritage, but with New Mexico enshrining thiers. This is seen in their state constitutions, where Arizona became an English-only state, whereas New Mexico is, by their state constitution, a bilingual state.

But I digress. My point is, most people wouldn’t be able to know for sure if another person is legally here or not. Even most border gangs have US citizens (and immigrants with proper papers) mixed together with undocumented immigrants. The exception is someone like my wife, who, though she is a naturalized US citizen, still prefers to be friends with other people from Mexico. Some of her friends have permanent residency, while some are undocumented. And they tell her their status, mainly by inference (by telling her that she’s lucky because she can visit Mexico, while they can’t - at least not if they want to come back to the US). Honestly, though, from my experience, most border crossers simply want legal residency (they don’t even know that it’s possible for people that have legal residency to become naturalized citizens).

Another problem comes with the so-called DREAMers, many of whom really had no choice but to come to the US with their parents. Many of them don’t even know that they weren’t born here until they try to apply for work or for college.

Honestly, the easiest people to deport would be those that have overstayed their visas. If we’re going after all people who are here without proper documentation, why don’t we start with them? At least the government should know who they are.


#5

Actually, in some professions (like education), it’s actually illegal to report if someone is an undocumented immigrant. We’re not allowed to know, and if we do know, we have to pretend we don’t know.


#6

The truth is there is no such process to come into US that a person who has overstayed or crossed border illegally can apply for. Nor if you do not fullfill specific conditions that most would not.

 I have been through visas many times , and know some about residency and that sort.

  You can go to the web page and read , it is quite simple. Most of these persons do not fit in any category. Sometimes.not even tourist.

It is important to tell the feasable from what it isn t. And you can verify it yourselves. As it is ,the system is not interested in low income people ,persons who cannot prove with assets,job ,property etc that they are suitable to qualify for even a tourist visa.

    There is a reson why people cross illegaly in most cases. It is wrong ,yes ,but it is not like they would qualify legally.

#7

I will explain it this way.
When you come into US there is a reasonable need to ensure people will respect the term you are allowed to.stay ,so as to avoid somebody overstays.
So ,if it is a tourist visa ,they check you have a reasonable " anchor" at home that you would not be willing to drop.( call it a job , property…plus there is an interview).
If it is not tourist , somebody in US is " responsible" for you and your documentation.
Students present paperwork to Universities , employees are called by companies ,etc.
Things changed after 9/11 and became stricter. For example , our driving licences( Texas) ,were temporary and we had to present documentation at DPS that we were still working for that comoany ,in a say ,that week document signed by the company. Somehow periodically , yearly ,biyearly or if moving ,etc.
Our residency was periodically extended ( L visas can be no longer than 7 years and they are residency but no path to citizenship). Every two years ,we had to leave the country ( the house ,the dog :slight_smile: ,…) and renew our visas in a US Consulate abroad.
Some H visas are for a few months and brief seasonal work. Say they need seasonal extra workers for harvesting ( It is what first crosses my mind). Somebody calls workers in and should…ensure and notify they leave the country after the season.
So ,persons who do not have any " anchor" at home nor some company ,institution ,etc who " calls" them in ,have no basic proof that they are willing to come in but also leave.
dhs.gov/visa-types

 So basically ,and I make the claim where I live too , part of the problem which affects both ways ,is that the systems could improve so as to open a legal door to workers of different levels of ability to make it a fairer system to all , and as deemed necessary by the country.

#8

No it doesn’t.

Any cop will tell you it is pointless now to report illegals, even for them. Before Obama, if they arrested an illegal person for some other reason, they would call ICE, and ICE would pick the person up for deportation. Now, ICE doesn’t, so the police just charge them with whatever they saw them do and let them go.

I am for an orderly system that all must follow. A point I tried to make, but apparently failed to make, is that illegal aliens go home all the time. Many return, and many don’t. Some remain in the home country before returning for extended periods, and some don’t. Why would it be such a hardship to require that they at least check in with a U.S. consulate in their home country before returning? Well, yes, I guess if they had to go to the “back of the line” they wouldn’t do it. Illegality gives them an advantage over their countrymen who comply with the law. Perhaps the line could be speeded up if it is determined that’s in the country’s best interests.

There is no particular reason to expect “mass deportations”. That’s a canard invented by the “open borders” advocates. Anything can be done in a gradual and orderly fashion.


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.