Unearthed Interview: Ted Cruz Continuously Dodges Immigration Question


Back in 2011, on The Duke Machado Show, Ted Cruz was interviewed on his immigration stance. The video, filmed in Waco, TX, following a Tea Party Senate forum, was not fully released until yesterday, February 4th. A portion of the video was released when the discussion on Birthright Citizenship was being bounced around, see below:

His stance has clearly changed, considering his current immigration plan, located here:

End birthright citizenship. It makes no sense for us to be providing the tremendous incentive of automatic citizenship to the children of those who enter illegally. Most nations on earth do not do so, and neither should we. Birthright citizenship was meant to ensure that the children of slaves were guaranteed citizenship. It was not meant to confer citizenship on the children of people who are here illegally; nor was it intended to confer citizenship on the children of birth tourists, a burgeoning industry that makes a mockery of American citizenship. As President, I will take immediate steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.

The full video, which lasts for roughly 21 minutes, has now been released by Duke, along with Patriot Insight. Five months ago, in the comments section of the above video, Duke – being a conservative – gave an answer as to why he withheld the rest of the footage:

When I interviewed him back then, I wasn’t happy with many of his responses. I didn’t want to appear to hurt him, so I withheld the full video. This 14th amendment video seemed to be the least harmful at the time, and no one ever had issue with it, until his recent remarks about his previous position.

Disclosure: Before I continue on with this blog post, I want to note – yet again – that I am a supporter of Marco Rubio; because, not in spite, of his immigration stance. I also support increased border security, immigration reform, and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the country. Back in November, I wrote an article debunking many of the myths being pushed within the immigration debate, one being that we can humanely deport over 11 million people. Read it here.

Do you know what the average jail and probation time is for a rapist? 8-9 years in jail, and that’s if they don’t have time cut for good behavior, parole, etc. The national average for their probation is 6 years, and the restrictions are less stringent than those being offered for illegal immigrants seeking citizenship. The vast majority of sexual offenders will then go on to reoffend. SO, you’re telling me that 12-15 years of hard work from an illegal immigrant who just wanted to give his family a better life isn’t enough? Such ideals are utter foolishness, in my opinion. Being unreasonable will only shrink our Party, not encourage the young and minorities to give us a chance.

I support deporting those who have come to America and pursued a life of crime, and I support a very lengthy journey to citizenship, ending sanctuary cities, etc., but I believe a pathway to citizenship or legal status is the only economical, moral, and reasonable answer. This is the main reason why I support Marco Rubio. He is one of the only candidates who embraces such facts and lays out a reasonable approach to immigration, regardless of those he may push away, and he is not scared to answer the difficult questions, e.g., “what do we with the illegals already here?” After stating that, first and foremost, the border must be secured, and that our immigration system must be reformed, he answered the question so many in the Republican Party are scared to answer:

First, those here illegally must come forward and be registered. If they have committed serious crimes or have not been here long enough, they will have to leave. With the new E-Verify system in place, they are going to find it difficult to find a job in any case.

Second, those who qualify would be allowed to apply for a temporary nonimmigrant visa. To obtain it they will have to pay an application fee and a fine, undergo a background check and learn English. Once they receive this work permit, they would be allowed to work legally and travel. To keep it, they will have to pay taxes. They would not qualify for government programs like Obamacare, welfare or food stamps. And if they commit a crime while in this status, they would lose their permit.

Third and finally, those who qualify for a nonimmigrant visa will have to remain in this status for at least a decade. After that, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency if they so choose. Many who qualify for this status will choose to remain in it indefinitely. But those who choose to seek permanent residency would have to do it the way anyone else would, not through any special pathway.

Ted Cruz has not answered such questions, he has beaten around the bush because he is well aware that he will lose followers no matter which side of the fence he happens to land. Is that the choice of a principled candidate? Read on, and then let me know.

Watch the full interview with Duke Machado below:

Cruz was given the opportunity – countless times – to explain his position on the illegal immigrants currently in America. He spent over 21 minutes dodging said question.

Duke: “No one wants to talk about what really needs to be done. Uh, we’ve talked about the 15 million illegals here. No one said anything about what are we going to do with them today, right now. What can we do? And what would you do?”

Ted: I mean, this is unfortunately an issue that neither party is serious about addressing. Both political parties engage in demagoguery, because they find it more valuable to excite and energize the base than to address it seriously.”

The original question went without an answer.

Later in the conversation:

Duke: “Do you have any sort of plan? Is it on the radar enough that you’ve developed some sort of a solution for what to do with those who are here illegally now?”

Ted: “Uh, I think the first solution is to secure the borders. When you secure the borders that deals with the cause of the problem. You can deal with other things after the borders are secure, but I think the first priority…”

Duke: “I think, I think everyone would agree with you that we need to secure them…”

Ted: “But but, very few people are serious about doing it. They would agree with it rhetorically, but then they don’t actually go and do it.”

Duke: “Right. Right, and people don’t even know how much it’s going to cost, they don’t know how they’re going to do it, what they’re going to employ to make it happen. Do you have any idea what it would cost, and the measures you would take?”

Ted: “You know, what is preventing us is not dollars. What is preventing us is a lack of political will….”

The original question remained unanswered.

Secure the border, secure the border, and secure the border. We embrace that, as well, Ted. We want to know what happens after we secure the border.

Later in the conversation:

Duke: “I agree with you, I’m not denying anything, I don’t object to anything you are saying as far as order. But once you secure the border, you have everyone trapped in this limbo state, all these illegals, these 15 plus million that we’re talking about. How do we go from a process of having them here illegally, to um, documentation, or, is there such a thing as a pathway to citizenship?”

Ted: “I do not support a pathway to citizenship, because I consider that to be amnesty. I think breaking the law to come in should not be rewarded with citizenship. But I also think the situation of those who are here illegally is not going to be addressed politically until we secure the border. That has to be the first priority.”

The original question still went without an answer.

Later in the conversation:

Duke: “Again, our focus is on providing solutions, trying to find answers, ways to deal with the illegals that are living here now, and from what I’ve heard, I don’t really, haven’t heard an answer or solution to deal with that from you.”

Ted: “The first step in the solution to immigration, is to secure the border…”

Ted then went down various rabbit holes, clearly attempting to stray from any type of answer. He went on to discuss the naturally conservative nature of Hispanics, military involvement in the Hispanic community, patriotism, the American dream, government control of economy, his father, etc… He was everywhere.

So what does Ted say in his immigration plan? Let’s see…

Enforce the law: Restore our commitment to enforcement and public safety and the Rule of Law by rededicating DHS to fully enforcing the law, including through deportations and returns. During the first five years of the Obama Administration, President Obama removed or returned only 3.8 million illegal entrants. That is a fraction of the removals and returns during the previous five years, and a fraction of what we could accomplish if we had a President who actually forced DHS to do its job and removed politics from an agency charged with law enforcement. As President, I would do just that.


Add detention space for interior enforcement: Support ICE agents and their enforcement efforts by significantly increasing permanent detention capacity for illegal immigrants in the interior of the United States, and give ICE leadership the flexibility to procure additional, temporary detention space from the General Services Administration and state and local law enforcement on an as-needed basis. The Obama Administration has limited detention space for illegal immigrants who are taken into custody to limit the ability of ICE agents to detain illegal immigrants and begin the process of deportation. I will end that practice.

Does that include all illegal immigrants, Ted, or just those who have come here to live a life of crime?

Find criminal immigrants: Instruct the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify all criminal illegal immigrants in state or local custody and issue detainers for those illegal immigrants while their deportations are processed.

Deport criminal immigrants: Recommit the federal government to deporting all illegal immigrants who commit crimes – and make use of all available tools to deport criminal immigrants as quickly as possible.

So just criminals? Not according to this interview:

QUESTIONER: Both you and Donald Trump are really strong on immigration, but he supports deporting all the illegal immigrants. Are you willing to say the same?

TED CRUZ: Absolutely, yes. We should enforce the law.

Q: All?

T.C.: We should enforce the law.

Q: Ok.

T.C.: And in fact, look, there’s a difference. He’s advocated allowing folks to come back in and become citizens. I oppose that.

He has also repetitively told DACA recipients, those who asked if he would deport them, that he would “enforce the law.” Which is a fancy way of saying, “yes.” And according to his own words, he wouldn’t allow them to reenter. As I said in a previous post:

“So, let me get this straight: He would support taking someone who was raised here, brought here as a young child without any particular will, maybe they don’t even know they’re considered “illegal,” deporting them from the only country they’ve ever known, sending them into what would be a life of poverty and misfortune for the majority, and then not allowing them to come back in legally?”

So basically, he’s not interested in addressing the issue. It is, quite simply, impossible to receive a straight answer from Cruz. However, according to the evidence presented, it looks as though Ted Cruz is a supporter of illegal immigrants being mass deported from the United States of America; and let’s not kid ourselves, a mass exodus is a pipe dream if there ever was one. The stance Ted Cruz has taken reeks of a cowardice evasion of the issue, and will be all the fuel Democrats need to destroy him in November should he receive the Republican nod. They will paint the Republican Party as cold and heartless, and if we put him on the ticket while knowing how he would treat so many human beings if given the chance, they might be right.

He has refused to answer one simple question that leaves millions of people wondering if their lives would be destroyed under his reign, so I guess you could say that he is no longer projecting ideals that seem careless and foolish, but that he is being careless and foolish. This is not the Republican Party I signed up for. I did not agree to growing the size of government, building a police state mentality, further damaging a hurting economy, just to attempt something that will never work because of an unreasonable fear of human beings who were simply seeking a better life.

We’ve had years of dodged questions under the Obama administration, we have demanded straight answers from them, yet award Ted Cruz a free pass when he’s had every opportunity in the world to address such an issue? We attack Marco Rubio and say that he needs to “explain his position better,” yet refuse to see that he already has explained his position, multiple times.

Ted Cruz is the one who needs to answer for his immigration stance, not Rubio.

Not only will I refuse to support Cruz in the primary, if he makes it onto the general ticket my conscience will be damaged if I am forced to pull the lever for Ted Cruz. As I’ve said in a previous post, this primary isn’t just about this election, it’s about the future of the Conservative movement.

Someone with the right message, with the right attitude, can not only take this election and create a younger base, they can set a precedence for future elections. While the Hispanic and Latino vote may not make or break the 2016 election, due to the fact that states with the largest Hispanic populations – and a large Electoral College – are decided. However, they will be listening, and while our current political situation is a disaster in this country, they will be aligning themselves with the party that resonates with them the most. Whether their vote is counted or not is of little consequence, it matters who wins their allegiance now for the sake of the future. Our failure to seize on this opportunity will be why we lose the Hispanic and Latino vote, the female vote, the young vote, and why we’ll die the death of a thousand paper cuts in future elections.

Vote smart, Friends. We can’t afford to be careless.

Bonus round (Thank you for the additional video, Daniel Windham):

Why can’t you answer a question, Ted?

During the New Hampshire debate, Ted Cruz was asked the following:

MUIR: I want to bring this next to Senator Cruz. You heard what the governor said. He said, “We need practical solutions.” And you’ve said, “I don’t intend to send jack boots to knock on doors. That’s not how we enforce the law for any crime.”

So, what is your plan? How will you deport 11.5 million undocumented people? And be specific. How would you do it?

His reply:

CRUZ: So, in terms of a practical solution, I’ve laid out the most detailed plan for solving illegal immigration. It’s 11 pages, single-spaced, chapter and verse. It’s on our website, tedcruz.org.

In short, we’re going to do, we’re going to build a wall. We’re going to triple the border patrol. We’re going to increase — and actually, since Donald enjoyed that, I will simply say, I’ve got somebody in mind to build it.

We’re going to increase four-fold, the fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, so that you have technology monitoring an attempted incursion to direct the boots on the ground where they’re occurring. We’re going to put in place a strong e-verify system in the workplace, so you can’t get a job without proving you are here legally.

We’ll put in place a biometric exit-entry system on visas, because 40 percent of illegal immigration comes not over the border illegally, but people coming on visas and overstaying.

We will end sanctuary cities by cutting off taxpayer dollars to any jurisdiction that defies federal immigration law.

(APPLAUSE) And we will end welfare benefits for those here illegally.

Once again, he didn’t give a conclusive answer. However, I recently posed a question on Twitter, asking for a final answer on whether Cruz would mass deport or not. After reading his plan, and taking into consideration his comments, I’ve come to the following conclusion:

For starters, his followers are not even aware of what he believes, nor can they defend his position. However, I’ve muddled through his rhetoric and now believe that he intends to “smoke them out,” you might say. Yes, like bugs. No, he doesn’t intend to put boots on the ground in your cities, however, he intends to make it impossible for them to work, function, eat, etc., which would then cause them to come forward and be deported. Even if they willingly come forward, he intends to deport them without the ability to reenter.

Now, that only works if the E-Verify system is working, otherwise illegal immigrants just stay in the shadows. So, in short, things remain the same, or we end up taking families – including innocent children – and make them suffer until they are desperate.

Now, if the GOP can support such ideals, God help us. These are not solutions, they’re either lazy or barbaric, and all they’ll do is hand Hillary or Bernie the White House. If you think this won’t sink Cruz – or anyone with the same ideals – in the general, you’re a fool.


4 thoughts on “Unearthed Interview: Ted Cruz Continuously Dodges Immigration Question

  1. It’s unfortunate that you cannot handle dissenting viewpoints and perspectives, MaryBeth. If you get out of your own echo chamber, you might learn something from people that don’t necessarily agree with you.


    • Steve, you were not giving facts, you were saying “My fact less opinion matters more because I say it does.” You trolled my wall hitting every post, trying to silence people by making empty claims, and were yet to give one logical answer. Dissenting viewpoints and opinions are fine, as long as they are backed up by facts, which you’ve proven time and time again that you can’t provide.

      What good is a conversation that goes like this:

      “You’re wrong!”

      “Can you show me where?”

      “I was in the Army!”

      “Can you show me where I was wrong?”

      “You’re ignorant because you weren’t in the Army!”

      “Can you give me facts?”

      “I have more experience than you!”

      That’s a waste of both of our time. I gave you more than enough opportunities, more than most would give, to substantiate your claims. You failed at doing so.


  2. Pingback: Vote Ted Cruz, Because He Doesn’t Drink Water & Repeat Sentences… | The Collision Blog

  3. Pingback: Ted Cruz and The Moral Equivalence Litmus Test | The Collision Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s