Ted Cruz Wants to Double Immigration and Implement Biometric ID

[PAF]

PAF's comment: So much for limited government. Once you dig into this guys background, you will find that he is a STATIST just like the rest of them.

More laws? Biometric ID? At a cost of $25 Billion to implement (S. 744), how does one differentiate between us and them without violating the 4th Amendment? Will WE be required to be Bio-ID'd after the immigrants have been?

I do not oppose open borders IF we end the welfare/free handouts. Doing so would automatically reduce the number of those coming in, and the ones who do come in will be coming here to work.

 

[Southron]

Double immigration? Are you kidding me?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

That's an old video, but Cruz reaffirmed this very recently...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471379-Ted-Cruz-on-immigration

Short, paraphrased summary: Secure the border, improve and streamline legal immigration, welcome and celebrate legal immigration, we are a nation of immigrants, etc.

 

[DamianTV]

I think most people know by now with less advanced Facial Recognition Systems, these systems can be very easily hacked by simply holding up a photograph of the person in front of the camera. The Real ID Encryption Schema was cracked in less than 24 hours. And we really think that making Biometric IDs mandatory is gonna do a damn thing for Security? Ted Cruz and his Goldman Sachs wife obviously have much different agendas than what his purported results would actually be.

Securing the Borders

By securing the border, we are NOT going to stop or even slow down Illegal Immigration. What will happen is we will keep people IN, effectively trapping them. Border Patrol Officers are already purposefully misreporting the number of people crossing the border because their Supervisors scold them if they report over a certain number (IIRC, 20 immigrants at a time). The real issue here is that despite a big fucking wall, we still have Open Borders AND a Welfare State. Oh, youre illegal? Go ahead and have some kids, for free, and we will put you on Welfare, then demand the rest of the natural born citizens start to speak YOUR language. When they talk about "closing borders", what is important is to take note of what is NOT being said. "Closing Borders" means they truly have ZERO INTENT to end the Welfare State, which will result in the Cloward Piven strategy fully mainfesting into fruition.

 

[Vanguard101]

That's an old video, but Cruz reaffirmed this very recently...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471379-Ted-Cruz-on-immigration

Sounds like what Ron and Rand have always said.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Sounds like what Ron and Rand have always said.

From an interview with Ron. Base legal immigration numbers on the economy.

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I`m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.
...
Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don`t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down.
...
http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty

 

[cindy25]

probably Rand is the only Republican against mandatory ID, and this is the danger of a solid GOP govt, House, Senate, President. Rand should get the others to clarify their positions

 

[Vanguard101]

From an interview with Ron. Base legal immigration numbers on the economy.

Oh wow. I never knew Ron was this much of a statist

 

[RandallFan]

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Scott Walker are the same on legal immigration and giving work permits to 12 million illegals. The difference is Rand hypes beltway immigration reform more than the others. Most GOP primary voters will believe Cruz and then Walker and then Rand are strongest in opposing amnesty or bad immigration policy.

I think Rand cut off a possible issue he could have attacked Walker and others by hyping immigration reform for as long as he did in 2013-2014. Rand didn't have to be Tancredo but he could have at least said much of the push for immigration reform is because of big business greed.

No immigration bill passed while Rand kept hyping it. Rand didn't even vote for it and he gets the blame. Obama did executive amnesty. Most of the focus will be on legal challenges to Obama's actions. Not much immigration legislation will come out of congress or get signed by Obama or in the first year of the 2017 president.

The people in charge of the Judiciary and specifically immigration in the Senate are Jeff Sessions (Immigration subcommittee) and Chuck Grassley (Judiciary chairman).
They want to restrict H1B visas and challenge Obama with lawsuits.

How are Cruz or Rand or Walker going to get an amnesty bill to veto or sign any time soon if Grassley and others hold it up?

Isn't Grassley also holding up criminal justice bills as well. Grassley and Jeff Sessions face no political risk in opposing criminal Justice reform or immigration reform.

Sessions calls claims of a highly skill labor shortage a 'hoax'

By Patrick Thibodeau
Follow
Computerworld | Jan 22, 2015 12:03 PM PT






If you look at the early states:

Iowa: Steve King and Grassley are big opponents of H1B visas and caving to Obama.

http://atr.rollcall.com/chuck-grassley-senate-2016-iowa/

He has never won re-election with less than 64 percent of the vote. His approval rating is 67 percent. This is not some senator from a deep red or deep blue state. He is, in fact, a Republican representing a swing state in a presidential year, and Democrats would quite like to unseat him.
So why does Sen. Charles E. Grassley seem almost politically invincible?

[TABLE="class: collapsible, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #444, colspan: 5, align: center"]U.S. House, Iowa District 4 General Election, 2014[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: grey, colspan: 2, align: center"]Party[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: grey, align: center"]Candidate[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: grey, align: center"]Vote %[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: grey, align: center"]Votes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Republican[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Steve King Incumbent[/TD]
[TD="width: 75, align: center"]61.6%[/TD]
[TD="width: 100, align: center"]169,834[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


New Hampshire: Scott Brown turned his longshot Senate race into a 50/50 by attacking the Shaheen support for amnesty.

South Carolina: Lindsey Graham was the only big talking, red meat, loudmouth, war mongering Republican to get less than 60% in a Senate primary. Amnesty is a big problem for Jeb in creating a firewall.

The others who did poorly as Graham were lightweights like Cornyn, Lamar Alexander and Pat Roberts

 

[AuH20]

Peter Brimelow of Vdare actually surprised me with his comments about Rand. It sounds like he could support Rand.