From his own website:
As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates legal immigration. He has championed measures to secure the border, reform the legal immigration system, and uphold the rule of law.
In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by promises of amnesty from the White House. Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.
As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter legally, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation to prevent Obama from illegally expanding amnesty.
In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the “Gang of 8” bill that would strengthen border security, expand green card opportunities, increase high-skilled “H1B” visas, prevent illegal aliens from receiving welfare benefits, and enforce the rule of law.”
I blogged on this very subject back in January. But now I see that a considerable number of people on the ethnopatriot right seem to think that Cruz is ‘anti-immigration’, but please notice the quotes from Cruz’s website, which I’ve bolded for emphasis. Please note that he explicitly says he favors more legal immigration. In what sense, then, is he ‘anti-immigration’? It seems to me that he is trying to play both sides, but ultimately he shows himself to be just another ‘respectable’ conservative who thinks the immigration issue is all about legal vs. illegal. ”Just as long as they come legally and play by the rules”, is the usual refrain heard from that corner of the political world. Really, is this the best we can hope for?
I don’t take much interest in the election issue; I believe the candidates, as a rule, are all establishment types, hand-picked, and committed to the status quo, toeing the party line. Once in office, all the campaign talk will be forgotten, and it will be more of the same. Which is not acceptable.
Cruz may be ‘better’ than some of the other dismal candidates on some issues but that is not exactly high praise, considering the quality of the other presidential aspirants.
And what about this: Cruz is not American-born, though he was brought up in this country for much of his early life. Until 2014, he had dual Canadian-American citizenship. He renounced it, probably for political reasons, as it wouldn’t do for a president to have dual citizenship. His father is Cuban, and the GOP loves Cuban immigrants as they are (rather falsely) believed to be such solid conservatives. (Think Marco Rubio, or any number of Cuban congressmen and women; they have poor voting records on immigration.)
I have to wonder if Cruz has been groomed by the GOP, in its perpetual quest for the ideal conservative minority candidate. He is Hispanic by blood though not mestizo as are most of the Texas Hispanic population. Still the value of a Hispanic surname in running for office in Texas is considerable, and the GOP continue to pursue their ”big tent” philosophy, with an eye to the Hispanic coming majority. In that sense, Cruz just furthers the PC narrative: he might attract those alluring Hispanic voters that the Republicans lust after, and he is an embodiment of the ”successful immigrant” with conservative values. It fits the new PC multicultural agenda wonderfully, and continues the ”immigrant mystique” which is being promoted so insistently in this country.
Back in 2008 I warned that symbolism mattered; the symbolic importance of having a minority president was not to be underestimated. Once a precedent is set, then any departure from that ‘new standard’ is decried as a step backward to the ”bad old days” when Old White Guys ran everything, and that must never be allowed again. It’s time for the ‘disenfranchised’, the immigrant, the female, the Moslem or Hindu (Jindal, Keith Ellison) to have their ”turn” at running things. And what about ”Nikki Haley” and her crusade against the Confederate heritage? How is this all working out?
But Cruz can be a crossover candidate, getting the mainstream ‘respectable’ Republicans in Texas, especially the churchgoing evangelicals. And because of his surname and his Cuban father, he can draw Hispanic votes.
This was no doubt in the minds of the Party leaders when they groomed Cruz.
The founding fathers expressly said that only native-born Americans should be elected to office, and for those of us who are Christians, the Bible tells us that we are to choose rulers from among our own people.
We’ve seen the results of ignoring that precept.
The fact that Cruz is hyped as being ”tough on immigration” while promising more legal immigration is exasperating. Legal immigration is just as troublesome for Western countries as the illegal kind. We in the United States take in, supposedly, a million and a half legal immigrants a year — yet Cruz thinks more is desirable? Maybe, just maybe, he’s not unbiased on the subject, given that he is of immigrant origin. I don’t think he is capable, therefore, of seeing it from the viewpoint of a native-born American.
Somehow the unwary American voter has been conditioned to repeat the mantra ‘‘as long as it’s legal, as long as they follow the rules and come in the right way, I welcome them.” Cruz will just further establish that piece of destructive nonsense.
Don’t fall for the stories in the ‘conservative’ media that Cruz is under attack, proving supposedly that he is the most conservative of the candidates. I think there is some attempt at reverse psychology there, trying to get the ‘Tea Party’ faction to respond in knee-jerk fashion, rallying around Cruz.
What will happen, I don’t know, but I don’t put much stock in our sham party politics and our in-name-only