No, it's technically correct but still a bad answer. It's the law, fine, it's not unique law, fine, but is it just?
He's ugly and slithery to us, sure, but he's been building up an image for a while now and I have no trouble believing that Republicans/whatever will see him differently. He certainly looks like he's rocking the sorta-slimy-preacher look, and occasionally the dorky-dad one too. Neither of those are going to hurt him among the people he's trying to appeal to.
It's technically impressive, I suppose, that he is able to give such a legalistic answer to such a heartfelt plea while giving some impression of due consideration and empathy for the questioner. But that's about it.
As a note on how this issue is progressing where I am, about 650,000 undocumented immigrants got state driver's licenses over the past twelve months.
It's a very well-done answer for the audience he's trying to reach.
I'm not at all sure it's accurate with regard to his assumptions about how "every other nation on earth" handles unauthorized migrants. More to the point, it's a false dichotomy. Literally no one -- no one -- is arguing that there should be "no consequences" for undocumented immigrants. Even advocates bend over backwards to say there should be a fine, there should be case-by-case review of applicants, undocumented people should not get full immigration status in front of people who have been waiting "in line" for status for years already, etc etc.
Granted, people DO argue that the "consequences" of deportation are unfairly and unnecessarily harsh given the violation they represent. And guess what? We change our minds about appropriate "sentences" all the time in the United States of America. And Ted Cruz knows that.
Or did you mean "great" in the sense of "politically well-thought-out"? Sure, I could see it fooling the mishmashy middle.
Yes, I meant it's great in an instrumental sense.
Cruz hints at the "attractive nuisance" theory that if you leave the door to the pool open, then you're inviting tragedy. And keeping the door open is inviting more tragedy. And the people to blame are those who keep the door open. But that's hard to explain in a short answer.
I have my priors, but how does appearing to be a complete asshole without basic human emotion appeal to anyone other than (maybe) appealing to people who are already assholes on this topic, and thus unpersuadable anyway? This is not the answer Reagan, or even GWB or Romney or (tryng to think of broadly popular Republican) would give. It's not a politician's answer, and not in a good way. Call me crazy but outside maybe some fairly specific dynamics of the Republican party politicians still usually have to be at least a little likeabke to win major elections.
In ither words, 6 is totally wrong.
Nobody actually likes people on the debate team.
RT, listen to him without hearing the words. Pretend he's the adult in a Charlie Brown cartoon. Look at his body language and, more importantly, his tone of voice.
To a significant minority of people, he's telegraphing:
- I'm not a monster; I'm speaking gently to this misguided young woman
- I'm taking the time to calmly explain to her why she can't have the rules the way she wants them, just because she wants them
- I'm affirming American values of fairness and rule-following
- I'm displaying my mastery of the law and social dominance without swearing or yelling
You and I aren't the intended audience. The audience he's speaking to is cheering his firm, manly* resolve and unwillingness to "pander" to the "victim" in front of him.
*ugh
He certainly looks like he's rocking the sorta-slimy-preacher look
Someone should photoshop "LOVE" and "HATE" onto his knuckles. He even sort of looks like Mitchum.
11 - I just think you're wrong there. If you are already a true believer, sure, you might like a true believer. But this is a dude totally without charisma or relatability.
I agree with 11. It's not going to appeal to Hispanics, but it could to plenty of non-True-Believer whites.
mock trialers are adorable and universally loved tho.
I really really hope rt is right and ogged, witt etc are wrong re tc.
Like, I don't know, my liberal aunt who sees David Brooks's columns as really thought-provoking.
Don't people hate the adults in Charlie Brown cartoons, since they're all "blah blah blah"?
Anyway, if he wins I have no doubt he will immediately seek out and deport this specific person. You don't fuck with the king.
I'm not going to watch the video, but 11 sounds right.
Welp, now I've seen a thing today that made me angry. I don't think it would be possible to tolerate eight years of that guy.
Don't people hate the adults in Charlie Brown cartoons, since they're all "blah blah blah"?
I should be honest and say I don't think I have ever actually seen a Charlie Brown cartoon. I have just seen this particular feature mentioned so often that I thought I understood it. Doesn't it mean "people speaking nonsense syllables"?
/shamefully slinking off to Google
I watched it with no sound, and 11 seems right. He comes across as empathetic but stern, approaching the conservative-father ideal.
Debate team, represent?
Well, the questioner is asking specifically about DACA, which provides a work permit and defers deportation of childhood arrivals for a period of two years, renewable every two years. It's not a free pass. The response to Cruz is that he's supposing DACA constitutes a free pass. It doesn't.
Or what 4.2 says, really.
The appropriate response is to ask whether, as President, Cruz would immediately deport all 11 million (how?), whether that's the only consequence he considers appropriate; or whether he'd have to prioritize deportations, and if so, on what basis?
Gah. I can't believe I just tried to give a serious response to that sleazeball.
Why does Cruz hate American exceptionalism?
I read prioritize as privatize which of course is exactly how he'd deport 11 million. Give the ammosexuals something to do with their guns, pick up some bounty money, and I'm sure they wouldn't be sad if they shot a few who they felt were threatening.
The appropriate response is to ask whether, as President, Cruz would immediately deport all 11 million (how?), whether that's the only consequence he considers appropriate; or whether he'd have to prioritize deportations, and if so, on what basis?
From your mouth to the debate moderators' ears.
I read prioritize as privatize which of course is exactly how he'd deport 11 million.
Interesting. But I think "show me your papers" still doesn't sit well with a lot of even right-leaning Americans. Regardless of the makeup of the deportation posse, accurately identifying the undocumented -- without false positives -- is the first obstacle.
Step two of response, at any rate: how would President Cruz propose to pay for this?
Hey, how does Cruz feel about a balanced budget amendment? I bet he's in favor. Where's the money for all these deportations come from, jackass? And is the judicial system to be involved at all, or what? You can't privatize that.
I also think 11 is basically right. I remember plenty of "But W Bush is so obviously a loutish bully in way over his head who doesn't even seem to understand the actual things he's saying!*" reactions among people back in the earlier 2000's. And that was exactly what it looked like to me and clearly enough that it was hard to see someone missing it. But a lot of people saw it the exact opposite way, because America is full of people who respond really well to the stuff Bush was displaying.
The idea that Cruz is a safe(ish) candidate because of how directly, obviously repulsive he is is appealing because it's reassuring to think that America wouldn't elect such a horrifying snake to the presidency. But I don't think it's something that can actually be taken for granted. I mean, watch this, or these fake "outtakes". It's painfully lame, but painfully lame dad + evangelical preacher isn't a bad picture to be throwing out there and it's not hard for me to imagine people buying into it without any trouble.
*Which was true, obviously. But...
4: I was arguing that there should be no consequences for undocumented immigrants. No borders, no nations, stop the deportations!
America wouldn't elect such a horrifying snake to the presidency
More or less on topic...a marvelously well-told 10-minute podcast from an Indian woman who faced deportation as a young college student.
It does seem unusually obvious that Cruz is a phony, if another politician were just to start pointing that out on a regular basis. I mean, this guy was the leader of the Princeton debate team. Everyone he knew at PRINCETON considered him a hilariously old-fashioned elitist. His wife works for Goldman Sachs as we speak, I believe. And now he reinvents himself as Mike Huckabee Jr. And simultaneously he reinvents himself as Ron Paul Jr. for the conservatives who like internet memes. This cannot be sustainable.
This goes way beyond Bush becoming a Texan. He was authentically married to a pearl-bedecked elementary school teacher, and he was authentically not that smart and not that ambitious.
Debate team, represent?
ogged sees Cruz and recognizes a kindred spirit. I bet Cruz glued all kinds of caterpillars as a kid.
There's no law against gluing caterpillars.
Not in this country, no, but I'm not sure about Canada.
"Cruz: I spank my daughter when she lies -- voters can 'administer...a spanking' to Hillary Clinton"
He brags about hitting a five-year old. Nice.
Even better, I bet he's lying about spanking his kid.
Heritage House sends somebody to do it for him.
42 And now his poor kid is going to get teased by her classmates for getting spanked.
Witt's 11 is right, and I'd just add that the real key to his answer is that the doesn't concede any moral ground. You can imagine a lot of politicians becoming uncomfortable when they have to tell a teenager they'd deport her, but Cruz weaves it into "I'm deporting you because America is great," and he gives his supporters moral absolution. There are a lot of "he's so smart" stories, and this is one time where I can see it.
What about other policy areas? "I'm sorry you have cancer but government is too big so I don't believe in funding medical research, we need to leave it to the free market." I guess it's principled but I don't see it playing with voters.
I'm sorry you have cancer but government is too big so...
I mean, sure he didn't play well with voters particularly, but the audience reaction makes it fairly clear that it wasn't that answer.
You've all either lost your fucking minds, or your contempt for voters is greater than I can imagine, and I'm pretty cynical. Would I put this dude in front of a jury? No way. Is this guy appealing to those outside his base? No. Doesn't mean he couldn't win if he's the Republican nominee, because in a two-party system any one of the two can win, but the guy is not a gifted politician at all, not charismatic, and also not "smart."
Or maybe you are sympathetic to debate team toads somehow. I dunno.
You're answering the wrong question, brah. It's not "is he a great politician?" Like I said, he's an ugly, slithering schlub, and this gives me great comfort. But think about how you'd defend an unpopular position in the face of someone affected by it, without mumbling or dodging, and this is a very good example of doing that.
The dodge is right there in the first words out of his mouth. "You were brought here illegally, and violating the laws has consequences." He sounds like he's saying something about fairness, but really he's talking about collective punishment.
Remember that time we had a roundup of links of the form:
1) "despite seeming monumentally dumb, Cruz is actually secretly genius" and
2) "despite seeming monumentally brilliant, sotomayor is secretly dumb" ?
That was a good thread.
I think they're both secretly just above average and maybe only "genius" in the MENSA-set-a-low-bar-1-in-50 way.
If you would expect, by random chance alone without any extra information about the characteristics of people who fly, three "geniuses" on a typical commuter flight, your definition is lacking.
Would I put this dude in front of a jury? No way.
Standards are lower for politicians than for trial lawyers, because they have to meet so many other criteria.
You mean that people who spend millions on hookers and cocaine can still be trial lawyers.
My high school was too small to have debate (or, as far as I ever knew, cocaine).
For obvious reasons I know tons of ex-debaters, but the ones who are successful *trial* lawyers (not the same thing as successful lawyers) are way more charismatic and intuitively empathetic than Cruz. Cruz is appropriately dickish/"smart" for many roles, including many many legal roles, but that's not the same thing as being a gifted politician. Imagine how, say, Mike Huckabee would have answered a similar question. There's also a senator/governor difference here that's important.
I mean it's also true that I'm biased because the dude is like the apotheosis of everything I hate, but I'm trying to discount for that.
The "Sotomayor is secretly dumb" thing was shockingly revealing about ingrained racism/sexism among elite lawyers, particularly in retrospect. I was worried at the time that she was too conservative (I was wrong!). But I don't think there is better evidence of unconscious racism among nominally anti-racist elites than the "she's not that smart, I've heard" whisper campaign that she recieved.
I can't remember if I mentioned this here. Lots of us know people who knew Cruz in college because we are all nerds who know people who did parliamentary debate. But! And I had blocked this from my mind, but! He *dated* my friend's little sister for 2 years. She brought him home to meet the family etc. They *hated* him -- and this is unsurprising because they were aging Jewish hippies who did things like take us to Pete Seeger concerts. (The little sister, from what I remember of her, was the Alex P. Keaton of the family.) I really wish my friend would dish more. So far I have refrained from begging for details. Anyway GROSSSSSSS.
Odds on nude pics/sex fetish reveals? You owe it to your country.
begging for details
Specifically, we're all dying to know: does he incessantly and awkwardly quote The Princess Bride during coitus, too?
62 was actually serious. There are few times when one is called upon to be a patriot, but this is one of them.
50: But think about how you'd defend an unpopular position in the face of someone affected by it, without mumbling or dodging, and this is a very good example of doing that.
Honestly, it's a good example of sounding sober and well-reasoned, but if you have any point beyond that, I'm missing it. Tons of politicians do that every day: they succeed in seeming persuasive, and much of the time, they're not particularly smart. They just have good handlers/trainers.
Again: Cruz's response is easily taken apart. The question is about DACA. Childhood arrivals actually didn't violate any laws: they were minors, infants or toddlers even. Their parents broke the law, sure.
There's plenty of material for a rejoinder: does Cruz suppose that childhood arrivals should self-deport upon reaching the age of 18?
Thanks to potchkeh in 51 for reminding me of that dodge, by the way. According to Cruz's opening words, the consequences are to be suffered by the parents, who did the unlawful bringing, and the punishment is that their children shall be deported. Is that fair to the children?
It's tempting to construct an analogy that might appeal to those swayed by Cruz's anti-DACA rhetoric.
I'm serially commenting, but as I put my lunch together just now, I began to wonder if I was digging myself a hole here.
Can the lawyers provide insight: is it possible for a 6 month old or a 2 year old to break the law?* At what point (what age) does a person count as breaking the law?
There's obviously a difference between active and passive voices here: laws were broken, yes. Who broke the law, who is breaking the law? At what point does it become the case that a childhood arrival is (actively) breaking the law by being in the US? Age 18? Age 10?
* Analogy: child lives with parents in a squatter situation, some abandoned home they do not own or rent. Is the child breaking the law?
It seems clear that the child is actively breaking the law once s/he is acting as a free agent, no longer a dependent of the parents. ?
Sorry, but this just became interesting to me as a jurisprudential question. I have indeed taken the wrong road as a response to Cruz insofar as a case can be made that a now-adult childhood arrival is breaking the law.
It's very hard to arrest kids. That's why you should always let them do the holding.
Pro-tip: Police don't like to look in dirty diapers any more than you do.
Come for the eclectic discussions; stay for Moby's criminal advice.
You'll understand if you ever have your own little evidence-holders.
Young children are self-evidently not capable of mens rea and can't really be culpable for not having proper residence documents. I wonder, actually, how you can deport a minor at all except with the consent of the parent? I.e., I'm sure when parents are deported they will typically want to bring their children, but what if there's a close relative who's a citizen and is willing to be guardian? Can the children be deported even though they're not technically guilty of a crime?
I suppose mens rea isn't relevant in deportation proceedings since the goal is just "putting you back where you belong," not punishment for an actus reus.
not technically guilty of a crime
I'm not an immigration law expert, and this may seem like nit-picking, but: simply being present in the US without a visa, etc. is not a crime. Deportation hearings are a civil proceeding, not a criminal matter.*
For this reason, I get exceptionally annoyed when people rail about "They broke our LAWS!!!!1!!"—it's really not the legal equivalent of larceny or whatever.
In contrast, you could do time in prison if you re-enter after being deported for certain things (e.g., being convicted of trafficking narcotics). In that re-entry case, it's a criminal proceeding with all the attendant guarantees (proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a lawyer, etc.).
None of this answers parsi's specific question, because I don't know the answer.
*downside to being civil and not criminal law: you're not guaranteed a lawyer.
As I understand it, it's a civil matter to be present, and there's often but not necessarily a criminal violation in the back story of how someone came to be present (since improper entry is a crime).
75 reminds me of how worried Nia was that our friends were going to be arrested for their lovely extralegal wedding, since she knew the law at the time barred same-sex unions.
77: Not so irrational - I think at least one state neighboring yours had a law on the books banning ceremonies for marriages not allowed by law, constitutional or not.
78: It's hard to believe that would withstand court scrutiny.
My favorite part of policy debate was arguing obviously absurd positions.
But Cruz et al are big enough dicks to want to actually implement the policies. Which I think means he likes the vileness of the policies, not the absurdity.
73: I'm sure when parents are deported they will typically want to bring their children, but what if there's a close relative who's a citizen and is willing to be guardian?
Related question: what if the children are themselves U.S. citizens, born in the U.S.? They obviously can't be deported. Perhaps the deported parent(s) will want to bring the children along with them, but perhaps they'd prefer the children to remain in the U.S. Do such children become wards of the state?
I want Cruz -- and Trump, for that matter -- to be pressed on such questions. Do they propose the creation or expansion of a government agency to run, essentially, orphanages for children of the deported? Quite possibly millions of such children? That's going to be expensive. Breaking up families in favor of growing the government doesn't seem very conservative ... etc.
orphanages for children of the deported
"Please, Sir, May I Have the Wretched Refuse of Your Teeming Shore."
They are also opposed to birthright citizenship. Problem solved!
Yeah, I'd forgotten about that. Still, they can't invalidate it retroactively. Uh, surely.
they can't invalidate it retroactively
Marco Rubio definitely doesn't want to do so, anyway.
Hey look, Saletan does something useful: "I studied nearly every word the Texas senator uttered during the immigration showdown. He may be the most spectacular liar ever to run for president."
He went through the record in depth and detail, and determined that, while all the evidence is that Cruz offered a sincere amendment to create a category of green card-bearing noncitizens during the debate, he carefully avoided ever saying the exact words, "I favor legal (but noncitizen) status for the undocumented." After the bill failed in the House, he started claiming that the amendments were always intended as a poison pill, but he never once said that during the debate, and in fact said things like, "I want immigration reform to pass." But, again, he was always very careful, in a perfectly lawyerly (or debate teamily) way never to say anything unambiguous.
None of it is surprising as such, but it's a good demonstration of just how pathological and gifted he is at lying. Oh, and it also reveals pretty clearly that his current hardline stance is bullshit. He almost certainly did support a path to permanent residency, and it's certain that he was undecided before he took office. Which is common, of course, but the crap in this video only works when it's sincere--try rephrasing it as, "I've looked at the polls, and they say that I have to tell you that your parents need to be deported."
Wait, what the hell happened? I wrote up a decent comment with a relevant link and everything. Goddammit.
And there it is. OK, browser, stop being weird.
The questions he should be asked are: is it right that his father was able to emigrate because he had family connections able to bribe an Batista officials for an exit permit while thousands of ordinary Cubans had to wait in line and play by the rules like everyone else? Should there not be some consequences to that?
86:
Not sure where this is taken from, but it seems pretty unambiguous:
"The 11 million who are here illegally would be granted legal status once the border was secured -- not before -- but after the border was secured, they would be granted legal status," he says. "And indeed, they would be eligible for permanent legal residency. But they would not be eligible for citizenship."
86: Which is common, of course,
The fact that Cruz trims the truth for political reasons is one of the less despicable things about him. I mean, sure, reporters ought to hold politicians' feet to the fire for this sort of thing (and admittedly I only read the first third of the Saletan piece) but surely all he's got on Cruz is that Cruz is a politician.
That doesn't indicate approval or even intention, it's just a description of what would happen. Depending on his tone of voice it could be either something he's saying in its favor, reporting on it neutrally, or yelling angrily about it. (And he'd pretend later that it was whichever one was most convenient at the moment for him.)
92 explains what 91 is missing: he's inhumanly rigorous about using definitive-seeming language that is, in fact, equivocal, and then using that equivocation to deny that he was ever definitive. Which, again, seems like political SOP, except that most pols can't pull it off.
Put it this way: for 6 months, during the height of the immigration debate, Cruz posed as the skeptical conservative's champion for advancing reform without selling out, while still not saying anything that the median Latino, let alone Republican, could complain about. Then reform crashed and burned, and he's spent 2.5 years posing as the man who singlehandedly defeated reform. And nobody's been able to lay a glove on him over it. That's way beyond what most pols can pull off. Imagine Kerry in '04 (or Clinton in '08) running as an opponent of the Iraq War, as someone who was a leader in opposing it--and getting away with it. It's unimaginable. But Cruz is doing the equivalent.
Kerry managed to have it both ways about Vietnam. It took extraordinary measures -- the swift-boating campaign and whatever happened to Dan Rather -- to take that away from him.
I think the description in 93 of his tendency to use definitive seeming language which is actually equivocal is exactly right, but I took the even nastier edge to it to be not that he'd later deny that he was definitive but often just go ahead and treat as if it was definitive in the other direction, knowing that if he were quoted it would come out sounding close enough to what he was saying he said that criticisms would miss the mark. What's unnerving about him is that he successfully did this, with no slip ups that anyone can find, for months to years while making lots of loud statements about these issues and constantly posing for the press. It's like he has the ability to never say anything that can't, if you're willing to be dishonest enough which he is, be described as saying the opposite if it's convenient for him later without sounding like he's being especially slippery about it. It's like he's transcended the most basic use of language.
Still, they can't invalidate it retroactively. Uh, surely.
Depressingly, there is recent precedent. The Dominican Republic did this to citizens of Haitian descent just last year. Dating back to 1939. Sorry, elders, you suddenly aren't citizens of this country where you have lived for a zillion years!
And indeed, they would be eligible for permanent legal residency. But they would not be eligible for citizenship.
This would require a change in current law, to be clear. As it stands right now, everyone who is a permanent resident will eventually (typically in 3-5 years) have the right to apply for citizenship -- unless they engage in conduct after becoming a permanent resident that would disqualify them for citizenship. (Or if USCIS suddenly finds out about something they did before becoming a permanent resident that they failed to mention on their application.)
The 2013 bill that passed the Senate with a 2/3 majority and then failed in the House would have put a substantial fraction (NOT all) of the 11 million on a path to "Registered Provisional Immigrant" status (a brand-new category) and then after being on RPI, they would have had the right to apply for legal permanent resident status, and then citizenship.
(Except Dreamers, who would have had a faster path.)
Also, I'm not a historian of immigration law, so I'm curious about another point htat is glossed over int he NPR article linked above. it ssays Cruz's father came legally on a "four-year student visa" and then worked as a dishwasher to pay for school.
I have no idea what the rules were back in the 1950s, but these days a student visa emphatically does NOT come with a work permit. You can work only under very clear circumstances, and it's almost always restricted to on-campus work. (There is an exception for what is called "Optional Practical Training" for a year or so *after* you graduate.)
Plus, you generally have to show that you have the assets to pay your entire tuition -- BEFORE you come to the US.
I doubt the 1950s-era immigration system had the same safeguards in place, but I'm curious to know whether anyone has ever asked Cruz senior whether he had a work permit when he was a student.
It would be hilarious if he said something like "I was it, before I was against it."
So, if the migrants we want are the ones who've "waited in line" in their country for 20 years or whatever to become eligible to legally migrate to the US, don't we, as the host country, then lose all the advantages of getting them as energetic young people who can work super hard and pay into social security for decades?
