I’m sorry, but I’m not really sure I can answer the question on its face because the very idea of it would be completely unworkable. And Cruz, I suspect, knows full and well that it’s not something that can be practically implemented.

He can’t
He’s an idiot.
The people that listen to the shit and believe a word of it are idiots.

When Trump was proposing such a thing a friend of mind said what a good idea she thought it was. I asked her if she’d done that math. She said no. I said, “That’s, like, 17,000 people a day.”
”What?? There’s no way!”
Exactly.

Imagine the infrastructure he’s have to install to find and transport all those people. To WHERE?
Greece? Turkey?
Just look at the EU.

Since I think America purposely ignores the majority of illegal immigrants here, it won’t be too hard to find and round up at least half of them I think. We know where a lot of them are. The government turns a bling eye in concert with businesses to let the status quo keep happening for cheap labor. The other half is more tricky. They often are fairly educated and aren’t working or living in the typical be immigrant situations.

Cruz is a poser. Trump’s doing well, so he’s copying Trump’s schtick to some extent. Plus, Cruz is a liar and underhanded in a way I can’t ignore. Plus, the whole Christian thing while doing these things. Just no. How people consider him at all is beyond me. Trump also tries to play the Christian thing a little, but not like Cruz.

Wait a minute—Didn’t I hear that Trump called Cruz an anchor baby!

Lol. Cruz does not fit the definition of Anchor baby. It’s funny though.

@Yetanotheruser I called Rubio an Anchor baby. Cruz is just a Canadian with questionable right to be in the U.S. (since his mother registered to vote in Canada, which is an act renouncing US citizenship.)

@Zenvelo Were Rubio’s parents not legal in America when he was born?

@JLeslie They were only “legal” because of the peculiar preference given to Cubans.

@zenvelo His parents were here before asylum was given to Cuban citizens. Are you referring to that? Or, some other “preference” Cubans were given?

Assuming this was logistically possible it would gut the economy. America loves cheap labor, the country was partially founded on it. White people won’t pick lettuce and tomatoes for slave wages, easier to get welfare. See what happens to the price of your Big Mac or salad fixings at Albertsons when you are paying people 15 a hour to work the fields..

The ripples across the economy would be brutal since we all have to buy food and when food goes up we have less money to spend on cars and iPhones. And then we have to deal what happens to the houses and apartments where all these people are currently living that are now vacant. Rents would drop, would they drop so much that landlords would be unable to pay their mortgage and foreclose? Entire cities in the southwest would look like Detroit.

One person at a time.

He told Bill O’Reilly he wants to send ICE Storm-troopers to round them all up.

Let him do it. ~

How about, let’s change the laws for jus soli here. Why don’t they start with that?

@zenvelo “Cruz is just a Canadian with questionable right to be in the U.S. (since his mother registered to vote in Canada, which is an act renouncing US citizenship.)”

And was that before, or after, Ted Cruz’s birth?

Also, does Canadian law require one to be a citizen ir order to vote? Even if so how is voting in Canada an act of renouncing US citizenship, as the US does recognize and allow dual citizenship?

@JLeslie “How about, let’s change the laws for jus soli here. Why don’t they start with that?”

Only if, upon doing so, they automatically revoke the citizenship of every single person born in the US.

@Darth_Algar I don’t know why you say that. You can change it and make it for everyone born going forward. Why should a child born in America to people here illegally be given automatic citizenship? Many countries don’t do that. The Americas have for a long time for multiple reasons, but times change. Anyone here legally I’m fine with their children being citizens if born here, the parents don’t have to be citizens.

Because I feel the illegal boogieman has been overblown. Because I understand that I’m only in the position I’m in due to the patch of soil I was born on. Because I understand that my ancestors didn’t exactly come here “legally”, but rather came over, essentially invaded, and pried this land from its rightful people. Because I believe that in spite of its bloody, shameful beginnings America is suppose to be a land that welcomes any and all, and I’d rather like to hold on to that idea and welcome any and all, regardless of their background, their economic status or if they can work their way through the convoluted US immigration process. And because I believe that the same privilege and rights extended to me for having the luck to be born on the right patch of Earth should be extended to all born on that patch of Earth, regardless of their parents’ situation. Because I feel that anything less would be hypocritical of me. Because I believe that anything less and these words -

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door”

- are meaningless.

@Darth_Algar GA! Well said!

Massive roundups by brown shirted young Republicans.

Or, as someone posted about Trump,
Juan by Juan

or was it Juan at a time?

@Darth_Algar That was then and this is now. My husband is an immigrant from Mexico. My paternal grandfather was an immigrant. My maternal great grandparents were immigrants. Do you think I don’t have empathy and understanding for immigrants? I want easier and better pathways for people to be legal here. I want people who work here to not be used and abused because they are illegal. It’s a racket. The fed and business like paying these people on the down low, and Americans are happy to get services and food at cheaper prices.

So, you think the European and Asian countries that don’t have jus soli are horrible for not having that policy?

@JLeslie

Your husband, your great-grandparents, your empathy, or the policies of other nations are not the question here. The citizenship policy of this nation is. That is the question I answered.

Studies have found that illegal immigrants contribute around $11 billion every year, but while they’re contributing 11 billion, other studies have found that they’re costing taxpayer $113 billion every year. Subtract the $11 billion and they’re costing U.S taxpayers $102 billion every year.

You get rid of these people using ICE. The problem with ICE, like any other government agency, is that they’re not actually enforcing the law as they can. Obama, like every other liberal, has a fetish for illegal immigration and diversity. That doesn’t help matters. I would imagine if Ted gets elected, he will actually get rid of the useless appendages currently occupying ICE, reinforce and expand ICE to do their job.

I don’t understand why these people are allowed to say this bat-shit crazy stuff and not get called on it.
As in,
“So, Ted, do you realize that, given a 4 year term and a year to implement your program, you would be deporting 11,000 people per day, EVERY DAY, for 3 years? Where do you propose to send 11,000 people per day?”

@ibstubro Because most of the media only cares about ratings.

It won’t happen. He would have to suspend due process.
He is hoping nobody will figure that out.

@Josie!

Well, during a debate then, @JLeslie. Why not give blathering on about nothing a break and ask some unanswerable questions?

Like how, when, where, why and how much?
The really deep stuff.

Too late to edit to edit above.

@ibstubro Do you mean me or the hosts of the Presidential debates?

The presidential “debates” should be more accurately described as round-table interviews.

@krain Not “studies,” one study by a single-issue interest group attempting to limit both legal and illegal immigration. Also, those numbers are from 2010. And unsurprisingly, they are misleading. Case in point: of that $113 billion, $52 billion consists of education funding that would have been spent in the exact same way regardless. It’s a problem with the methodology: they looked at education earmarks, divided by the number of students, then multiplied by their estimate of how many children have foreign-born parents (children that they themselves admit are typically legal US citizens). But the earmarks were not determined on a per student basis, so it is completely artificial to focus on the per student number.

A better strategy might have been to argue that the children of foreign-born parents cause that money to be spread more thinly due to the larger number of students it has to pay for. But they didn’t use that strategy. Why not? Probably because the states with the highest number of children of foreign-born parents (which should be the ones with the biggest problems if they are right) have better average educational outcomes than the states with the fewest number of children of immigrants. In other words, those states aren’t having the biggest problems. Now, that might be because they just have more money to spend on education in general. But it still makes this strategy a non-starter.

I think the sad fact of the “debates” is that all the participants are on just as thin ice as all the rest. They can’t punch holes in the other guy’s bag of wind because all there is to back any of it up is another bag of wind.