Cruz Channels Wallace

Via the AJC:

“My position is very simple. I oppose amnesty. I oppose citizenship. I oppose legalization … Today, tomorrow, forever. I believe in the rule of law.”

Several thoughts:

  1.  I guess Cruz thinks that battling Trump means a hard line on immigration.
  2. Borrowing a rhetorical turn from George Wallace is not an innocent coincidence.
  3. The law can be changed (and to pretend that the current laws are unchangeable and perfect is absurd).

The nativism is strong in this one.

FILED UNDER: 2016 Election, US Politics,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter


  1. OzarkHillbilly says:

    He believes in the rule of laws that favor him, otherwise not so much.

  2. An Interested Party says:

    …is absurd…

    Well, this is Ted Cruz that you’re talking about…Hillary would have a field day with this fool…

  3. James Pearce says:

    I guess Cruz thinks that battling Trump means a hard line on immigration.

    Is he wrong?

    There doesn’t seem to be any better way to ingratiate yourself with right-wing voters these days than to take a hard line on immigration.

  4. @James Pearce: I did not mean to imply that he is wrong.

  5. CSK says:

    Cruz is in Tennessee and Arkansas today, and was in Alabama yesterday and Sunday. Has he been repeating this line in those places? Tomorrow he’s in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Will he use it there?

    This has to have been deliberate on his part. Insanely stupid, but deliberate.

  6. Neil Hudelson says:

    “Nativism.” That’s one word for it.

  7. gVOR08 says:


    Insanely stupid

    Sadly, no. Despicable yes. But for a Republican primary candidate, not stupid.

    @An Interested Party: He has a reputation as a great debater and very skilled politician. Both, as far as I can see, deserved. I don’t want to make the mistake of saying he disagrees with me, therefore he’s stupid. A self absorbed religious fruitcake azzhole who is wrong on everything yes. Stupid no. The fact that I find him repugnant is not sufficient to give me a lot of confidence that he wouldn’t be formidable in the general. The country’s in a scary mood.

  8. James Pearce says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Have you, by chance, read David Frum’s piece in the Atlantic that touches on this subject? It’s called “The Great Republican Revolt.”

  9. JohnMcC says:

    @James Pearce: Just finished that Frum piece before landing here. VERY highly recommended as a general roundup of where we’ve been. Somewhat less than helpful in projecting some portion of the future.

  10. James Pearce says:


    Somewhat less than helpful in projecting some portion of the future.

    Agreed. I think part of that has to do with Frum being more aligned with the Romney/Rubio side than the Trump/Cruz side. My sense is that he would prefer option #3, but he’s betting on option #4. But maybe that’s just me over analyzing again.

  11. @James Pearce: I read it this morning. I haven’t decided what I want to do with it as yet.

  12. An Interested Party says:


    Oh I agree that he isn’t stupid but he certainly is repugnant…I know the country is in a scary mood but not scary enough to make this guy president…