# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul to outline immigration policy platform on Tuesday 3/19

## tsai3904

> Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will unveil his policy platform for immigration reform at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Legislative Summit on Tuesday. 
> 
> Paul's office announced the speech on Monday.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...orm-on-tuesday

The summit hasn't announced him as a speaker yet so the time is unknown.  There doesn't seem to be a live link to the summit either.

http://www.ushcclegislative.com

Update:  Full text of speech:




> Por favor disculpen mi Espanol. Como creci en Houston -es un poco 'espanglish y un poco Tex Mex.
> 
> I lived, worked, played and grew up alongside Latinos. As a teenager I worked alongside immigrants mowing lawns and putting in landscaping around businesses.
> 
> I remember once asking one of the immigrant workers how much he was being paid. “Cuanto le pagan por el trabajo? ”
> 
> He responded “tres dolars.” I responded,
> “Yo tambien. Tres Dolars, por hora . . . ?”
> 
> ...


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...poetry_of.html

----------


## itshappening

I wonder what he will want to see in the bill and if he has the guts to vote Nay if he doesn't get everything he wants.

----------


## Brett85

This could hurt him with conservatives if he comes across as supporting amnesty or an easy path to citizenship.

----------


## supermario21

I do like that he is putting out his own policy. I respect that he comes up with his own budget, immigration policy, and foreign policy essentially.

----------


## itshappening

> I do like that he is putting out his own policy. I respect that he comes up with his own budget, immigration policy, and foreign policy essentially.


Which means he has to vote Nay to the Schumer and Dicky Durbin plan because that is not going to be Rand's.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> This could hurt him with conservatives if he comes across as supporting amnesty or an easy path to citizenship.


Hasn't Rubio already come out in favor of some sort of amnesty and pathway for citizenship.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Hasn't Rubio already come out in favor of some sort of amnesty and pathway for citizenship.


So?  If Rand wants to appear more conservative than Rubio, he needs to be different from him on some issues.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> So?  If Rand wants to appear more conservative than Rubio, he needs to be different from him on some issues.


I'm just saying, a pathway to citizenship won't necessarily hurt Rand, especially if "Prince of the Tea Party" Rubio supports it.

I hope he doesn't come out with a pathway to citizenship. I would be ok with a work visa and a pathway to permanent residency but without a possibility of citizenship.

----------


## nasaal

> I'm just saying, a pathway to citizenship won't necessarily hurt Rand, especially if "Prince of the Tea Party" Rubio supports it.
> 
> I hope he doesn't come out with a pathway to citizenship. I would be ok with a work visa and a pathway to permanent residency but without a possibility of citizenship.


I dunno.  I have an issue with allowing someone to stay, work, everything else but never gaining citizenship.  Honestly I think Rand needs to go with whatever he thinks is the right and best policy.  Media and party will twist anything he comes up with.  He needs to just be honest about his views and move forward with that.

----------


## jbauer

For anyone who is very much against some sort of immigration plan, I ask you this:  Have you ever dealt with our immigration process?  

My wife did an internship program for a German College student.  She needed a J1 visa to come to this country to be able to legally stay for 6 months.  She was not going to earn one red cent above room and board.  

It took countless hours, home inspections, work place inspections & interviews.  It took a couple grand in fees.  At the end of the day I’d say it took 80 hours AND $1k.  It took at least twice that from her.   It would have been dramatically cheaper for us/her to have flown home in the middle of her internship (since you legally can be here 3 months) get her passport stamped and turn right around and fly back.  It  also would have been dramatically cheaper for us/her to have flown into Canada or Mexico.  Come across the border for 3 months and then get re-stamped back in another country.

All I can say is after dealing with the bureaucracy that is our immigration system that if my kids were starving and there was a job north of a fence.  I’d be the first one over that damn thing.  Prior to that experience I would have been one of the ones yelling the loudest about building a taller fence.  

Point being right now we have a terribly ineffective immigration policy in that we really don’t have one.  I look forward to some constructive way to make it easier for those who want to come or go and a way for those that are already here to stay because you’re not going to get rid of them.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I wonder what he will want to see in the bill and if he has the guts to vote Nay if he doesn't get everything he wants.


There have always been a strong set of mandatory prerequisites in "liberty" circles before changing immigration policy. We'll see what Rand proposes.




> This could hurt him with conservatives if he comes across as supporting amnesty or an easy path to citizenship.


Yep. At least he isn't standing up there with McCain, Graham, Rubio and Flake proposing amnesty. But it could be perceived that way if he is not very careful. Or the neo-conservatives could turn it around and label Rand the amnesty guy in the GOP.

----------


## T.hill

From what I've heard of Rand's view on immigration policy, his own plans require illegals to do a whole lot more before they were to become citizens then the Rubio-McCain amnesty plan. Also, he said this is a one and done thing for him, wants to fix the current situation while making sure it never happens again.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> This could hurt him with conservatives if he comes across as supporting amnesty or an easy path to citizenship.


Agree... I hope Rand doesn't bite off more than he can chew.

He came out on top from the filibuster, hands down, and he took some lumps on the CPAC win. People are trying to destroy his rep at all costs...

----------


## AlexAmore

He hasn't failed us yet. He has bobbed and weaved with laser precision. He has taken libertarian positions and made them mainstream conservative like magic.

He obviously knows he's in the limelight for the entire nation.

DON'T MESS THIS UP FOR US, RAND!!!!!!!!!!!

Peace.

----------


## TaftFan

I like a smooth flowing guest worker program especially for agriculture.

But Rand had better not offer a path to citizenship. We do not want millions of new Democrat voters.

----------


## PaleoPaul

He needs to make a plan that appeals to both conservative and moderate voters.

----------


## Brett85

> But Rand had better not offer a path to citizenship. We do not want millions of new Democrat voters.


Well he will, because that's what he's advocated before.  But he does have a better plan to secure the border than any of the other candidates.  His plan would at least make sure that it would basically be a one time amnesty that would never happen again.  He needs to stress that.

----------


## abacabb

Why is Rand touching this third rail? The Democrats aren't. Republicans should let the Dems come up with a plan and stand by and criticize. Rand is unnecessarily sticking his neck out and he's only going to get hurt.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> Why is Rand touching this third rail? The Democrats aren't. Republicans should let the Dems come up with a plan and stand by and criticize. Rand is unnecessarily sticking his neck out and he's only going to get hurt.


Because the democrats are just going to come out with full amnesty and citizenship and then blame the republicans for being "bigots" and not agreeing to it. Democrats are very good at painting the GOP as uncaring racists and bigots, and if they passed their own version in the Senate that's exactly what they'd do.

----------


## supermario21

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ration-reform/ 

For the sake of reference, this was a column Rand wrote last month on immigration.





> I am in favor of immigration reform.  I am also wary of reforms granted now for a promise of border security later.  In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a deal that made just such a promise, yet we are still waiting for the border security that never came.  Conservatives are also still waiting for the promised three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax hikes.  Fool me once … So, it is understandable conservatives should insist that any immigration reform incorporate the principle of trust but verify.
> In that vein, I approach these efforts in good faith. I will advance both immigration reform and verifiable border security.  Under my plan for comprehensive reform the US would begin with prioritizing Visas for immigrants with advanced degrees, the so-called STEM Visas and an immediate expansion of the work Visa program. These reforms would happen immediately.
> But, as a matter of both national security and immigration policy, it is absolutely essential that we both secure our border and modernize our visa system so we know who comes and who goes on travel, student and other temporary visas. And it is vital all other reforms be conditioned on this goal being met.
> Border Security, including drones, satellite, and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the General Accountability Office.  Most importantly, and in contrast with any other plan out there, my plan will insist that report be presented to Congress for a vote.  If, and only if Congress agreed that border security was progressing, then more reforms would ensue. If we can’t secure our border, and if we cannot prove we can modernize our system of issuing and tracking visas, we cannot take on the task of adding more people to our system.
> After ensuring border security, then I would normalize the status of the 11 million undocumented citizens so they can join the workforce and pay taxes.  I would normalize them at a rate of about 2 million per year.   I would start with Dream Act kids, children brought here illegally as minors.  Normalization would get them a temporary Visa but would not put them ahead of anyone already waiting to enter the country.  These undocumented persons would now be documented but they would still have to wait in line like everyone else. But their path to permanent legal status would be no faster than those currently waiting in line.
> There is no reason why a great country like ours wouldn’t want to keep those like Jonathan Chavez, who came here as a small child from Peru and has a 4.0 at the University of Arkansas.
> After the year ended, Congress would vote again to continue or not continue the process based on the report concerning progress in securing the border. At any point the process can be stopped if Congress does not certify the border is secure. Gradually, the undocumented persons would immigrate to the United States, internal immigration as they would not be asked to return home.  These immigrants would not be given special privileges except that they would not have to leave the country.  Undocumented immigrants would have a deadline to apply for this waiver.  The waiver would not be an ongoing beacon to more illegal immigrants to come.
> The gang of eight wants back taxes and fines.  Most of these undocumented immigrants are poor and may not be able to ever pay ten years of back payroll taxes.  I would be willing to forego the fines and back taxes in exchange for a longer and significant time period before these folks are eligible to enter into the green card line.
> Currently, undocumented immigrants have a pathway to citizenship.  They can leave the United States and enter legally in about ten years.   They just value staying in America, even with the pitfalls of being undocumented, more than returning to Mexico or Central America for ten years.
> ...

----------


## abacabb

> Because the democrats are just going to come out with full amnesty and citizenship and then blame the republicans for being "bigots" and not agreeing to it. Democrats are very good at painting the GOP as uncaring racists and bigots, and if they passed their own version in the Senate that's exactly what they'd do.


Let them try.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> Let them try.


They will. And they have every single network (except Fox News) to back them up.

----------


## supermario21

> Let them try.


Obama already is. He went to Las Vegas to put on a campaign rally in front of loads of Hispanics going even more aggressive on the issue than the Gang of 8.

----------


## supermario21

Here's an article discussing some speech excerpts.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/...gration-reform






> WASHINGTON — On Tuesday Sen. Rand Paul will urge conservatives to abandon their long standing opposition to a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers in the United States, bluntly warning to not do so Republicans "will need to resign ourselves to permanent minority status," according to excerpts of a Tuesday speech obtained by BuzzFeed.
> In a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Legislative Summit, Paul will lay out his case for a conservative, and Republican, embrace of comprehensive reform.
> "The Republican Party has insisted for years that we stand for freedom and family values. I am most proud of my party when it stands for both … Republicans need to give birth to a new attitude toward immigrants, an attitude that sees immigrants as assets not liabilities," Paul will say, according to excerpts of the speech.
> Like many Republicans who back a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, Paul argues Latinos should be a natural wellspring of GOP votes that the party has increasingly abandoned.
> 
> "Hispanics should be a natural and sizable part of the Republican base. That they have steadily drifted away from the GOP in each election says more about Republicans than it does Hispanics," Paul will say, arguing that "Defense of the unborn and defense of traditional marriage are Republican issues that should resonate with Latinos, but have been obscured by the misperception that Republicans are hostile to immigrants."
> Although Paul has long been supportive of comprehensive reform that includes some form of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers, Tuesday's speech represents his most detailed comments on the topic.
> "Those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure. It must modernize our immigration controls and databases. It must allow for as much legal immigration as our workforce requires. And it must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion—without also unduly rewarding them for coming illegally," Paul will say.
> "We should be proud that so many want to come to America, that it is still seen as the land of opportunity. Let's make it a land of legal work, not black market jobs. Let's make it a land of work not welfare. Our land should be one of assimilation, not hiding in the shadows."
> Paul also will take on many of the talking points used by conservative opponents of comprehensive reform. For instance, Paul will outright dismiss claims that undocumented immigrants have become a drain on the nation's welfare system, saying "I've never met a new immigrant looking for a free lunch."

----------


## Brett85

This will probably hurt him with conservatives, but he probably just thinks that he couldn't win a general election if he took a hardline stance on illegal immigration, and there's no point of winning the GOP primary if you can't win the general election.

----------


## supermario21

At this point, it doesn't look like there will be any immigration hardliners left. In fact, Rand's requirement may make him the de facto immigration "enforcer."

----------


## Brett85

> At this point, it doesn't look like there will be any immigration hardliners left. In fact, Rand's requirement may make him the de facto immigration "enforcer."


Yeah, that's true.  There aren't many left.  Rand, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, and Walker all support a path to citizenship.  The only ones that don't that might possibly run are Santorum and Cruz.

----------


## supermario21

> Yeah, that's true.  There aren't many left.  Rand, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, and Walker all support a path to citizenship.  The only ones that don't that might possibly run are Santorum and Cruz.


I'll add this. I'm surprised in a way folks like Ryan, Walker, Christie, and even Rand are for some form of amnesty. I would have thought a hard-line position plays well in the Midwest. Maybe it still does, and it's a bad calculation, but I think times have changed on the issue. Rand's messaging sounds good, and even has already garnered some praise from a former McCain/Huntsman advisor. At this point, we're not going to round up and deport so I trust Rand's emphasis of verification and reducing welfare benefits.






> Ana Navarro ‏@ananavarro
> He's right "@mckaycoppins : Rand Paul says Latino exodus from GOP “says more re Republicans than it does Hispanics.” http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/...gration-reform …”

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Why is Rand touching this third rail? The Democrats aren't. Republicans should let the Dems come up with a plan and stand by and criticize. Rand is unnecessarily sticking his neck out and he's only going to get hurt.


It's a way to pander to the establishment on both sides, and to pander to leftists and global libertarians at the same time. The Maddow left will effectively counter this with lies on the left side, so in reality it will gain some corporatist support, and make some of his core paleo supporters angry. It would seem zero sum, except for the fact that the corporatists have far more influence in the US election and propaganda process than a few disgruntled paleos, who agree on most other issues. It's a calculation.

----------


## itshappening

Here's what I dont understand..

If he doesn't get his "trust but verify" (how often is this vote? what if congress votes against it? what if one house votes for it and one against?) then he has to vote Nay on the bill which would hurt him anyway if he's the nominee: "look, he voted against immigration reform!"

So it's a huge risk and I doubt Dicky Durbin and Chucky Schumer will agree to a "trust and verify" with a vote potentially allowing the GOP house to block normalization later on if they're not happy with the report.

----------


## supermario21

Rand is bringing leverage though. Either we get trust and verify or reform is dead. The Democrats will look unreasonable there. The speech will be delivered at 8AM tomorrow so I'm sure we'll get the details then.

----------


## supermario21

Here is a full wire report FYI.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA53U1381


(


> AP) Rand Paul endorses immigrant path to citizenship
> By ERICA WERNER
> Associated Press
> WASHINGTON
> Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is endorsing a pathway to citizenship for the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants, a significant move for a favorite of tea party Republicans who are sometimes hostile to such an approach.
> 
> In a speech to be delivered Tuesday morning to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the potential 2016 presidential candidate declares, "If you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you." A copy of the speech was obtained in advance by The Associated Press.
> 
> Paul's path to citizenship would come with conditions that could make it long and difficult for illegal immigrants. Chief among these, Congress would have to agree first that progress was being made on border security.
> ...

----------


## itshappening

> It's a way to pander to the establishment on both sides, and to pander to leftists and global libertarians at the same time. The Maddow left will effectively counter this with lies on the left side, so in reality it will gain some corporatist support, and make some of his core paleo supporters angry. It would seem zero sum, except for the fact that the corporatists have far more influence in the US election and propaganda process than a few disgruntled paleos, who agree on most other issues. It's a calculation.


That's a great analysis but the problem is Rand is taking a risk here unless he has an agreement because I cannot see Tricky Dicky Durbin allowing anything in the bill that could potentially allow the GOP House through a vote blocking normalization of the illegals if they're not happy with the border security and thus stopping his dream of registering new Democrat voters.  It will simply be a non starter for them leaving Rand with a choice; Vote Yay on the "immigration reform" that Tricky Dicky is offering with minor concessions to keep Rubio on board or vote against it and risk being vilified.

At most they will allow him to put forward it as an amendment but then they will just simply vote it down.

----------


## Sentinelrv

I see a lot of people upset in the comments here, hope Rand didn't blow it. Most of them I think didn't even read the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-endo...033806800.html

----------


## green73

Drudge:



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-19-06-11-57

----------


## MRoCkEd

Why can't we make it legal to be here without getting an easy pathway to citizenship?

----------


## CaptUSA

> I see a lot of people upset in the comments here, hope Rand didn't blow it. Most of them I think didn't even read the article.


The moss-covered GOP is trying to trigger the knee-jerk reaction.  Once Rand actually delivers the speech and gets questioned on it, people will understand what he's really doing and then they'll further question the mossy's.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I see a lot of people upset in the comments here, hope Rand didn't blow it. Most of them I think didn't even read the article.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-endo...033806800.html


This issue seems like a big deal, but remember George W. Bush (pathway to citizenship), John McCain (perhaps the biggest GOP amnesty supporter in the U.S. Senate) and Romney (had illegals working in his mansion) were the past three GOP presidential candidates.

Furthermore, Rubio has been cheerleading for amnesty and yet he's near the top of any 2016 GOP primary poll, and finished second place at CPAC.

Amnesty sucks, but it doesn't seem to hurt national GOP candidates, unless they stick their foot in their mouth like Rick "heartless" Perry did.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Different from other approaches, Paul would not attempt to crack down on employers by expanding working verification systems, something he says is tantamount to "forcing businesses to become policemen."
> 
> "*My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line*," Paul says. "But what we have now is de facto amnesty."


Thought it was important to highlight this part of the article.

----------


## jtstellar

i remember clearly rand saying in one interview that his plan would not only force congress to secure border before they can vote to allow some immigrants into the green card application process, and even after that, it still won't move anyone to the front of the line and cut off anybody else.. so it really just means in plain words he doesn't support arresting anyone, which doesn't work anyway, but doesn't really want to give out free citizenship either cus you know congress won't be able to secure the borders while it's not practical to arrest tens of millions either.  now why do i have to waste time to point this out?  from the supposedly most politically informed group, the libertarians, in america?  you sure don't seem to possess either much patience nor depth on his position (yet feel no hesitation to speak on something you don't know nonetheless)

----------


## itshappening

This is risky for him.  Most of them will not listen to his speech and will just see an OMG drudge caps-lock headline.

One FreeRepublican even says this: 

'He’s as rotten as his old man!!!'

----------


## itshappening

More comments: 

-

_Paul also will take on many of the talking points used by conservative opponents of comprehensive reform. For instance, Paul will outright dismiss claims that undocumented immigrants have become a drain on the nation's welfare system, saying "I've never met a new immigrant looking for a free lunch."
_
We have a lot of them in Dalton, Georgia. When they register their children for school they seek free lunch and breakfast.

69 posted on 19 March 2013 05:50:49 by Razz Barry (Round'em up, send'em home.) 

Rand Paul is utterly delusional if he thinks the GOP will win over the "illegal" criminal vote.

They come here mainly for...free stuff.

79 posted on 19 March 2013 06:47:12 by sand88

----------


## Brett85

> If he doesn't get his "trust but verify" (how often is this vote? what if congress votes against it? what if one house votes for it and one against?) then he has to vote Nay on the bill which would hurt him anyway if he's the nominee: "look, he voted against immigration reform!"


You seem to thikn that everything would hurt Rand in a general election.  Voting against immigration reform wouldn't hurt Rand when Rand has introduced as own plan to deal with the problem.  It was really Mitt Romney's tone on immigration that hurt him in the last election, not that he didn't support a specific path to citizenship proposal.

----------


## Brett85

> This is risky for him.  Most of them will not listen to his speech and will just see an OMG drudge caps-lock headline.
> 
> One FreeRepublican even says this: 
> 
> 'He’s as rotten as his old man!!!'


I guess the free republic types are just going to have to sit out the next election then, because all of the Republican candidates likely to run support a path to citizenship of some sort.

----------


## itshappening

> You seem to thikn that everything would hurt Rand in a general election.  Voting against immigration reform wouldn't hurt Rand when Rand has introduced as own plan to deal with the problem.  It was really Mitt Romney's tone on immigration that hurt him in the last election, not that he didn't support a specific path to citizenship proposal.


A Nay vote against "immigration reform" should it not contain everything he wants can be neatly put into a 30 second ad and demagogued.  They will make them spanish language too and target them to their favorite groups.  If you don't think they'd do that then you're naive.

----------


## Brett85

> A Nay vote against "immigration reform" should it not contain everything he wants can be neatly put into a 30 second ad and demagogued.  They will make them spanish language too and target them to their favorite groups.  If you don't think they'd do that then you're naive.


It wouldn't be effective if he stays engaged in the process and supports his own proposal to allow a path to citizenship.  I think a lot of Hispanics just don't really like the tone coming from a lot of Republicans on the immigration issue, not that the Republicans don't support the exact proposals on immigration that the Democrats support.

----------


## mport1

It's not the pro-liberty/property rights stance of open borders, but I guess this is a step in the right direction.

----------


## supermario21

Apparently he gave his speech. Here is the full text.


This is the prepared text for Sen. Rand Pauls Tuesday morning address on immigration reform:




> Por favor disculpen mi Espanol.  Como creCI en Houston -es un poco espanglish y un poco Tex Mex.
> 
> I lived, worked, played and grew up alongside Latinos.  As a teenager I worked alongside immigrants mowing lawns and putting in landscaping around businesses.
> 
> I remember once asking one of the immigrant workers how much he was being paid.  Cuanto le Pagan por el trabajo?
> 
> He responded tres dolars.
> 
> I responded, Yo tambien.  Tres Dolars,  por hora . . . ?
> ...



http://washingtonexaminer.com/rand-p...rticle/2524773

----------


## abacabb

> Apparently he gave his speech. Here is the full text.
> 
> 
> This is the prepared text for Sen. Rand Paul’s Tuesday morning address on immigration reform:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://washingtonexaminer.com/rand-p...rticle/2524773


What a condescending speech, starting off with spanish in it. There are other immigrants you know.

----------


## supermario21

> What a condescending speech, starting off with spanish in it. There are other immigrants you know.


Well it was delivered at a Hispanic conference.

----------


## supermario21

There also seems to be some confusion over whether he supports path to citizenship. Nothing explicitly mentioned.

----------


## AuH20

He went in there kissing their ass. Don't like the tone and especially the part insinuating that the problem lies with the republicans. All the polling has shown that some of the worst democrat policies (Obamacare) are overwhelmingly favored by Hispanics. Hopefully, this puts this contentious issue to bed because it's simply not worth the trouble. I would just keep quiet about it.

----------


## abacabb

> Growing up in Texas I never met a Latino who wasn’t working.
> 
> In school, everyone took Spanish. I sometimes wish I had paid more attention in class. As a teenager, I was not always the model citizen that I am today…




1. Nice aqua buddha days.
2. He's never been to the city when he was a kid then.

----------


## supermario21

> Don't like the tone and especially the part insinuating that the problem lies with the republicans.


Having some say self-deport and others like Herman Cain calling for an electric fence is a pretty nasty tone. Even though I supported a shoot-to-kill border lol.

----------


## AlexAmore

> He went in there kissing their ass. Don't like the tone and especially the part insinuating that the problem lies with the republicans. All the polling has shown that some of the worst democrat policies (Obamacare) are overwhelmingly favored by Hispanics. Hopefully, this puts this contentious issue to bed because it's simply not worth the trouble. I would just keep quiet about it.


I don't think it's going to bed. The liberals already figured it out. The Hispanics are here to stay and they are growing. Anyone who welcomes them is simply seeing the trend and wants to be the winning party.

----------


## AuH20

> 1. Nice aqua buddha days.
> 2. He's never been to the city when he was a kid then.[/COLOR]


That was like 30 or 40 years ago. 

This speech just reeks all around. I'm incredibly disappointed sifting through it and all the careless insinuations that it makes. No, we can't deport 12 million illegals but by the same token, you don't overlook the empirical evidence provided by the polling data.  No libertarian or conservative has anything tangible to offer this particular group, aside from an opportunity. In this day and age, that doesn't sell. People in general want benefits and the security that comes with it. They want their neighbor fleeced for their own gain.

----------


## AuH20

> Having some say self-deport and others like Herman Cain calling for an electric fence is a pretty nasty tone. Even though I supported a shoot-to-kill border lol.


Nothing wrong with self-deportation if they don't want to be here. Like I said, I wouldn't talk about it very much. I'd play the same game, the democrats do with the gun issue, when they hide behind sportsmen.

----------


## supermario21

I'm an immigration hardliner but there is just no way out of this mess for us. Sadly.

----------


## AuH20

> I'm an immigration hardliner but there is just no way out of this mess for us. Sadly.


America needs to burn. That's only way I see us getting out of this with our scalps still intact. At the current course, we're going headfirst into a dictatorship, with so many domestic sheep being reared along with all the foreign sheep we're importing. They should just nullify the Bill of Rights and just supersede it with a Tyranny of the majority amendment.

----------


## supermario21

Peaceful secession would be nice.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

I loved the speech and I'm extremely anti-amnesty and mass immigration (even though I am Hispanic).

----------


## supermario21

Rand's speech will be discussed on FOX in the next segment.

----------


## Brett85

> *I'm an immigration hardliner* but there is just no way out of this mess for us. Sadly.


Me too.  But unfortunately the time to be an immigration hardliner was when we had 2 million illegal immigrants and had a small number of Latino voters here in the U.S.  Now that we have 11 million illegal immigrants and a growing population of Latino voters, it's basically impossible to be an immigration hard liner.  The cat has already been let out of the bag.

----------


## AuH20

> Me too.  But unfortunately the time to be an immigration hardliner was when we had 2 million illegal immigrants and had a small number of Latino voters here in the U.S.  *Now that we have 11 million illegal immigrants and a growing population of Latino voters,* it's basically impossible to be an immigration hard liner.  The cat has already been let out of the bag.


I think the numbers are much higher than that.

----------


## Varin

Erick Erickson claims that Rand offered no path to citizenship.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/19/e...than-is-there/

----------


## Brett85

The thing about it is that even without amnesty or a path to citizenship, eventually Latinos are going to become the majority race in America because of the fact that 1 million of them are coming here legally each year, and they give birth at a faster pace than whites and are growing much more rapidly.  So allowing the illegals who are here to become citizens really won't make any difference in the long run.  Eventually hispanics are going to become the majority race in America even without an amnesty.

----------


## AuH20

This is what I would have released as a statement:

"America is a nation of immigrants, but America was founded upon the rule of law. There isn't a silver bullet to rectify this complex problem."

 End of statement. Safely punted away. There wasn't any reason to grovel with a speech like this. Democrats are going to ridicule him as racist regardless of what he does. That's all they know how to do.

----------


## eating_nachos

> The thing about it is that even without amnesty or a path to citizenship, eventually Latinos are going to become the majority race in America because of the fact that 1 million of them are coming here legally each year, and they give birth at a faster pace than whites and are growing much more rapidly.  So allowing the illegals who are here to become citizens really won't make any difference in the long run.  Eventually hispanics are going to become the majority race in America even without an amnesty.



So, you're plan is to just give up? How very courageous of you.

----------


## AuH20

> The thing about it is that even without amnesty or a path to citizenship, eventually Latinos are going to become the majority race in America because of the fact that 1 million of them are coming here legally each year, and they give birth at a faster pace than whites and are growing much more rapidly.  So allowing the illegals who are here to become citizens really won't make any difference in the long run.  Eventually hispanics are going to become the majority race in America even without an amnesty.


The final nail in the coffin so to speak. The core nails were laid in 1913 and later in the 1930s, and now thanks to our wonderful, rigged "democracy" the cofffin will be officially nailed shut. If Texas ever goes blue, I will likely reolcate to the North Pole.  I hope to God that America separates by then.

----------


## No Free Beer

> For anyone who is very much against some sort of immigration plan, I ask you this:  Have you ever dealt with our immigration process?  
> 
> My wife did an internship program for a German College student.  She needed a J1 visa to come to this country to be able to legally stay for 6 months.  She was not going to earn one red cent above room and board.  
> 
> It took countless hours, home inspections, work place inspections & interviews.  It took a couple grand in fees.  At the end of the day Id say it took 80 hours AND $1k.  It took at least twice that from her.   It would have been dramatically cheaper for us/her to have flown home in the middle of her internship (since you legally can be here 3 months) get her passport stamped and turn right around and fly back.  It  also would have been dramatically cheaper for us/her to have flown into Canada or Mexico.  Come across the border for 3 months and then get re-stamped back in another country.
> 
> All I can say is after dealing with the bureaucracy that is our immigration system that if my kids were starving and there was a job north of a fence.  Id be the first one over that damn thing.  Prior to that experience I would have been one of the ones yelling the loudest about building a taller fence.  
> 
> Point being right now we have a terribly ineffective immigration policy in that we really dont have one.  I look forward to some constructive way to make it easier for those who want to come or go and a way for those that are already here to stay because youre not going to get rid of them.


That justifies amnesty?

----------


## abacabb

> This is what I would have released as a statement:
> 
> "America is a nation of immigrants, but America was founded upon the rule of law. There isn't a silver bullet to rectify this complex problem."
> 
>  End of statement. Safely punted away. There wasn't any reason to grovel with a speech like this. Democrats are going to ridicule him as racist regardless of what he does. That's all they know how to do.


I agree, it's hardly a tactful political move. Simply a plan to secure the border and cut out welfare would help win a Republican primary. Sucking up to illegals isn't going to win elections. We need to appeal to second generation and above, because they will actually have some skin in the game in this country. They don't want tidal waves of immigrants taking their jobs and ruining their schools.

We don't need to deport you, but if you came here illegally, we don't need to legally recognize you either. The argument to give anyone working status is simply to tax them and to aggressively go after people without status, such as criminals and terrorists. This stance doesn't bode well for civil liberties.

Easier just to let illegals exist in a gray area and to do everything possible to secure the borders north and south, and to cut out welfare.

If we have to recognize immigrants A "Pathway to Paying Taxes" is what should have been the proposal. We are playing into the Democrats hands and Pat Buchanan's racist theories of civilization will only be proven right.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I thought it was a fine and intelligent speech.

Now one clarification: he is _not_ proposing giving the "illegal" (under an illegal "law", that is, non-law) immigrants citizenship, but rather giving them work visas.  Of course, issuing visas of any kind, much less requiring them, is utterly unconstitutional, and thus illegal, and thus null and void.  So Rand is calling here for the violation of the US Constitution.  But, it's being violated right now already.  His plan would be a step in the correct direction -- that is, towards liberty.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> That justifies amnesty?


I don't see anything about amnesty in Rand's speech. What he's advocating is securing the border and granting temporary work visas. His speech never mentioned a blanket amnesty or automatic citizenship. I imagine his detailed plan will have a lot of conditions, such as paying a fine, background check and probationary period before a green card is given.

and what jbauer said had nothing to do with amnesty, he was talking about making the visa and immigration system easier and less costly.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> I thought it was a fine and intelligent speech.
> 
> Now one clarification: he is _not_ proposing giving the "illegal" (under an illegal "law", that is, non-law) immigrants citizenship, but rather giving them work visas.  Of course, issuing visas of any kind, much less requiring them, is utterly unconstitutional, and thus illegal, and thus null and void.  So Rand is calling here for the violation of the US Constitution.  But, it's being violated right now already.  His plan would be a step in the correct direction -- that is, towards liberty.


How are visas unconstitutional? The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over naturalization, and visas are a part of that. Are you saying that "permanent residence" before citizenship is also unconstitutional?

----------


## Brett85

> So, you're plan is to just give up? How very courageous of you.


Not give up, but just create a conservative comprehensive immigration proposal like Rand is proposing.

----------


## Brett85

> I thought it was a fine and intelligent speech.
> 
> Now one clarification: he is _not_ proposing giving the "illegal" (under an illegal "law", that is, non-law) immigrants citizenship, but rather giving them work visas.


I think he is to some extent.  His plan is that the illegal immigrants who get work visas should have to go to the back of the line before they can become citizens.  But he would still allow them to become citizens without returning to their home country.  It's just that it would basically be like a ten year process since they couldn't become citizens before the legal immigrants already applying for citizenship.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> How are visas unconstitutional? The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over naturalization, and visas are a part of that. Are you saying that "permanent residence" before citizenship is also unconstitutional?


 Setting rules of naturalization -- determining who can become a citizen and what process they must go through -- is a power delegated to the US federal government.

Making laws regarding peaceful immigration of ordinary civilians is not a power delegated to the US federal government.  It was not delegated.  It's not on the list of things they can do.  Thus, they can't do it.  Here's the list:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;*

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's not there.  Item 4 is not about travel, neither permanent nor temporary.  It's not about moving.  It's not about immigration.  It's about citizenship.

Congress shall make no law, except those the Constitution tells them they may make.  Congress shall make no law respecting the immigration nor emigration of individuals, nor abridging the freedom to do so.  That is, of course, why they didn't make any such law for about the first 100 years after the Constitution.  They didn't have the authority.  They still don't.

If people, perhaps such as yourself, now think that they ought to have that power, then they should amend the Constitution to give them that power.  They should not merely trash the Constitution and encourage Congress to make laws regarding whatever suits their fancy.

----------


## cheapseats

Call a spade a spade, a path to Citizenship for someone who is here illegally IS a path to Amnesty.

"Broaden the base" in debt ceiling/tax increase talks has always been code for Amnesty For Illegals.

Who will mainly vote Democratic . . . to get all the stuff that sub-subsistence wages just don't buy.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yep. At least he isn't standing up there with McCain, Graham, Rubio and Flake proposing amnesty. But it could be perceived that way if he is not very careful. Or *the neo-conservatives could turn it around and label Rand the amnesty guy in the GOP*.


Lol! Just saw an extended segment on Fox about Rand's immigration speech. They did it. Here is a summary:

- the Jeb Bush plan is much tougher and is not amnesty.
- the "bipartisan" plan (ie, McCain, Graham, Rubio and friends) is much tougher and is not amnesty. (And they didn't name who was on the committee. Rubio is now safely disassociated.)
- Rand Paul said "default amnesty"! He's for amnesty! We tried that with Reagan, and it didn't work!


Rand may have stepped in it on this one. Where's that Star Wars "it's a trap" picture?

----------


## No Free Beer

> I don't see anything about amnesty in Rand's speech. What he's advocating is securing the border and granting temporary work visas. His speech never mentioned a blanket amnesty or automatic citizenship. I imagine his detailed plan will have a lot of conditions, such as paying a fine, background check and probationary period before a green card is given.
> 
> and what jbauer said had nothing to do with amnesty, he was talking about making the visa and immigration system easier and less costly.


Unless I am not understanding correctly,

he is saying we should provide temporary visas until they become citizens. Where in his speech did he mention fines?

----------


## AuH20

> Lol! Just saw an extended segment on Fox about Rand's immigration speech. They did it. Here is a summary:
> 
> - the Jeb Bush plan is much tougher and is not amnesty.
> - the "bipartisan" plan (ie, McCain, Graham, Rubio and friends) is much tougher and is not amnesty. (And they didn't name who was on the committee. Rubio is now safely disassociated.)
> - Rand Paul said "default amnesty"! He's for amnesty! We tried that with Reagan, and it didn't work!
> 
> 
> Rand may have stepped in it on this one. Where's that Star Wars "it's a trap" picture?


This speech was far too loose and fast with ambiguous rhetoric. Big mistake, but not a campaign ender certainly.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Rand's speech will be discussed on FOX in the next segment.


Was that the segment about an hour after this post?

----------


## supermario21

> Was that the segment about an hour after this post?


Yes, and there was none of the sentiment expressed recently. I've always thought that Rand's plan is sort of an addition to the bipartisan plan. The trust but verify is tougher than the gang of 8.

----------


## supermario21

Apparently the citizenship stuff is BS??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...o-citizenship/




> Advisers to Sen. Rand Paul say the Kentucky Republican did not, in fact, endorse a faster path to citizenship, despite many reports Tuesday morning that he had.
> Many outlets, including the Washington Post, had reported Paul would back a path to citizenship in his speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, dating back to Monday evening, when the Associated Press obtained an advance copy of Paul’s remarks.
> “The AP story was wrong, which spurred a lot of erroneous reports,” Paul’s office said in a statement. “He does not mention ‘path to citizenship’ in his speech at all.”
> One Paul adviser told Post Politics that the path to citizenship Paul is pushing doesn’t make it any easier to attain citizenship than current law allows.
> “They would get into the back of the line and get no special privileges to do so,” said the adviser, who wasn’t authorized to comment publicly. “What his plan is extending to them is a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship, and being able to stay, work and pay taxes legally.”
> At the root of the confusion appears to be the difference between legal status and citizenship.
> The comprehensive immigration reform plan proposed by a bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who like Paul is a potential 2016 presidential candidate, does include a path to citizenship.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ration-reform/ 
> 
> For the sake of reference, this was a column Rand wrote last month on immigration.


Hmmmm.....this part worries me.

_But, as a matter of both national security and immigration policy, it is absolutely essential that we both secure our border and modernize our visa system so we know who comes and who goes on travel, student and other temporary visas. And it is vital all other reforms be conditioned on this goal being met.

Border Security, including drones, satellite, and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the General Accountability Office.  Most importantly, and in contrast with any other plan out there, my plan will insist that report be presented to Congress for a vote.  If, and only if Congress agreed that border security was progressing, then more reforms would ensue. If we cant secure our border, and if we cannot prove we can modernize our system of issuing and tracking visas, we cannot take on the task of adding more people to our system.
_

What does "modernize our Visa system so we know who comes and goes" means?  The beginning of a national ID card?  And endorsing drones on the border?  Okay, I assume they'll be unarmed and all.  But DHS has been pretending that there is a 100 mile "constitution free zone" at the border.  So if you live within 100 miles of the border the feds can do surveillance on your house via drone without a warrant?  I know Rand doesn't support that, but considering that's the way we are operating at the moment, any such proposal has to have strict limits on how drones can be used.

----------


## abacabb

Let's face it. His speech was crap. It doesn't lay out a clear policy. It meanders with sentences in a language i don't know, says we can't deport people, and talks  about peace and love and stuff. But what's the policy? How does it prevent illegals from getting American "benefits" i.e. welfare? How does it fix any problems.

Let's get real. Giving immigrants legal status is just the next step to giving the full privliges of US citizens.


Rand's plan also creates a highly politicized, bureaucratic process over securing the border. Ironically, it will guarantee deadlock at least in the near future and the result is that practically no one will get legal status. Is Rand coming out with a cute sounding but in reality highly cynical plan? Who is he trying to win over exactly?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Apparently the citizenship stuff is BS??
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...o-citizenship/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				“The AP story was wrong, which spurred a lot of erroneous reports,” Paul’s office said in a statement. “He does not mention ‘path to citizenship’ in his speech at all.”


Erroneous reports. That's a nice way to say it. Others might say it was anticipated spin...

----------


## rprprs

> Lol! Just saw an extended segment on Fox about Rand's immigration speech. They did it. Here is a summary:
> 
> - the Jeb Bush plan is much tougher and is not amnesty.
> - the "bipartisan" plan (ie, McCain, Graham, Rubio and friends) is much tougher and is not amnesty. (And they didn't name who was on the committee. Rubio is now safely disassociated.)
> - Rand Paul said "default amnesty"! He's for amnesty! We tried that with Reagan, and it didn't work!
> 
> 
> Rand may have stepped in it on this one. Where's that Star Wars "it's a trap" picture?


Hmmm.  I have no doubt you saw what you saw.  But I just saw a Fox segment with Carl Cameron (of all people) providing what I felt was a very fair comparison of Rand's plan and that of Rubio.  It essentially painted Rand's plan as tougher in that it provided for an additional level of border security verification (Congress) before any path to citizenship could be undertaken.  He did mention the 'libertarian' aspect of Rand's plan in opposing the e-verify program (turning employers into immigration police).  But he did not do so in any negative or condescending manner.  Overall, guite fair IMHO.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Who is he trying to win over exactly?


Hispanics, race obsessed leftists, those who want cheap labor and corporatists?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Hmmm.  I have no doubt you saw what you saw.  But I just saw a Fox segment with Carl Cameron (of all people) providing what I felt was a very fair comparison of Rand's plan and that of Rubio.


Yeah, that was a different segment. Carl Cameron was not in the segment I saw. It might have been Jon Scott(?) and a guest? Not sure of the Fox guy's name.

----------


## abacabb

> Hmmm.  I have no doubt you saw what you saw.  But I just saw a Fox segment with Carl Cameron (of all people) providing what I felt was a very fair comparison of Rand's plan and that of Rubio.  It essentially painted Rand's plan as tougher in that it provided for an additional level of boarder security verification (Congress) before any path to citizenship could be undertaken.  He did mention the 'libertarian' aspect of Rand's plan in opposing the e-verify program (turning employers into immigration police).  But he did not do so in any negative or condescending manner.  Overall, guite fair IMHO.


Is congress going to rubber stamp everything or is it going to deadlock the whole process?

----------


## KingNothing

Rand's speech was amazing, btw.

How do you not love a guy who quotes everything that he did, including Seinfield, and talks about being a bad student who got tossed from class regularly?

----------


## rprprs

> Is congress going to rubber stamp everything or is it going to deadlock the whole process?


Oh, I have no illusions about any of this.  The whole thing will continue to be a mess in some respect no matter what plan is ultimately adopted.  My point was only to point out the relative 'fairness' of that particular Fox/Cameron segment.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Rand's speech was amazing, btw.
> 
> How do you not love a guy who quotes everything that he did, including Seinfield, and talks about being a bad student who got tossed from class regularly?


When his plan doesn't make sense and pretty much guarantees amnesty to the highest bidder (Dems or Repubs)

----------


## itshappening

Boehner has already got a bill in the house and has teamed up with Democrats... Yeah shocking I know but he doesn't care about the GOP conference.  

Rand is unlikely to get anything he wants.  The fix is in and Boehner is ready to sell out as usual by passing whatever the Senate passes with a big chunk of Dem votes.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This speech was far too loose and fast with ambiguous rhetoric. Big mistake, but not a campaign ender certainly.


The beauty of the filibuster and it's aftermath was that Rand was able to take a specific stance on drones that had massive support, and combined that with a red team/blue team battle. For many pundits, the red team/blue team aspect was probably more important. To the pundits and most of the masses, this was someone finally standing up to Obama and the Democrats. McCain and Graham came off as siding with Obama and the blue team.

With immigration, there's no clear cut, specific stance that will please most of the GOP, and additionally, it can easily be painted as blue team instead of red team. The media can spin this as siding with Obama.

----------


## green73

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...6.html?hp=t3_3

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...6.html?hp=t3_3


Drudge is clearly trying to take a slap by using that pic. Yet, when you click the politico link you get a far more upbeat pic plus they also posted a retraction of their use of the "path to citizenship" terminology posted in an earlier article.

----------


## itshappening

Of course he is, most conservatives do not like any hint of amnesty.  Hence sad Rand.

----------


## AuH20

> The beauty of the filibuster and it's aftermath was that Rand was able to take a specific stance on drones that had massive support, and combined that with a red team/blue team battle. For many pundits, the red team/blue team aspect was probably more important. To the pundits and most of the masses, this was someone finally standing up to Obama and the Democrats. McCain and Graham came off as siding with Obama and the blue team.
> 
> With immigration, there's no clear cut, specific stance that will please most of the GOP, and additionally, it can easily be painted as blue team instead of red team. The media can spin this as siding with Obama.


When it _appears_ you are on the side of BOTH the McCain/Graham camp and Obama, you know you're doing something wrong.

----------


## Slutter McGee

I think a lot of you are failing to recognize what he is doing. Appealing to Hispanics while still taking a much tougher line than Rubio. Perhaps some of you should actually read the speech.

Smart,

Slutter McGee

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I think a lot of you are failing to recognize what he is doing. Appealing to Hispanics while still taking a much tougher line than Rubio.


Yep, I fell for that initially but have now seen the genius that he's displaying once again.

----------


## Brett85

> Drudge is clearly trying to take a slap by using that pic. Yet, when you click the politico link you get a far more upbeat pic plus they also posted a retraction of their use of the "path to citizenship" terminology posted in an earlier article.


Rand does support a path to citizenship, but just not a special or faster path to citizenship.  He just supports the path to citizenship that already exists.  That means that under his plan illegal immigrants who get work VISAS could apply for citizenship, but they would have to get in the back of the line.  It would be the same as if they were applying for citizenship if they were living in Mexico.  The only difference is that they would be living in the United States while they're waiting to become citizens.  But when they have to get in the back of the line, they wouldn't be able to become citizens for 10-15 years.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I think a lot of you are failing to recognize what he is doing. Appealing to Hispanics while still taking a much tougher line than Rubio. Perhaps some of you should actually read the speech.
> 
> Smart,
> 
> Slutter McGee


I will at some point. But right now, I prefer to see it the same way as 99.9% of the public who even hear about it. They will only see headlines and short segments on Fox, CNN, etc. or maybe catch a little Hannity or Limbaugh.

----------


## Brett85

> I will at some point. But right now, I prefer to see it the same way as 99.9% of the public who even hear about it. They will only see headlines and short segments on Fox, CNN, etc. or maybe catch a little Hannity or Limbaugh.


Hannity is in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and has even praised Rand's plan for his focus on securing the border first.

----------


## Barrex

I think a lot of you are failing to recognize what he is doing.  Appealing to Hispanics while still taking a much tougher line than  Rubio. Perhaps some of you should actually read the speech.

Smart,


Barrex

----------


## abacabb

> But when they have to get in the back of the line, they wouldn't be able to become citizens for 10-15 years.




So, we should willingly put a 15 year clock on the time where every single election a socialist is definitely going to win?

It's demographic suicide to turn illegal immigrants ultimately into voters. Welfare has to be killed before any immigration reform.

----------


## RonPaulMall

I just don't understand why people can't talk rationally about immigration.  I understand the open borders position, but nobody in the mainstream really believes in open borders.  All the politicians are in the regulated immigration camp in one way or another.  So if we are going to have a regulated immigration policy, the only question is what the objectives and preferences of that policy are going to be.  The Democratic Proposal is to give preference to 11 million low skill, low I.Q, non-English speaking immigrants whose only seeming upside is the fact they likely to vote Democratic en mass.  How the hell are they getting away with this without getting called out on it?  And why are Republicans falling all over themselves to go along?  You can praise Rand all you want for being "clever" but the reality is he did nothing to call out the insanity of the current debate, and until somebody does that, the Dems win.  Not just on the politics of it, but they win in fact.  Because those 11 million new Dems, and the 30 to 50 million Democratic voters they spawn within the next couple decades give the Dems a stranglehold on the Federal Government.  As Trump pointed out, this is political suicide.  And it is not like it is something that is inevitable.  The only way it happens is if we pursue an absolutely insane immigration policy that puts a _preference_ on illiterate tomato pickers over engineers and scientists.  But that is exactly what we are doing, and the Republicans are just going along.

----------


## Brett85

> So, we should willingly put a 15 year clock on the time where every single election a socialist is definitely going to win?
> 
> It's demographic suicide to turn illegal immigrants ultimately into voters. Welfare has to be killed before any immigration reform.[/COLOR]


That's going to happen even if the illegal immigrants who are here never become citizens.  When we allow one million Hispanics to come here each year and become citizens, and the Hispanic population here in the U.S is reproducing at an extremely fast rate, it's going to eventually get to the point where Hispanics are a plurality or even a majority of voters.  Republicans are going to have to figure out how to win over Hispanics if they want to have any chance to be a viable future party.  If you want to prevent Hispanic voters from growing and taking over the U.S political system, the only policy you could support that would change that would be to force mass sterilizations by the government of every male Hispanic in America.  Short of that the Hispanics are going to take over America anyway.

----------


## 69360

> So, we should willingly put a 15 year clock on the time where every single election a socialist is definitely going to win?
> 
> It's demographic suicide to turn illegal immigrants ultimately into voters. Welfare has to be killed before any immigration reform.[/COLOR]


You think there will be anything left to spend on welfare in 10 years?  Relax.

----------


## RonPaulMall

It is just an utterly insane debate.  I know educated Canadians and Europeans who have been waiting years to get citizenship.  Can anyone even make an _argument_ as to why we should allow in even a single low skill Mexican worker before we process all the Europeans and Canadians that are still mired in the bureaucratic hell?  There seems to be one, and only one real answer- the Mexicans are poorer, stupider, far more likely to need welfare, and therefore almost certain to be Democratic Voters.  That is the only rationalization.  And it is sickening.  So why aren't the Republicans forcing the Dems to admit it?  Why not propose some sort of merit based immigration policy that puts a preference on how much the potential immigrant has to contribute and force the Dems to shoot it down.  Because right now it seems like Dems are pro-immigration and Repubs are anti-immigration.  That is not the case.  Dems would hate immigration if it was rational or merit based.  They only support irresponsible, destructive immigration policies.  Force them to come clean on that.

----------


## Brett85

> It is just an utterly insane debate.  I know educated Canadians and Europeans who have been waiting years to get citizenship.  Can anyone even make an _argument_ as to why we should allow in even a single low skill Mexican worker before we process all the Europeans and Canadians that are still mired in the bureaucratic hell?


Rand's proposal wouldn't allow any Hispanic living here in America to cut in front of anyone who's trying to come here legally.  They would have to get in the back of the line behind those who are trying to come here legally.  He's not in favor of creating a new or faster path to citizenship for illegals.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Can anyone even make an _argument_ as to why we should allow in even a single low skill Mexican worker before we process all the Europeans and Canadians that are still mired in the bureaucratic hell


I don't see why we should have these immigration restrictions.  And people who work contribute to the economy, even if they're low skill, they just get paid less and we get stuff for cheaper.  The only problem is the welfare state.  I can sympathize with those who say "We can't open the borders with the current welfare state" but short of abolishing the welfare state (A good idea that I 100% support) we could just put a special status on incoming immigrants that lets them work here but just not receive welfare.  I don't see why that would be so hard  to do.

----------


## itshappening

> That's going to happen even if the illegal immigrants who are here never become citizens.  When we allow one million Hispanics to come here each year and become citizens, and the Hispanic population here in the U.S is reproducing at an extremely fast rate, it's going to eventually get to the point where Hispanics are a plurality or even a majority of voters.  Republicans are going to have to figure out how to win over Hispanics if they want to have any chance to be a viable future party.  If you want to prevent Hispanic voters from growing and taking over the U.S political system, the only policy you could support that would change that would be to force mass sterilizations by the government of every male Hispanic in America.  Short of that the Hispanics are going to take over America anyway.


It's not good is it? will we ever get limited government? just look at who these people vote for in South America. Look at that idiot who's just died Chavez and now his successor has a big lead in the polls and is promising more socialism while the "right wing" candidate hasn't got a chance.  I'm afraid this is the future of America. More Obama's for eternity.. or until implosion of the system.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Rand's proposal wouldn't allow any Hispanic living here in America to cut in front of anyone who's trying to come here legally.  They would have to get in the back of the line behind those who are trying to come here legally.  He's not in favor of creating a new or faster path to citizenship for illegals.


But he is still allowing the debate to proceed on the utterly insane Democratic terms.  Why not ask a very simple question:  What percentage of our total immigration slots per year should be allotted to Mexicans?  Nearly all Americans would answer that question with a number somewhere below 10% and most somewhere around 5%.  Democrats want it to be at least 50%, with the remainder comprised of Haitians, Colombians, and other assorted third world refugees.  That is something that would horrify the majority of Americans if the Democrats came right out with it.  Yet that is their policy.  Why aren't we making them say it.  Ask them the questions that force them to come clean.  Frame the debate in a way in which we win, rather than lose.  This is what Rand and everybody else in the GOP is so clueless on.




> I don't see why we should have these immigration restrictions.


Agree with you, but I also don't see why we should have a Federal Government or while all property should not be privately owned.  In an anarcho-capitalist society, this problem solves itself.  But with the system we have, "open borders" amounts to what Hans-Hermann Hoppe refers to as "forced integration".

You should give this a read.  Though he never comes straight out and says it, I am pretty sure this is the basis of Ron Paul's views on immigration:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe3.html

----------


## AuH20

> *But he is still allowing the debate to proceed on the utterly insane Democratic terms.*  Why not ask a very simple question:  What percentage of our total immigration slots per year should be allotted to Mexicans?  Nearly all Americans would answer that question with a number somewhere below 10% and most somewhere around 5%.  Democrats want it to be at least 50%, with the remainder comprised of Haitians, Colombians, and other assorted third world refugees.  That is something that would horrify the majority of Americans if the Democrats came right out with it.  Yet that is their policy.  Why aren't we making them say it.  Ask them the questions that force them to come clean.  Frame the debate in a way in which we win, rather than lose.  This is what Rand and everybody else in the GOP is so clueless on.


Because they are scared to death of the Hispanic lobbying bloc and the corrupt MSM. That's why. No one has the cajones to take on these race hustlers & cultural marxists, without fear of being demonized as a racist or xenophobe. The garbage has to stop.

----------


## abacabb

> That's going to happen even if the illegal immigrants who are here never become citizens.  When we allow one million Hispanics to come here each year and become citizens, and the Hispanic population here in the U.S is reproducing at an extremely fast rate, it's going to eventually get to the point where Hispanics are a plurality or even a majority of voters.  Republicans are going to have to figure out how to win over Hispanics if they want to have any chance to be a viable future party.  If you want to prevent Hispanic voters from growing and taking over the U.S political system, the only policy you could support that would change that would be to force mass sterilizations by the government of every male Hispanic in America.  Short of that the Hispanics are going to take over America anyway.


So why are we discussing how the Republicans going to survive? Screw the Republicans! How is America going to survive? How can we bring in so many immigrants and not destroy our culture and values?

If we concede that, then it is already over and it is time to start a new country.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not good is it? will we ever get limited government? just look at who these people vote for in South America. Look at that idiot who's just died Chavez and now his successor has a big lead in the polls and is promising more socialism while the "right wing" candidate hasn't got a chance.  I'm afraid this is the future of America. More Obama's for eternity.. or until implosion of the system.


Maybe this is indirectly a good thing?  How long do we want to delay the implosion?  Because we can't stop it.  Ron Paul was  the only one who could have, and look who the GOP nominated.  I'd be willing to bet that Rand will not be nominated in 2016 either...




> But he is still allowing the debate to proceed on the utterly insane Democratic terms.  Why not ask a very simple question:  What percentage of our total immigration slots per year should be allotted to Mexicans?  Nearly all Americans would answer that question with a number somewhere below 10% and most somewhere around 5%.  Democrats want it to be at least 50%, with the remainder comprised of Haitians, Colombians, and other assorted third world refugees.  That is something that would horrify the majority of Americans if the Democrats came right out with it.  Yet that is their policy.  Why aren't we making them say it.  Ask them the questions that force them to come clean.  Frame the debate in a way in which we win, rather than lose.  This is what Rand and everybody else in the GOP is so clueless on.


How about "You don't have a right to stop people from coming into the country, only private property owners have this right"?  If someone wants to employ them, who cares?  Granted, I don't believe our government should be redistributing any wealth for them, or helping them, or exc. but if they want to come and work, why does it matter?

----------


## AuH20

> So why are we discussing how the Republicans going to survive? Screw the Republicans! How is America going to survive? How can we bring in so many immigrants and not destroy our culture and values?
> 
> If we concede that, then it is already over and it is time to start a new country.


Our culture and values are practically dead. But these types of policies would definitely send the old jalopy over the cliff. Why stop at 
2nd world status when we could embrace the third world? Am I right?

----------


## abacabb

> Our culture and values are practically dead. But these types of policies would definitely send the old jalopy over the cliff. Why stop at 
> 2nd world status when we could embrace the third world? Am I right?


Can enough Americans immigrate to Canada and just take over that country? We'll just have to deal with a parliament.

Something tells me Canadians won't sit idly by and let us do it.

----------


## AuH20

Imagine a United States where Texas, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado become reliably blue????????? It's Game Over for what's left of the Constitution. That would likely equate to a solid majority in both houses as well as a stranglehold on the presidency.

----------


## supermario21

> Imagine a United States where Texas, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado become reliably blue????????? It's Game Over for what's left of the Constitution. That would likely equate to a solid majority in both houses as well as a stranglehold on the presidency.


Texas will remain forever red. We're going to have to flip the blue-collar midwest. Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio (which is already a dead even state). Republicans have the most to gain with white working class folks in the Midwest. Once complete, we can survive as a white party. We can get to 274 with Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and still lose North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Maybe this is indirectly a good thing?  How long do we want to delay the implosion?  Because we can't stop it.  Ron Paul was  the only one who could have, and look who the GOP nominated.  I'd be willing to bet that Rand will not be nominated in 2016 either...
> 
> 
> 
> How about "You don't have a right to stop people from coming into the country, only private property owners have this right"?  If someone wants to employ them, who cares?  Granted, I don't believe our government should be redistributing any wealth for them, or helping them, or exc. *but if they want to come and work*, why does it matter?


That is a very large statement. Many come here not to work. You cannot fix this problem until you end or drastically change the welfare/redistribution system BEFORE they are here and able to vote.

----------


## eating_nachos

> Texas will remain forever red. We're going to have to flip the blue-collar midwest. Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio (which is already a dead even state). Republicans have the most to gain with white working class folks in the Midwest. Once complete, we can survive as a white party. We can get to 274 with Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and still lose North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada.



Have you been paying attention? The Republicans are ready to sell us out so that their donors can keep their cheap labor.

----------


## eating_nachos

> Rand's proposal wouldn't allow any Hispanic living here in America to cut in front of anyone who's trying to come here legally.  They would have to get in the back of the line behind those who are trying to come here legally.  He's not in favor of creating a new or faster path to citizenship for illegals.


Ok, would his proposal put their kids in the back of the line as well?

----------


## supermario21

> Have you been paying attention? The Republicans are ready to sell us out so that their donors can keep their cheap labor.



I've been aware. Texas is already almost majority-minority. It's still a Republican state by 17 points. And that's with Republicans at their worst with Hispanics. We still have white voters to gain in the Midwest.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is a very large statement. Many come here not to work. You cannot fix this problem until you end or drastically change the welfare/redistribution system BEFORE they are here and able to vote.


True.  I don't know the statistics of how many want to work and how many just want to get welfare, but either way, just saying "You can come but you can't get welfare" would still work.

I'm not really a utilitarian so I can't justify keeping people who want to work out just to  also keep the welfare parasites out.




> Imagine a United States where Texas, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado become reliably blue????????? It's Game Over for what's left of the Constitution. That would likely equate to a solid majority in both houses as well as a stranglehold on the presidency.


Does it really matter?  Is it any different than those states being reliably red?  I mean, I understand why the liberty movement prefers to work with the GOP than the Dems, most people just care about the economy and on those issues we are closer to the GOP than the Dems (Althoguh reliably further than the right) but as far as a holistic picture?  I hate them both equally.  In fact, I preferred Obama over Romney in 2012 because I was hoping, however slim the odds, for Rand 2016, and because Obama is a little bit less aggressive toward Iran than the GOP.  Granted, I was 17 and if I had been 18 I would have voted for Johnson, but in a straight up contest between the two main candidates?  Mostly a wash.  

It really doesn't matter.  Maybe the Dems will kill America quicker.  Considering that we've been an imperial empire since 1861, maybe that isn't such a bad thing?

----------


## jtstellar

> Ok, would his proposal put their kids in the back of the line as well?


so you don't know much at all, yet you're commenting

----------


## erowe1

In Republican primaries you need to be tough on immigration if you want to get the results Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter did in 2008.

----------


## AuH20

> Does it really matter?  Is it any different than those states being reliably red?  I mean, I understand why the liberty movement prefers to work with the GOP than the Dems, most people just care about the economy and on those issues we are closer to the GOP than the Dems (Althoguh reliably further than the right) but as far as a holistic picture?  I hate them both equally.  In fact, I preferred Obama over Romney in 2012 because I was hoping, however slim the odds, for Rand 2016, and because Obama is a little bit less aggressive toward Iran than the GOP.  Granted, I was 17 and if I had been 18 I would have voted for Johnson, but in a straight up contest between the two main candidates?  Mostly a wash.  
> 
> It really doesn't matter.  Maybe the Dems will kill America quicker.  Considering that we've been an imperial empire since 1861, maybe that isn't such a bad thing?


Republicans, as bad as they are, act as a buffer to these lunatics. Once that goes, all bets are off.

----------


## WM_in_MO

Immigration would be self-regulating in a free society...

----------


## eating_nachos

> so you don't know much at all, yet you're commenting


You're missing the point. Letting the illegals stay here is mistake. Even if they're not given amnesty and just granted legal status. They will eventually have children who will be eligible for citizenship and the problems will continue until it's too late to solve them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Republicans, as bad as they are, act as a buffer to these lunatics. Once that goes, all bets are off.


Not sure exactly what that means.  The least of evils right now is a divided government.  But I think that the GOP establishment is every bit as "Lunatic" as the Democrats.  Granted, most Tea Party types, even if not pure libertarians, are at least better.  But the GOP Establishment is just as dangerous as the Dems, if not more so.

----------


## erowe1

> You're missing the point. Letting the illegals stay here is mistake. Even if they're not given amnesty and just granted legal status. They will eventually have children who will be eligible for citizenship and the problems will continue until it's too late to solve them.


How do you propose not "letting them stay"?

----------


## supermario21

http://washingtonexaminer.com/articl...xh4mJM.twitter


Some are saying Paul's plan is worse than Rubio's.




> Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., may have studiously avoided using the word “citizenship” in his speech to the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, but granting amnesty to the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country today is exactly the policy end game he is supporting. BuzzFeed‘s John Stanton reports, “When asked if his plan granting work visas to the 11 million undocumented workers in the country would mean they could, eventually, become citizens, Paul said yes.”
> 
> Paul, like The National Council of La Raza, would never call his plan amnesty, but that is exactly what it is. Unlike the tens of millions of people worldwide who would like to become U.S. citizens, but are not in the country today, Paul would allow those illegally in the country now to both stay here and apply for citizenship. That is a clear ongoing violation of the rule of law.
> Worse, unlike the Gang of Ocho amnesty plan endorsed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Paul would force Republicans to play the role border-security-bad-guys every year. The Washington Examiner‘s Byron York reports, “Under his proposal, the border would have to be verified secure by some government agency and then — this is a key step for Paul — voted on by Congress on a yearly basis.”
> 
> You don’t have to be a genius to figure out how this would turn out. Every year a majority of Republicans would vote to say the border was not secure and those who came to the country illegally should not continue down the path to citizenship. And every year every Democrat and a minority of Republicans would vote the opposite, allowing those who came illegally to advance down that path… until of course they are all sworn in as Democratic voters.
> 
> Paul’s plan would do nothing to endear the Republican party to immigrant communities, would do nothing to secure the border, and would only incentivize new waves of illegal immigrants to come to the U.S. and wait for their special, one-time-only “path to citizenship.”

----------


## eating_nachos

> How do you propose not "letting them stay"?



Self deportation: Mandatory e-verify with heavy fines, no welfare for illegals, no welfare for the children of illegals.

----------


## erowe1

So you think we should all have some unique ID #, and employers should be required to tell the government who works for them?

----------


## eating_nachos

If you're not here legally you shouldn't be  allowed to work here.

----------


## erowe1

What if you are here legally? Should you have to prove that to someone before you're allowed to work here?

----------


## eating_nachos

It's already a requirement that all employers verify your eligibility to work in the US.

----------


## erowe1

And you're fine with that?

----------


## AuH20

> Not sure exactly what that means.  The least of evils right now is a divided government.  But I think that the GOP establishment is every bit as "Lunatic" as the Democrats.  Granted, most Tea Party types, even if not pure libertarians, are at least better.  But the GOP Establishment is just as dangerous as the Dems, if not more so.


Two party oligarchy is better than one for the time being.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Yes, but the GOP is not "Lesser" anything.  They're both just pure evil.

----------


## eating_nachos

> And you're fine with that?


Ok, so what's your solution?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

erowe1: 1. Eating_Nachos: 0

The last thing we need is ANOTHER unique identification number. I would argue MOST of us here don't even believe in the intrusiveness of the Social Security Number. 

Not to mention, Rand mentioned nothing of amnesty or letting illegals cut to the front of the line. Rather, he's letting them come forward without penalty, giving them an option to continue working (and paying taxes) while they earn their citizenship.

----------


## erowe1

> Ok, so what's your solution?


There is no way to deport the illegal immigrants who are here or to force them to self-deport that doesn't involve some gross violation of the liberties not only of them, but also of the rest of us. We have to let them stay.

----------


## eating_nachos

> erowe1: 1. Eating_Nachos: 0
> 
> The last thing we need is ANOTHER unique identification number. I would argue MOST of us here don't even believe in the intrusiveness of the Social Security Number. 
> 
> Not to mention, Rand mentioned nothing of amnesty or letting illegals cut to the front of the line. Rather, he's letting them come forward without penalty, giving them an option to continue working (and paying taxes) while they earn their citizenship.


E-Verify doesn't create a unique identifier.


Thanks for playing.

----------


## Brett85

What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to mandate a program like E-Verify on every single business in the United States?  I'm open to the idea of having a mandatory E-Verify program at the state level, but I don't see how the federal government has the authority to implement something like that.

----------


## eating_nachos

Who said anything about implementing it at the federal level?

----------


## erowe1

> E-Verify doesn't create a unique identifier.


But it does require that we all have unique identifiers using forms of ID that already exist.

----------


## eating_nachos

You never answered my question. What's your solution?

----------


## Brett85

> Who said anything about implementing it at the federal level?


That's what the Gang of Eight is trying to do.  That's what's being proposed, to implement it at the federal level.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Hispanics, race obsessed leftists, those who want cheap labor and corporatists?


Mission accomplished. Just saw a segment on Fox's "The Five" about this. The global corporatists, human pyramid schemers, and cheap labor aficionados were very happy about it and applauded Rand's effort and principal. Of course they also pointed out that it's a shame that Rand will lose all of his "new" supporters over this.

----------


## itshappening

Brian's right.  ABC News have picked this up which means they might do a report on it later. That's unusual.  The corporatists approve.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=18764277

----------


## Carlybee

> It's already a requirement that all employers verify your eligibility to work in the US.


It's called an I-9 form but it just stays on file and is only as good as the documents presented. If the documents are bogus there's no way of knowing without either eVerify or if the SSA catches an anomaly when the W-2s are filed.

----------


## eating_nachos

> Mission accomplished. Just saw a segment on Fox's "The Five" about this. The global corporatists, human pyramid schemers, and cheap labor aficionados were very happy about it and applauded Rand's effort and principal. Of course they also pointed out that it's a shame that Rand will lose all of his "new" supporters over this.


Yep, the donors have won again.

----------


## erowe1

> You never answered my question. What's your solution?


Yes I did. I said we have to let them stay.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What if you are here legally? Should you have to prove that to someone before you're allowed to work here?


For many positions, people are required to show multiple forms of ID, be subjected to drug tests, physical examinations, blood tests, and full fingerprinting.

One time, I needed a notarized note from my mother saying that I was born in the US, where, the hospital, and on what date. That is not exaggeration or hyperbole. A literal "note from my mother". IIRC, I also needed a note from the hospital. Maybe it was a certification of live birth. More scrutiny than the POTUS.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Brian's right.  ABC News have picked this up which means they might do a report on it later. That's unusual.  The corporatists approve.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=18764277





> But some conservatives like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have suggested that the undocumented be allowed to stay in the United States and not be able to become citizens unless they first return to their home country.


Translation: Jeb Bush is tougher on immigration than Rand Paul.

----------


## supermario21

> Translation: Jeb Bush is tougher on immigration than Rand Paul.


It's kind of stupid though. Rand is tough where it matters and accepting where it doesn't. Why force people to go back if they're going to come back anyway, and give them an increased economic burden making it more likely they need government assistance? Rand wants to do the opposite, toughen the border and make sure there are stringent security and immigration requirements, and not force people currently here to leave, then come back. They would just apply and be sent to the back. By lessening the economic burden, not only will Rand allow them to eventually gain citizenship, but also not hurt them any more economically.

----------


## erowe1

> For many positions, people are required to show multiple forms of ID, be subjected to drug tests, physical examinations, blood tests, and full fingerprinting.
> 
> One time, I needed a notarized note from my mother saying that I was born in the US, where, the hospital, and on what date. That is not exaggeration or hyperbole. A literal "note from my mother". IIRC, I also needed a note from the hospital. Maybe it was a certification of live birth. More scrutiny than the POTUS.


If you believe illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to work in the US, then I assume you're all for things like this, not just for some positions, but all. Right?

----------


## cheapseats

> It's kind of stupid though. Rand is tough where it matters and accepting where it doesn't. Why force people to go back if they're going to come back anyway, and give them an increased economic burden making it more likely they need government assistance?


But Himself is about BORDER SECURITY, yes?  Meaning, they CAN'T come back illegally.

And Himself is about SLASHING WELFARE, yes?  Meaning, the benefit spigot is no longer gushing unchecked. 




> Rand wants to do the opposite, toughen the border and make sure there are stringent security and immigration requirements, and not force people currently here to leave, then come back.  They would just apply and be sent to the back.


So?  Their economic burden is our economic boost.  I mean, if dollars and cents are the bottom line, there's MONEY TO BE MADE in mass deportation as surely as there is money to be made rebuilding nearly-killed soldiers and money to be made from natural disasters and money to be made off cancer.  I am not advocating mass deportation, but I AM calling attention to SELECTIVE SYMPATHY.

And I AM calling bull$#@! . . . Rand not CALLING it a path to amnesty does not magically make it NOT a path to amnesty.





> By lessening the economic burden, not only will Rand allow them to *eventually gain citizenship*, but also not hurt them any more economically.


In other words, PATH TO AMNESTY.

----------


## erowe1

> But Himself is about BORDER SECURITY, yes?  Meaning, they CAN'T come back illegally.


Really? What kind of border security would we have to have to make is so people couldn't get in the states illegally?

----------


## cheapseats

> Really? *What kind of border security* would we have to have to make is so people couldn't get in the states illegally?



Ask Rand.  

Is not BORDER SECURITY part of his "immigration" (slash amnesty) policy?

From page 1:




> ...Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
> 
> If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.
> 
> In order to bring conservatives to this cause however, those who work for reform must understand that *a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure...*

----------


## Carlybee

Really upset that he thinks drones are ok for the border. I wish the whole industry would flop.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> If you believe illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to work in the US, then I assume you're all for things like this, not just for some positions, but all. Right?


From a principles standpoint, I am for consistency and minimal paperwork. Unfortunately, government tends to love vindictive, burdensome and meaningless paperwork, and common sense is usually thrown out the window.

----------


## cheapseats

> From a principles standpoint, I am for *consistency* and minimal paperwork. Unfortunately, government tends to love vindictive, burdensome and meaningless paperwork, and common sense is usually thrown out the window.


American Officials systematically LOWER THE BOOM on American Citizens for running afoul of "our" labyrinth of laws.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Really upset that he thinks drones are ok for the border. I wish the whole industry would flop.


Drone's don't kill people, people do! But really, drones have vast uses in private industry. so I personally would be careful with wanting them to flop.

----------


## jtstellar

eating_nachos,  1. you can't deport 12 million illegals, stop driving them into the dark corners in the society can actually mean less gang violence and other criminal activities, in exchange for them not getting ahead of anybody else in the waiting line still, it's better than anything you could ever propose  

2.  are you speaking out of a fear of 'he's taking my jobs' or 'made in america!' mindset?  if it's in regards to your livelihood, there's no logic to be dealt with you.  whatever genius idea you have, not a penny of my tax will go toward deporting 12 million illegal which god knows costs how much just so you can earn a few bucks an hour.  it doesn't even make sense economically that driving away a cheap source of labor somehow helps the economy that simply, because we don't just sell things to ourselves, you don't just have american spendings to consider.  but let's even just consider that true for a moment, you still can't deport 12 million illegals.  hungry people are scary indeed, even those of you at home.  even your brains don't work any longer.

----------


## erowe1

> Ask Rand.  
> 
> Is not BORDER SECURITY part of his "immigration" (slash amnesty) policy?
> 
> From page 1:


He may say that, but it's just a symbolic gesture. Either that, or he has in mind such an onerous violation of all of our liberties that it would make the current laws telling us whom we're allowed to hire look like nothing.

If you were under the impression that we could have some kind of border security that would make it so people couldn't illegally immigrate, I'd like to know what you thought it would take to accomplish that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He may say that, but it's just a symbolic gesture. Either that, or he has in mind such an onerous violation of all of our liberties that it would make the current laws telling us whom we're allowed to hire look like nothing.
> 
> If you were under the impression that we could have some kind of border security that would make it so people couldn't illegally immigrate, I'd like to know what you thought it would take to accomplish that.


Putting soldiers on our own border instead of in 160 bases around the world?  Didn't Ron advocate this as well?  I really don't see any problem with keeping our borders well defended.  And this coming from the guy that wants it to be really easy to come here legally.

----------


## Carlybee

> Drone's don't kill people, people do! But really, drones have vast uses in private industry. so I personally would be careful with wanting them to flop.


Just wait until the sky is filled with them.

----------


## erowe1

> Putting soldiers on our own border instead of in 160 bases around the world?  Didn't Ron advocate this as well?  I really don't see any problem with keeping our borders well defended.  And this coming from the guy that wants it to be really easy to come here legally.


Ron talked about protecting our borders instead of other countries, but I don't know why so many people think that was about illegal immigration.

At any rate, no matter who talked about it, if someone thinks there's some way to make it so illegal immigrants can't come here, I'd like to know what they think would do it. I can't imagine anything that could, short of an East Germany style police state.

----------


## supermario21

> short of an East Germany style police state.



I actually was a fan of a shoot-to-kill style border patrol/wall. Of course that's not feasible anymore haha.

----------


## eating_nachos

> eating_nachos,  1. you can't deport 12 million illegals, stop driving them into the dark corners in the society can actually mean less gang violence and other criminal activities, in exchange for them not getting ahead of anybody else in the waiting line still, it's better than anything you could ever propose  
> 
> 2.  are you speaking out of a fear of 'he's taking my jobs' or 'made in america!' mindset?  if it's in regards to your livelihood, there's no logic to be dealt with you.  whatever genius idea you have, not a penny of my tax will go toward deporting 12 million illegal which god knows costs how much just so you can earn a few bucks an hour.  it doesn't even make sense economically that driving away a cheap source of labor somehow helps the economy that simply, because we don't just sell things to ourselves, you don't just have american spendings to consider.  but let's even just consider that true for a moment, you still can't deport 12 million illegals.  hungry people are scary indeed, even those of you at home.  even your brains don't work any longer.



Yes, we must continue to protect the poor, poor corporations. What will they do without their cheap labor.

----------


## William R

Rand damaged himself today.  Dumb speech and I hate to be the one to break the news to Rand, but all polls show what Hispanics favor big activist government..

----------


## AuH20

> Rand damaged himself today.  Dumb speech and I hate to be the one to break the news to Rand, but all polls show what Hispanics favor big activist government..


He's been trying to do too much of late. It backfired. He had so much momentum too.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Rand damaged himself today.  Dumb speech and I hate to be the one to break the news to Rand, but all polls show what Hispanics favor big activist government..


Liberals have a huge head start in courting their vote. It won't be long until Hispanics are the majority in vast regions and Republicans have simply trashed them and their culture directly and indirectly. Rand Paul is reaching out and that's all he can do at this point. Earlier the better. We're merely playing catch up at this point.

----------


## AuH20

> Ron talked about protecting our borders instead of other countries, but I don't know why so many people think that was about illegal immigration.
> 
> At any rate, no matter who talked about it, if someone thinks there's some way to make it so illegal immigrants can't come here, I'd like to know what they think would do it. I can't imagine anything that could, short of an East Germany style police state.


Dry up the incentives without imprisoning them. Ron has said this numerous times.  Attack the welfare state and we won't have an illegal alien problem.

----------


## AuH20

> Liberals have a huge head start in courting their vote. It won't be long until Hispanics are the majority in vast regions and Republicans have simply trashed them and their culture directly and indirectly. Rand Paul is reaching out and that's all he can do at this point. Earlier the better. We're merely playing catch up at this point.


The courting of their vote is directly tied to how many tangible benefits and advantages the democrats can offer them. Any conservative with any type of integrity cannot embark down that dark road of vote buying via big government initiatives. If that's the solution, just disassemble the republican party.

----------


## AlexAmore

> The courting of their vote is directly tied to how many tangible benefits and advantages the democrats can offer them. Any conservative with any type of integrity cannot embark down that dark road of vote buying via big government initiatives. If that's the solution, just dissemble the republican party.


Yet there are a lot of illegals working. Rand Paul was saying we are vastly short of potential visas we could be giving out to working illegals. A visa is a huge benefit for many, they can now be normalized and come out of hiding. They can now look around for work and get a better paying job. These are all great benefits that many would grab up. This is proven by statistics Rand has gone over.

----------


## AuH20

> Yet there are a lot of illegals working. Rand Paul was saying we are vastly short of potential visas we could be giving out to working illegals. A visa is a huge benefit for many, they can now be normalized and come out of hiding. They can now look around for work and get a better paying job. These are all great benefits that many would grab up. This is proven by statistics Rand has gone over.


Working for less than stellar wages with many mouths to feed. Look at the democrats platform.  It's tailor made for their short-term needs and I really can't begrudge them for milking as much as they can from the democrats, who are masters at irresponsibly looting the treasury. It's futile to even compete with the duplicitious games they play.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Working for less than stellar wages with many mouths to feed. Look at the democrats platform.  It's tailor made for their short-term needs and I really can't begrudge them for milking as much as they can from the democrats, who are masters at irresponsibly looting the treasury. It's futile to even compete with the duplicitious games they play.


But I think you can compete. Republicans have been so hard-line on Hispanic issues that Hispanics immediately write them off. Hispanics don't even listen to the rest of the conservative message. The way to win friends and influence people is to do as Rand has been doing everywhere else; start with agreements, get people listening to you, get them to say "yes...yes....yes", and then gently sway them to your side on everything else.

It's much easier to influence and change a friend's mind. A friend knows you're on his side and have his best interests at heart. Rand is making friends with Hispanics.

----------


## Brett85

> Liberals have a huge head start in courting their vote. It won't be long until Hispanics are the majority in vast regions and Republicans have simply trashed them and their culture directly and indirectly. Rand Paul is reaching out and that's all he can do at this point. Earlier the better. We're merely playing catch up at this point.


Agreed.  Why do people expect Hispanics to have small government political views when a lot of conservatives constantly trash them by calling them "free loaders" and "welfare bums?"  If I were a Hispanic I wouldn't vote for a party that constantly trashes me either.

----------


## supermario21

It's hard for Hispanics to support conservative causes when they're more worried about getting deported.

----------


## Dianne

> Rand damaged himself today.  Dumb speech and I hate to be the one to break the news to Rand, but all polls show what Hispanics favor big activist government..


Agree... he should have kept his dog out of that fight.      The fact of the matter is, our unemployment rate is sky high ..    Only people getting fat are those that work for the federal government.

The thought of allowing "freeloaders" to access free education, free medical care, free food, etc. while Americans are starving to death is disgusting.

Might I remind you that the GOP and the DNC are the same.      Ever since Romney, who was a less than marginal candidate to begin with .... lost ...    the hype has been the GOP needs to come to terms with immigration policies.

That is not true..   The reason they lost, which they won't admit...   was their treatment of Ron Paul and many of the youth and elderly (like myself), that support him.      We had millions who refused to vote for Obama or Romney.

That is the true reason Obama has a second term... not that illegal aliens were pissed.      All hype, hype, hype... just to push forth an agenda that was planned 20 years ago.

----------


## Dianne

> But I think you can compete. Republicans have been so hard-line on Hispanic issues that Hispanics immediately write them off. Hispanics don't even listen to the rest of the conservative message. The way to win friends and influence people is to do as Rand has been doing everywhere else; start with agreements, get people listening to you, get them to say "yes...yes....yes", and then gently sway them to your side on everything else.
> 
> It's much easier to influence and change a friend's mind. A friend knows you're on his side and have his best interests at heart. Rand is making friends with Hispanics.



This subject is amusing ...    I see "Illegals" in almost every response.    What is Illegal?     Doesn't it mean against the law?      Why do people like Rand and Rubio, the news networks stand up for Illegal people being in the country ...   yet one ounce of pot is illegal.      Banksters steal homes...  Federal Government steals lives and money from American citizens ...    Illegals enter the country and in the large percentage... steal money from American citizens in the form of welfare, food stamps, free medical care, disability, etc.

But boy oh boy.......     Anyone find you with an ounce of pot in your back pocket...   you are going down...... you are going down !!!!!

I would much prefer to see Rand focusing his energy on the unfairness of purported "LAW" and "FAIRNESS" in this country, then worrying about the safety and protection of "illegals"

----------


## AuH20

> It's hard for Hispanics to support conservative causes when* they're more worried about getting deported.*


And who's fault is that??? How are Americans responsible for the plight of foreign peoples (this applies to the Israel question as well)? Explain to me how conservatives are the villains in all this when they rolled out the red carpet for these people?????

 I personally have no problems with Hispanics and many Americans don't, as exhibited by the fact that many millions have been permitted to live here. They are generally hard-working and simply trying to survive. But when they start on the racism card, start demanding X, Y, Z and then vote overwhelming for a political party with no reservations about utilizing the force of the government to the maximum, that's when the niceties cease. Respect is a two way street.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> But I think you can compete. Republicans have been so hard-line on Hispanic issues that Hispanics immediately write them off. Hispanics don't even listen to the rest of the conservative message. The way to win friends and influence people is to do as Rand has been doing everywhere else; start with agreements, get people listening to you, get them to say "yes...yes....yes", and then gently sway them to your side on everything else.


I think you are naive.  The idea that a low skill, low income, low IQ demographic group is ever going to embrace libertarian ideas is fantasy land.  The Democrats know this.  That is why they are doing everything they can to flood America with third world immigrants.  They are increasing their voting base.  Instead of helping the Democrats, maybe the GOP should be, oh, I don't know, pointing out the fact that the Democrats are _pursuing an immigration policy against the interests of all existing Americans in order to increase their own political power_?  The idea that this is all inevitable is silly.  We can pursue any kind of immigration policy we choose.  It is not "inevitable" that we pick the one that puts a priority on immigrants which have the least to offer.  Especially when you consider the fact every other country on the face of the earth does the exact opposite.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Agree... he should have kept his dog out of that fight.      The fact of the matter is, our unemployment rate is sky high ..    Only people getting fat are those that work for the federal government.
> 
> The thought of allowing "freeloaders" to access free education, free medical care, free food, etc. while Americans are starving to death is disgusting.
> 
> Might I remind you that the GOP and the DNC are the same.      Ever since Romney, who was a less than marginal candidate to begin with .... lost ...    the hype has been the GOP needs to come to terms with immigration policies.
> 
> That is not true..   The reason they lost, which they won't admit...   was their treatment of Ron Paul and many of the youth and elderly (like myself), that support him.      We had millions who refused to vote for Obama or Romney.
> 
> That is the true reason Obama has a second term... not that illegal aliens were pissed.      All hype, hype, hype... just to push forth an agenda that was planned 20 years ago.


I would disagree. Every fight is worth getting in as long as it is planned right. More fights mean more coverage. But I understand your sentiments. 

Slutter McGee

----------


## AlexAmore

> I think you are naive.  The idea that a low skill, low income, low IQ demographic group is ever going to embrace libertarian ideas is fantasy land.  The Democrats know this.  That is why they are doing everything they can to flood America with third world immigrants.  They are increasing their voting base.  Instead of helping the Democrats, maybe the GOP should be, oh, I don't know, pointing out the fact that the Democrats are _pursuing an immigration policy against the interests of all existing Americans in order to increase their own political power_?  The idea that this is all inevitable is silly.  We can pursue any kind of immigration policy we choose.  It is not "inevitable" that we pick the one that puts a priority on immigrants which have the least to offer.  Especially when you consider the fact every other country on the face of the earth does the exact opposite.


At the same time I'm not sure we've ever had a libertarian who can speak and frames things at an 8th grade reading level. We have to look long term. These low skill, low income, low iq people (no matter what race) have far more babies than their counterpart. High IQ people might have one baby, we are certainly stagnant at best.

I don't know the best route. We need help with women, and Hispanics. I guess the other strategy is an amazing gotv program for people we know already like us, of course a Democrat will probably have us beat using Obama's infrastructure. So then it comes down to the message to motivate as many people as possible.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy



----------


## cheapseats

> You're missing the point. Letting the illegals stay here is mistake. Even if they're not given amnesty and *just* granted legal status.



"Just" granted legal status = AMNESTY.

GOP already did the "one-time" amnesty thing under Reagan, re-MEM-berrrrr?

ONE TIME was a key selling point.

Same with the bailout of Chrysler back in the 70's.

"AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS" parlays into lower wages and higher benefits.

And more "Democratic" votes.  

History repeats because PEOPLE REPEAT IT.

----------


## cheapseats

> Yet there are a lot of illegals working. Rand Paul was saying we are vastly short of potential visas we could be giving out to working illegals.


OR our unemployment benefit cluster$#@! can be mitigated by obliging American Unemployed to FILL THE OPEN JOBS in order to collect such benefits as are necessary to keep noses above water (in view of SUB-SUBSISTENCE WAGES).

MANY TIMES did I hear a Los Angeles bus driver announce THIS BUS ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE UNTIL YOU PEOPLE BLOCKING THE AISLE MOVE TO THE BACK OF THE BUS.

It is obviously imperative that WORKING + REDUCED BENEFITS does not produce LESS "income" than straight benefits.





> A visa is a huge benefit for many, they can now be normalized and come out of hiding. They can now look around for work and get a better paying job. These are all great benefits that many would grab up. This is proven by statistics Rand has gone over.


UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS can follow the same path.

----------


## July

> 


Thanks for posting that! Are there any recordings of the whole entire speech (I wanted to hear Rand speak Spanish)?

I'm pleased Rand has offered a compromise that neither includes massively expanding the police state to round up and deport people (probably unlikely, since I don't think the establishment wants to deport them), nor expanding a mandatory e-verify system or introducing a national ID (this on the other hand, is exactly what I think the establishment would like to implement). I still have questions about what he means by "verify" if not through e-verify/national ID...hopefully he is just using tough sounding language there, because I _hope_ Rand would not vote for any legislation with a national ID in it. Overall, I liked his speech. Admitting we can't round up and deport millions of people is a good step. I like how he frames the discussion in a rational way and shows there is reasonable middle ground, that it doesn't have to be a choice between rounding people up on buses or moving everyone to the front of the welfare line. Those arguments are more often used for purposes of demagoguery to shut down discussion, rather than to have a productive debate.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...I still have questions about what he means by "verify" if not through e-verify/national ID...hopefully...


"TRUST BUT VERIFTY."  Indeed, how TO verify if not by e-verify/national ID . . . that leaves SOCIAL SECURITY numbers, yes?  AUDITS & INSPECTIONS.  Can you think of any other ways?

HOPEFULLY doesn't cut it anymore.  HOPEFULLY is bedrock to Wishful Thinking. 

Shall Rand, like Ron before him, be too REMOTE from randpaulforums.com to get horse's mouth clarification, allowing grassroots to go round & round SPECULATING and HOPING and ARGUING?

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> Thanks for posting that! Are there any recordings of the whole entire speech (I wanted to hear Rand speak Spanish)?


I've been searching but I haven't found any recordings of the full speech or even clips of him speaking spanish.

----------


## AlexAmore

> "TRUST BUT VERIFTY."  Indeed, how TO verify if not by e-verify/national ID . . . that leaves SOCIAL SECURITY numbers, yes?  AUDITS & INSPECTIONS.  Can you think of any other ways?
> 
> HOPEFULLY doesn't cut it anymore.  HOPEFULLY is bedrock to Wishful Thinking. 
> 
> Shall Rand, like Ron before him, be too REMOTE from randpaulforums.com to get horse's mouth clarification, allowing grassroots to go round & round SPECULATING and HOPING and ARGUING?


He's talking about the verifying the that the fence is being built. His whole amendment is about the fence.

----------


## AlexAmore

> OR our unemployment benefit cluster$#@! can be mitigated by obliging American Unemployed to FILL THE OPEN JOBS in order to collect such benefits as are necessary to keep noses above water (in view of SUB-SUBSISTENCE WAGES).
> 
> MANY TIMES did I hear a Los Angeles bus driver announce THIS BUS ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE UNTIL YOU PEOPLE BLOCKING THE AISLE MOVE TO THE BACK OF THE BUS.
> 
> It is obviously imperative that WORKING + REDUCED BENEFITS does not produce LESS "income" than straight benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS can follow the same path.


You sound exactly like Obama and the liberals that are freaking out about machinery and technology destroying jobs for the lower and middle class. It's complete BS.

----------


## cheapseats

> You sound exactly like Obama and the liberals that are freaking out about machinery and technology destroying jobs for the lower and middle class. It's complete BS.


Technological advancements ELIMINATING jobs (efficiency) is a whole different ballgame than Illegal Immigrants FILLING AVAILABLE JOBS. 

It is a whole different LEAGUE than Illegal Immigrants filling available jobs while RECORD NUMBERS OF AMERICAN UNEMPLOYED collect "unemployment benefits" (taxpayer dough).

----------


## cheapseats

> You sound exactly like Obama and the liberals...


That's a first, I'll grant you that.

----------


## cheapseats

> He's talking about the verifying the that the fence is being built. *His whole amendment is about the fence.*


No, it isn't.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Technological advancements ELIMINATING jobs (efficiency) is a whole different ballgame than Illegal Immigrants FILLING AVAILABLE JOBS. 
> 
> It is a whole different LEAGUE than Illegal Immigrants filling available jobs while RECORD NUMBERS OF AMERICAN UNEMPLOYED collect "unemployment benefits" (taxpayer dough).


It's not different at all. Technology and illegal immigrants both cost less and thus produce more. Prices go down for everyone else, which frees up resources for everyone else to create more jobs.

----------


## AlexAmore

> No, it isn't.


The verifying part is.

----------


## Barrex

JUst curious how do you know it is about fence and not about bringing troops home to guard borders (like his father suggested)?

----------


## AlexAmore

> JUst curious how do you know it is about fence and not about bringing troops home to guard borders (like his father suggested)?


I guess I mean "fence" as in border security whether it's a virtual fence with drones and cameras, people or whatever.

----------


## Barrex

> I guess I mean "fence" as in border security whether it's a virtual fence with drones and cameras, people or whatever.


Ah muchas gracias senorata.. whicha waya to Amerika?



If you have social state fence is a MUST.

----------


## cheapseats

> *It's not different at all. Technology and illegal immigrants both cost less*...


Beneath contempt.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Ah muchas gracias senorata.. whicha waya to Amerika?
> 
> 
> 
> If you have social state fence is a MUST.


I'm all for open borders in a welfare free state. I'm as libertarian as anyone else on this issue. In fact I think illegal immigrants are the best because they can't get welfare, and they're off the grid. It's ironic that many people here STRIVE to accomplish that and I daydream about it as well.

I think I'm just talking about these issues on many different levels. If Rand Paul want's to win a 100% pure libertarian platform is gonna scare the $#@! out of the conservatives especially on this issue.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Beneath contempt.


What's wrong with the free market and supply and demand? Illegal immigrants live in a truer free market, the black market, than ourselves.

----------


## eating_nachos

> I'm all for open borders in a welfare free state. I'm as libertarian as anyone else on this issue. In fact I think illegal immigrants are the best because they can't get welfare, and they're off the grid. It's ironic that many people here STRIVE to accomplish that and I daydream about it as well.


Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for welfare but their kids are, in fact over 50% of illegal immigrant households receive some form of government help. So the cheap labor you like so much isn't as cheap as you think. It's subsidized by tax payers through social welfare programs.

----------


## eating_nachos

> What's wrong with the free market and supply and demand? Illegal immigrants live in a truer free market, the black market, than ourselves.


Illegal immigration distorts the free market by artificially increasing the supply of low wage workers.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for welfare but their kids are, in fact over 50% of illegal immigrant households receive some form of government help. So the cheap labor you like so much isn't as cheap as you think. It's subsidized by tax payers through social welfare programs.


So....round em up and ship em off? Not gonna happen. Get rid of welfare? That goes without saying. Welcome to the Ron Paul forums. Our party platform can be located:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

/tongueincheek

----------


## AlexAmore

> Illegal immigration distorts the free market by artificially increasing the supply of low wage workers.


No, regulations distort the amount of businesses that are built. Regulation caps the amount of businesses and reduces available work. We could have all the work in world available given enough freedom.

----------


## July

If the "verify" part is referring to the report stating that the boarder is secure, before issuing more work visas, then that's different and I'm ok with that. I, personally, lean towards a more open/libertarian position and don't like the idea of fences, etc... Granted I don't see the welfare state being reduced in the immediate future (or the drug war, or aggression overseas), so I think it's probably about as good of a compromise as we are going to get right now. Admitting illegals can't be easily deported (not without a massive expansion of government and civil liberty violations), is a big step for the GOP.

----------


## AlexAmore

> If the "verify" part is referring to the report stating that the boarder is secure, before issuing more work visas, then that's different and I'm ok with that. I, personally, lean towards a more open/libertarian position and don't like the idea of fences, etc... Granted I don't see the welfare state being reduced in the immediate future, so I think it's probably about as good of a compromise as we are going to get right now. Admitting illegals can't be easily deported (not without a massive expansion of government and civil liberty violations), is a big step for the GOP.


You're right, very well said. The verify part does mean the fence. I listen to every Rand Paul interview and speech.

----------


## July

> You're right, very well said. The verify part does mean the fence. I listen to every Rand Paul interview and speech.


Haha, I used to listen to every Rand speech/interview as well, but the man is a machine, I can't keep up lately with all the media blitz he does nowadays.

----------


## eating_nachos

> No, regulations distort the amount of businesses that are built. Regulation caps the amount of businesses and reduces available work. We could have all the work in world available given enough freedom.


Mr. Apple meet Mr. Orange. 

Nice deflection.

----------


## TXcarlosTX

All the illegals I know that play on my futbol team work and don't have any kids. They do pay half for groceries because you can find someone on welfare to buy list of stuff and they pay that person cash.  Prob about 15 live in a house and they are from Honduras. They send money to Honduras because they said that money has 20 times purchasing power.  They save money in Honduras for 5 years and go back to live like Kings. Just my take.

----------


## eating_nachos

> So....round em up and ship em off? Not gonna happen. Get rid of welfare? That goes without saying. Welcome to the Ron Paul forums. Our party platform can be located:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
> 
> /tongueincheek



So, you're for cheap labor that isn't actually cheap?

----------


## lib3rtarian

Anyone have a full video of the speech yet? I have only seen small clips so far.

----------


## puppetmaster

> All the illegals I know that play on my futbol team work and don't have any kids. They do pay half for groceries because you can find someone on welfare to buy list of stuff and they pay that person cash.  Prob about 15 live in a house and they are from Honduras. They send money to Honduras because they said that money has 20 times purchasing power.  They save money in Honduras for 5 years and go back to live like Kings. Just my take.


This is typical.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I agree that preserving our culture is important, if it's a worthwhile culture.  I think one worthwhile part of our culture is following the Constitution.  Shouldn't showing respect to the Constitution, and the principles of human liberty it represents, be a part of our culture we work to preserve?  Isn't that part of American culture?  Is it worth it to trash that part of the culture in order to preserve the racial aspect of the culture?  Which is more important: rule of law, or being surrounded by whites?

----------


## cheapseats

> All the illegals I know that play on my futbol team work and don't have any kids. They do pay half for groceries because you can find someone on welfare to buy list of stuff and they pay that person cash.  Prob about 15 live in a house and they are from Honduras. They send money to Honduras because they said that money has 20 times purchasing power.  They save money in Honduras for 5 years and go back to live like Kings. Just my take.





> This is typical.


It is common even among illegal immigrants who are married with children, to send money "home" while reaping all manner of "free" stateside benefits.

They go "home" on VACATIONS.  They are less fearful of travel than I am.

----------


## eating_nachos

> I agree that preserving our culture is important, if it's a worthwhile culture.  I think one worthwhile part of our culture is following the Constitution.  Shouldn't showing respect to the Constitution, and the principles of human liberty it represents, be a part of our culture we work to preserve?  Isn't that part of American culture?  Is it worth it to trash that part of the culture in order to preserve the racial aspect of the culture?  Which is more important: rule of law, or being surrounded by whites?


Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.

----------


## AlexAmore

> So, you're for cheap labor that isn't actually cheap?


I'm for open borders and no welfare. But I don't live in utopia yet. So I'm for getting Rand elected in the absolutely awful, horrid political climate that we reside in. Rand is making all the right moves to make this happen and I support him every step. There are no perfect solutions in an imperfect world. You need to make compromises which is different than laying down (current Republican leadership). So when I'm arguing the opposite of what I ULTIMATELY want in my unicorn-rich utopia, it's because it'll get Rand elected given our support. Then Rand can go into the White House and take a chainsaw to the budget and maybe we'll get a D.C shutdown every once in awhile for kicks.




> Mr. Apple meet Mr. Orange. 
> 
> Nice deflection.


I'm saying there's never enough workers if you have enough freedom. Your problem would be a non-issue. Imagine taking a chainsaw to regulations, the tax code, and taxes. Businesses wouldn't be able to flock to America fast enough. Everyone would get a pay raise because workers would be a valuable and scarce commodity. We can easily grow our way out of any immigration-caused debt with less regulations and taxes that Rand would implement. That's why this is a good compromise so Rand can get the votes.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.


That is a terrible argument. That's a statist argument. Obama makes a law to take your guns....do you say "yes sir"?

----------


## lib3rtarian

Steve Stockman [R-TX36] also joined as a co-sponsor yesterday.

EDIT: sorry, wrong thread. This was meant for the hemp bill thread.

----------


## eating_nachos

> That is a terrible argument. That's a statist argument. Obama makes a law to take your guns....do you say "yes sir"?


Taking our guns away would be unconstitutional, protecting our borders and our sovereignty wouldn't.  

I'm not a libertarian so you can go ahead and call me a statist.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Taking our guns away would be unconstitutional, protecting our borders and our sovereignty wouldn't.  
> 
> I'm not a libertarian so you can go ahead and call me a statist.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow congress to make laws restricting free access across borders. It allows Congress to grant citizenship, but that's different. Now if you want to be more accurate, the states can make laws regarding immigration and I'll go along with that.

Our government or America has a collective doesn't have sovereignty. The individual has sovereignty. In a perfect world all property would be private and as such immigration would be up to the individual to decide if they want immigrants on it or not.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow congress to make laws restricting free access across borders. It allows Congress to grant citizenship, but that's different. Now if you want to be more accurate, the states can make laws regarding immigration and I'll go along with that.


Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.

Slutter McGee

----------


## america

As a long time NumbersUSA supporter,  I find this position disturbing.   If employers were criminally charged for hiring illegal workers,  just as citizens are charged for copying a music CD, the illegal workers would soon self deport and our unemployment would decline and American workers would have their wages increased based upon free market rates.  

Having financially supported Ron Paul in 2008, 2012 and Rand Paul I am puzzled why he his now jumping on the bandwagon to reward 20 million low skilled illegal immigrants with citizenry.     Not only will this change the face and culture of America,  it will decimate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the legal citizens.    Regardless of what the politicians say,   amnesty is the intermediate end game,  and ultimately merging of the Americas and replacement of the USA Constitution just as the bankers pushed the same on Europeans.  

The bankers pushed the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Amendment down our throats in 1913,  because our system is so corrupt that their money bought our officials then as it does now. 

It is disheartening that so few American politicians actually work for Americans.   Most are beholden to global banking interests and the media propagandists that have a mission of harm towards the citizenry and country we once had.   They sent our economy to Asia and our kids to wars all under false pretenses and false flags.

----------


## AlexAmore

> Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.
> 
> Slutter McGee


Naturalization is reactionary. People from around the world and within our borders opt to become citizens and congress reacts with a system. That's all that is explicit in the constitution.

To prevent border crossing is proactive and has nothing to do with naturalization. People come here all the time legally and aren't naturalized.

----------


## thequietkid10

My local afternoon talk radio host is hammering Rand on this.  I'm not sure he did this well.

----------


## erowe1

> Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.
> 
> Slutter McGee


I don't see the connection.

----------


## erowe1

> Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.


What do you mean "our"?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.


 If the law itself is illegal, then are they breaking a law?  An illegal law is a non-law, null and void, the way I see it.  There cannot be any valid law restricting peaceful civilian immigration.  The Constitution forbids it.  The Constitution trumps all other laws.  Any laws in violation of it are null, void, non-existent, and totally bogus.

No, _Congress_ has broken our laws.  "Illegal" immigrants sometimes have, sometimes have not, but they certainly have not merely by their act of relocating into the country.  That act is not illegal, nor can it be, not under the Constitution.  If you feel this situation is not ideal, then you should perhaps seek to amend the Constitution rather than crumpling it up, tossing it in your compost heap, and telling Congress to feel free to do whatever it wants.

----------


## compromise

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...gration-speech

Rubio responds.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.


 Actually, McGee, that does _not_ follow.  There is no logical connection between the two.  Many citizens do not reside within the US.  Many non-citizens do reside within the US.  

One can reside in the US without being a citizen.  
One can reside outside the US and yet be a citizen.
One can reside in the US and be a citizen.
One can reside outside the US and not be a citizen.

In short, all possible combinations of US citizenship and US residence are possible, are legitimate, and do currently exist.

The US Constitution states that Congress has the power to set rules for naturalization, that is, for determining who can and who cannot become a citizen and what they must do, if anything, to gain that status.  The US Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to make any such rules, nor, indeed, any rules whatsoever, regarding who can and cannot enter the country.  It just doesn't.  It's not there.

The logic is airtight.  There is no way around it.  The Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration.  Thus, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration.  Ergo, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration.  Hence, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration.  And from all this, we can make the following earth-shattering conclusion: the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration.  A is A.  That's all there is to it.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually, McGee that does _not_ follow.  There is no logical connection between the two.  Many citizens do not reside within the US.  Many non-citizens do reside within the US.  
> One can reside in the US without being a citizen.  
> One can reside outside the US and yet be a citizen.
> One can reside in the US and be a citizen.
> One can reside outside the US and not be a citizen.
> 
> In short, all possible combinations of US citizenship and US residence are possible, are legitimate, and do currently exist.
> 
> The US Constitution states that Congress has the power to set rules for naturalization, that is, for determining who can and who cannot become a citizen and what they must do, if anything, to gain that status.  The US Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to make any such rules, nor, indeed, any rules whatsoever, regarding who can and cannot enter the country.  It just doesn't.  It's not there.
> ...


Wouldn't connecting the two mean that you think the federal government had a right to expel native americans from the lands it claimed under its jurisdiction?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Wouldn't connecting the two mean that you think the federal government had a right to expel native americans from the lands it claimed under its jurisdiction?


 Well they certainly weren't citizens, so I would say that a person who believed such a thing would have to say "Yes.  Deporting all non-citizen Native Americans en masse would have been Constitutional".

Of course, such a belief has no basis in reality.

----------


## Carlybee

Sooo...if the illegals get amnesty, do the employers who are knowingly or unknowingly employing them get a pass too?
Sorry if that's been covered..it's a long thread.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Sooo...if the illegals get amnesty, do the employers who are knowingly or unknowingly employing them get a pass too?
> Sorry if that's been covered..it's a long thread.


 I do business with "illegals".  Should *I* get a pass?

----------


## erowe1

> Sooo...if the illegals get amnesty, do the employers who are knowingly or unknowingly employing them get a pass too?


Of course they would. That's the point.

The government shouldn't even know who those employers are or have any way of finding out about them.

----------


## lib3rtarian

Full speech:

----------


## Carlybee

> Of course they would. That's the point.
> 
> The government shouldn't even know who those employers are or have any way of finding out about them.


If someone applies for a work visa and they are already employed, would they not have to list their place of employment? When my husband applied for his visa so we could get married we had to practically sign in blood, give them our left arms and turn over my first born son.

----------


## erowe1

> When my husband applied for his visa so we could get married we had to practically sign in blood, give them our left arms and turn over my first born son.


I don't see that as something we should support.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't see that as something we should support.


Just trying to envision the logistics.  I can't imagine just having them line up, handed a visa, with no background info recorded etc.  I understand he wants to streamline the process, I am just wondering what that streamlining would consist of.  As it stands now the way I understand it, in order to get a work visa you have to have an employer willing to sponsor you or pay out the ying yang.

----------


## erowe1

> Just trying to envision the logistics.  I can't imagine just having them line up, handed a visa, with no background info recorded etc.  I understand he wants to streamline the process, I am just wondering what that streamlining would consist of.  As it stands now the way I understand it, in order to get a work visa you have to have an employer willing to sponsor you or pay out the ying yang.


Can't you have someone sponsor you without admitting they already hired you illegally?

At any rate, I would think that letting employers off the hook for that would have to be part of the plan. I guess I don't know for a fact. It just wouldn't make sense otherwise.

----------


## Carlybee

> Can't you have someone sponsor you without admitting they already hired you illegally?
> 
> At any rate, I would think that letting employers off the hook for that would have to be part of the plan. I guess I don't know for a fact. It just wouldn't make sense otherwise.


I know one thing...they better streamline it for the legal immigrants who have been in line as well. I have a friend with a doctorate who had to move back to Europe because she hadn't secured a university job before her visa expired and she has to stay over there for a year before she can come back. She spent a lot of money getting her education here and then had to leave after she had established a home here plus leave her boyfriend and pets. Something not right if an illegal just gets handed one over someone proven to have contributed to the community.

----------


## eating_nachos

> I don't see that as something we should support.


You really love telling people what they should and what they shouldn't support. How about you let everyone make up their own mind.

----------

