“I’ll put them in camps”: Rand Paul mocks GOP field for hardline rhetoric towards illegals

[William R]

Rand Paul supports underground electric fence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAU5idwcGnE

Rand Paul 'Chamber' Republican can't win

Chamber of Commerce--Rand Paul was our secret weapon defeating libertarian candidates.

https://vid.me/CEed

Rand Paul promised to help Mitch McConnell pass amnesty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LMjDj6uGi8


Now it's looking more and more like he won't make the final cut for the next debate. Rand you could have been a contender. But this election cycle the establishment is public enemy number one. Like you said, Chamber of Commerce Republican can't win.

 

[Brett85]

What Rand is essentially saying is, "if you want a confused, muddled immigration policy- a policy that is neither hot nor cold, then I'm your man!".

Well, I support a more middle of the road position on immigration, at least compared to what is being proposed by the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. It doesn't seem confused or muddled to me either. We need to secure our borders and prevent people from coming here illegally, but it's simply impossible to have a mass deportation of 11-20 million illegal immigrants. Judge Napolitano has said that by law every illegal immigrant has to get a deportation hearing, and the federal government can only do about 30,000 of those a year. Those who are advocating a policy of mass deportation are advocating something that has no basis in reality.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's a very simple concept. You can look up the two words in the dictionary if you're too fucking dumb to understand them.



Go fuck yourself, you lying crapweasel.

Are you mad?

 

[Brett85]

Now it's looking more and more like he won't make the final cut for the next debate.

You don't know what you're talking about on that. Rand is in because they're including polls as part of the average from back when Rand was polling better than he is now.

 

[jj-]

Judge Napolitano has said that by law every illegal immigrant has to get a deportation hearing, and the federal government can only do about 30,000 of those a year. Those who are advocating a policy of mass deportation are advocating something that has no basis in reality.

What has no basis in reality is your assumption that the 11 million will demand a deportation hearing. If there are strong incentives to get out, many will go on their own.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There hasn't been 11 million for more than a decade. It's closer to 50 million now.

 

[Brett85]

What has no basis in reality is your assumption that the 11 million will demand a deportation hearing. If there are strong incentives to get out, many will go on their own.

Many of them would leave on their own if we simply cut off all welfare benefits to illegals. You should be advocating that to deal with the problem instead of advocating a solution that will simply grow the size of government and expand the police state.

 

[Brett85]

There hasn't been 11 million for more than a decade. It's closer to 50 million now.

Then that makes it all the more unrealistic to have some sort of mass deportation of all illegal immigrants. We need to secure the borders, deport the illegals who have a criminal record, cut off all welfare benefits to illegals, etc. That's a realistic policy proposal. It's not realistic whatsoever to say that all illegal immigrants are going to be deported, and Rand is right to speak out against the absurdity of such an idea.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

its pretty clear that the rand sub section of the forum is meant for rand supporters only.
I'm sure everyone welcomes you to the rest of the forum but this section is obviously not for you.

That's correct.

While it is hard to keep track of which sub-forum a thread is under, you are correct, and the Rand sub-forum is meant to be purely for support of Rand's candidacy. Obviously, a person's own opinions on issues are usually fine, but calling Rand names is not OK in Rand's sub-forum.

Rand Paul Forum

Activism & discussion in support of Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from the state of Kentucky.

 

[jj-]

Many of them would leave on their own if we simply cut off all welfare benefits to illegals. You should be advocating that to deal with the problem instead of advocating a solution that will simply grow the size of government and expand the police state.

Glad to see you're conceding that your argument about being overwhelmed by deportation hearings is incorrect.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'd rather he Rand not make the debate and continue to speak against the insanity of popular GOP immigration statism.

Seeing as you promote unlimited immigration and open borders, along with the one-worlder cultural marxists, I'll just bet you would.

It's a good thing that Rand doesn't agree with you.

 

[William R]

You don't know what you're talking about on that. Rand is in because they're including polls as part of the average from back when Rand was polling better than he is now.

Yes I do. Just go to the Real Clear Politics average and Rand is 11 now.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Then that makes it all the more unrealistic to have some sort of mass deportation of all illegal immigrants. We need to secure the borders, deport the illegals who have a criminal record, cut off all welfare benefits to illegals, etc. That's a realistic policy proposal. It's not realistic whatsoever to say that all illegal immigrants are going to be deported, and Rand is right to speak out against the absurdity of such an idea.

I agree with doing all those things you said, plus ending birthright citizenship, free education and free medical care, and I'm pretty sure Rand does too. I though would add to it that those who do not self-deport would be given the boot when they were encountered. It would be insane not to.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Seeing as you promote unlimited immigration and open borders, along with the one-worlder cultural marxists, I'll just bet you would.

It's a good thing that Rand doesn't agree with you.

One-world-government marxists promote a world government. I don't promote a state at all.

We already went through this incorrect association you are making. David Duke agrees with your police-state immigration idea. Does that make you a white supremacist? No.

Open borders and open markets are the positions of all people who believe in the freedom of man.

 

[JK/SEA]

crapweasel?....

found it...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Crapweasel

good one. made me laugh.

 

[Brett85]

Yes I do. Just go to the Real Clear Politics average and Rand is 11 now.

That doesn't matter because CNN is averaging the polls going all the way back to July. It doesn't matter that Rand is in 11th now. That's not what CNN is looking at.

 

[thoughtomator]

For making the same arguments his father made in regards to immigration? For not imitating the Mussolini-like dictator sweeping the GOP?

It becomes more apparent everyday that the people in this country are simply too stupid to deserve the blessings of freedom.

No, for being politically tone-deaf while trying to pose as a conventional candidate.

His father was doing the maverick thing, so these kinds of statements bolstered the theme. With Rand, they detract from his "conservative Republican" theme.

The voting public wants the immigrants out. Rand could, instead of making concentration camp references, make a strong, principled argument that cutting off the social service goodies is the best way to get rid of them.

But he's not making that argument. He's making the argument that getting rid of them isn't a desirable thing. And that's political suicide in this year's GOP primary.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Well, I support a more middle of the road position on immigration, at least compared to what is being proposed by the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. It doesn't seem confused or muddled to me either. We need to secure our borders and prevent people from coming here illegally, but it's simply impossible to have a mass deportation

One can support that kind of position without mocking the idea of enforcing the law, though.

of 11-20 million illegal immigrants.

Eisenhower deported about a million in just one year, and two million others saw what was going on at the time and self deported. It is certainly possible to deport or drive out a siginificant fraction of that number over the course of several years.

by law every illegal immigrant has to get a deportation hearing, and the federal government can only do about 30,000 of those a year.

Just because that's the number they're currently doing doesn't mean that number can't change. You could rewrite the Federal Register regulations governing the hearings so as to expedite the hearings. You could, if necessary, go to Congress and rewrite the law so as to expedite such hearings. And of course, you can hire more immigration judges (and even increase overtime) so as to have more hearings per year..

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

No, for being politically tone-deaf while trying to pose as a conventional candidate.

His father was doing the maverick thing, so these kinds of statements bolstered the theme. With Rand, they detract from his "conservative Republican" theme.

The voting public wants the immigrants out. Rand could, instead of making concentration camp references, make a strong, principled argument that cutting off the social service goodies is the best way to get rid of them.

But he's not making that argument. He's making the argument that getting rid of them isn't a desirable thing. And that's political suicide in this year's GOP primary.

I'm glad he's not joining this Twilight Zone of insane bullshit, and making anti-police state statements. He should keep it up. Pandering to the lowest common denominator of blithering subhuman idiots isn't a strategy worth pursuing, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm glad he's not joining this Twilight Zone of insane bullshit, and making anti-police state statements. He should keep it up. Pandering to the lowest common denominator of blithering subhuman idiots isn't a strategy worth pursuing, as far as I'm concerned.

Agree.