Rand on immigration w/Norquist-Bloomberg 6/11

[Valli6]

(excerpts from cnn story 6/11/14)

Rand Paul on immigration: GOP trapped in word 'amnesty'

(CNN) - Immigration may not have been "the paramount issue" in Eric Cantor's crushing primary loss, Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday.
The Kentucky Republican, on a conference call with reporters, added that he's still in favor of immigration reform and partly blamed Republican gridlock over the issue to a misunderstanding over the word "amnesty."

"We've been somewhat trapped by rhetoric and words, and amnesty's a word that has kind of trapped us," he said, adding that some people think it means giving undocumented immigrants a right to vote, while others say it means allowing them to obtain legal status without a penalty.
Others, he added, think it simply means not deporting those who came to the United States illegally.

"We're trapped in a word that means different things to different people," he said.

His comments came in a conference call hosted by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and Michael Bloomberg's Partnership for a New American Economy...

...But Paul and Norquist pointed to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's primary victory in South Carolina. Graham was one of the co-sponsors of the comprehensive immigration packaged that was passed by the Senate last year.

Paul argued that the different outcomes in the two elections indicates that immigration reform wasn't "the paramount issue" that brought down Cantor.

"It's a mistake to try to paint it and decide that one issue decided this," he said.

For his part, Paul said "I am still for it."

I say everywhere I go I am for immigration reform," he added.

Paul, however, didn't vote for the bipartisan Senate bill last year, saying the measure's border security provisions didn't go far enough, and the bill was too limiting in the number of workers it would allow to come in to the country.

Last year he introduced an amendment that would give Congress oversight over border security and would require certain security standards be met before addressing legalization or citizenship. The amendment didn't pass.

"I've always said that I'm for it. I just want to be part of the process. I don't feel like anybody really wanted my vote because they never considered any of my suggestions," he said.

"If you want immigration reform, there has to be openness to compromise," he said, adding that there's also a group "entrenched" on the other side who won't vote for any reform measures.

He also weighed in on the recent influx of young people from Central America who've been crossing the border and turning themselves in to U.S. Border Control agents. U.S. law prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from immediately deporting the children if they are not from Canada or Mexico.

Paul speculated that some immigrants are coming to join the military.

"This is a complicated part of immigration reform. Do I have sympathy if you served in our military and we ought to find a place for you in our country? Absolutely," he said. "But do I want to send a signal to everybody in Mexico that if you come and join our military, you get to be a citizen? That's a bad signal."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...l-on-immigration-gop-trapped-in-word-amnesty/

Any more?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

He's quite right about the word "amnesty."

That semantic knot's got to be disentangled.

...not unlike the term "isolationist."

 

[axiomata]

He's quite right of course. But he's going to be riding a fine line with the anti immigrant activists in the GOP primaries.

 

[Brett85]

He's quite right of course. But he's going to be riding a fine line with the anti immigrant activists in the GOP primaries.

The thing about it though is that there likely won't be a single Republican running in 2016 who's not in favor of immigration reform of some kind. Even Cruz supports giving out work VISA's to the illegals here.

 

[William Tell]

The thing about it though is that there likely won't be a single Republican running in 2016 who's not in favor of immigration reform of some kind. Even Cruz supports giving out work VISA's to the illegals here.

That's a good point.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Paul, however, didn't vote for the bipartisan Senate bill last year, saying the measure's border security provisions didn't go far enough, and the bill was too limiting in the number of workers it would allow to come in to the country.

Ron Paul had a lot of (donor) support from paleo-conservatives, paleo-libertarians, libertarians, minarchists and run of the mill Americans that were opposed to increased immigration. It seems that Rand has calculated that possibly losing them as supporters is more than offset by new support from the US Chamber of Commerce, Zuckerberg and beltway libertarians. He may be right. There is a lot of money to be had from those groups.

 

[erowe1]

He's quite right of course. But he's going to be riding a fine line with the anti immigrant activists in the GOP primaries.

He needs to decide if he wants to do as well in the primaries as Bush, McCain, and Romney did, or if he wants to do as well as Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter did.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Bingo

That's a toxic constituency that Rand would do well to ignore, like the radical fringes of the Christian right.

 

[fisharmor]

He needs to decide if he wants to do as well in the primaries as Bush, McCain, and Romney did, or if he wants to do as well as Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter did.

I'm just glad that the politically viable position also happens to be the correct position this time.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It's always surprised me how so many self-ascribed libertarians are anti-immigration. I'd guess they were a majority in Ron's coalition.

Do they not realize that free trade is rather central to libertarianism, or that immigration control is just protectionism for labor?

The same (fallacious) arguments they employ against imported labor can be employed against imported goods.

 

[Brett85]

Ron Paul had a lot of (donor) support from paleo-conservatives, paleo-libertarians, libertarians, minarchists and run of the mill Americans that were opposed to increased immigration. It seems that Rand has calculated that possibly losing them as supporters is more than offset by new support from the US Chamber of Commerce, Zuckerberg and beltway libertarians. He may be right. There is a lot of money to be had from those groups.

Ron was opposed to the border fence and was really weak on the issue of border security when he ran for President in 2012. While Rand is no Tom Tancredo on immigration, he's still far more conservative than Ron on that issue.

 

[specsaregood]

It's always surprised me how so many self-ascribed libertarians are anti-immigration. I'd guess they were a majority in Ron's coalition.

It is less anti-immigration and more pro-reality of the results of immigration in our current environment.

 

[RonPaulMall]

It's always surprised me how so many self-ascribed libertarians are anti-immigration. I'd guess they were a majority in Ron's coalition.

Do they not realize that free trade is rather central to libertarianism, or that immigration control is just protectionism for labor?

The same (fallacious) arguments they employ against imported labor can be employed against imported goods.

You can throw shoes out when you are done with them. Not so with people. The analogy is not with free trade, but rather invasion. Mass third world immigration turns mass areas of the United States in to third world enclaves. It has a disastrous effect on wages and makes a middle class lifestyle far more expensive for the native population. That's why the oligarchs are so keen on it. This is all about destroying the middle class.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Ron was opposed to the border fence and was really weak on the issue of border security when he ran for President in 2012. While Rand is no Tom Tancredo on immigration, he's still far more conservative than Ron on that issue.

Ron was not in favor of a "fence" because of there are real practical problems with a fence (not the least of which being much of that land is privately held and the deeds in many cases cross over the border. But to suggest that Rand is more "conservative" than Ron on this issue is simply incorrect, unless you are using the Cantor/McCain standard of "conservatism". Ron argued that we should put more troops on the border. He argued that birthright citizenship should be abolished. He was opposed to free schooling and free medial care for illegals and argued all such federal mandates need to be abolished. He wasn't for any form of amnesty whatsoever.

Ron Paul was far, far, more anti-illegal immigration than his son, and even more anti-illegal immigration than Brat (who has never mentioned anything about ending birthright citizenship).

 

[Southron]

It's always surprised me how so many self-ascribed libertarians are anti-immigration. I'd guess they were a majority in Ron's coalition.

One of the main reasons I initially supported Ron Paul was his stance on ending birthright citizenship but I am not a libertarian by any stretch.

 

[Brett85]

Ron was not in favor of a "fence" because of there are real practical problems with a fence (not the least of which being much of that land is privately held and the deeds in many cases cross over the border. But to suggest that Rand is more "conservative" than Ron on this issue is simply incorrect, unless you are using the Cantor/McCain standard of "conservatism". Ron argued that we should put more troops on the border. He argued that birthright citizenship should be abolished. He was opposed to free schooling and free medial care for illegals and argued all such federal mandates need to be abolished. He wasn't for any form of amnesty whatsoever.

Ron Paul was far, far, more anti-illegal immigration than his son, and even more anti-illegal immigration than Brat (who has never mentioned anything about ending birthright citizenship).

It's certainly not true that Ron wasn't in favor of any form of amnesty. His position on that was basically the same as Rand's.

In his book, Dr. Paul sounds very much like supporters of Comprehensive Amnesty measures by talking about the impossibility of sending back home 11 million illegal aliens.

Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose "amnesty," Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between "legalization" or mass deportation. Since he says mass deportation isn't possible, he feels he has to choose some kind of legalization.

He fails to support Attrition Through Enforcement, which is the middle way supported by most anti-amnesty Members of Congress.

He would limit the legalization by perhaps not allowing the illegal aliens to ever be citizens or to vote. But they still would get to stay in the U.S. and to keep their U.S. jobs, while millions of Americans who want the jobs would have to stay unemployed.

"It could be argued that (this system) may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits -- a much better option than deportation," Rep. Paul writes on page 156.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/...s-new-book-sinks-his-immigration-grade-f.html

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You can throw shoes out when you are done with them. Not so with people. The analogy is not with free trade...

Come on, that's such a liberal statement. You are a commodity, to be bought, sold and freely-traded.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

One of the main reasons I initially supported Ron Paul was his stance on ending birthright citizenship but I am not a libertarian by any stretch.

Here's the Ron Paul I knew:

From an interview with Ron:

Please start by summarizing your position on immigration.

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders. This mess has come about for various reasons. One, the laws aren`t enforced. Another, the welfare state. We have a need for workers in this country because our welfare system literally encourages people not to work. Therefore, a lot of jobs go begging. This is an incentive for immigrants to come in and take those jobs.

It is compounded because of federal mandates on the states to provide free medical care—that`s literally bankrupting the hospitals in Texas—and free education.

So my main point is to get rid of incentives that cause people to break the law—entitlements as well as the promise of amnesty, citizenship.

I also want to revisit the whole idea of birthright citizenship. I don`t think many countries have that. I don`t think it was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment. I personally think it could be fixed by legislation. But some people argue otherwise, so I`ve covered myself by introducing a constitutional amendment.

How would legislation work?

It would define citizenship. Individuals that just stepped over the border illegally would not be technically “under the jurisdiction of the United States”. [i.e. not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment] That`s illegal entry, so they don`t deserve this privilege.

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I`m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don`t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn`t pay their mortgage .There`re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can`t be separated from concern about illegals.

How many illegal immigrants do you think there are in the country now?

All I can go by is those predictions they put in the paper. It used to be 3-4 million, then it went to 7-8 million. Now it`s 11-12 million! Does anybody know?

Bear Stearns made an estimate about three years ago that there were 20 million in the country. [The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface, Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA January 3, 2005(PDF)] What would you do with them?

I think when you know where they are, and you know they`re illegal, they should be sent back. Especially if they`re caught in a crime.

I think you have to be realistic. I mean, having an army to go around the country to round them up and put them in trucks and haul them out, that`s not feasible. But certainly if they`re signing up for a benefit, they should be sent back home, instead of given the benefit.

You`d like to restore the presumption against being a public charge?

Right. Or if they`re caught in a criminal act—rather than sending them through the court system and spending all that money and then putting them up in prison, we can get them shipped out pretty fast. Unless they are a very violent criminal.

You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who are literally don`t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.

You think there`s a role for the nation-state?

Sure. Sure. Otherwise, the vacuum is filled with international government. We won`t have a national government, we`ll have a United Nations government—and we already do, we have a WTO [World Trade Organization] government. But the problems we`re talking about, I want them to be solved by the U.S. congress and the President. I don`t want the WTO settling this dispute.

I really haven`t had much grief from the hard-core libertarians. Some who might disagree with me are not very antagonistic because they know it`s a big problem and that the lack of the free market is compounding that problem.

Has your thinking on immigration changed over the years?

I try to understand it better. I think it is a difficult issue. There`s probably only one Republican running for the presidency right now who says “No more immigrants!“ I don`t think America is like that at all. I don`t agree with that. But I don`t believe in illegal immigration. So in many ways, I`m pretty moderate and mainstream. I`m not radical either way. I don`t want to put tanks and shoot illegal immigrants as they come over, that`s one extreme. The other is totally open borders—just let them flow in.

...
What would you make of the argument that in order to be in favor of free trade you ought to be in favor of free immigration?

Well, I guess there`s a little bit to that, but I don`t think it`s an absolute. Trade is different from people coming in, especially when they get benefits and when they come in illegally. I guess you can say it`s an ideal that you could work toward.

...
Milton Friedman once told me that it was not possible to have free immigration and the welfare state—not possible to combine the two. You agree with that?

Maybe I read that somewhere! Maybe that`s where I get my views! That`s what I`ve been arguing here.

But that applies equally to legal immigration, you see. Because the taxpayer subsidies to legal immigrants from the welfare state are very high.

Yes, it is definitely imperfect when you have the welfare state. That`s right. And corporations benefit from that too.

Which can be altered first: immigration or the welfare state?

Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders and get rid of some incentives for illegals. The welfare state will disappear. But the odds are that it will disappear with a good deal of chaos because we`re going to have a financial crisis and maybe it`s already started. And then people are going to be struggling.

When our citizens see illegals using food stamps, they have to wait in line in the emergency rooms, they see illegals in our schools with bilingual education, then the resentment builds. And sometimes the resentment is out of proportion. It is my strong belief that if we had a truly free market, it would be so much healthier, that we would need a lot of people to come in and it could be done through temporary work programs. There wouldn`t be this resentment and irritation. But it should be done legally. It shouldn`t be done by rewarding anybody who breaks our laws.
...

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Did anyone capture and share the audio yet? Here's the spin put out by the Bloomberg/Norquist group:


-----

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) Joins Grover Norquist to Address Need for Immigration Reform

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 11, 2014

CONTACT
Ryan Williams (PNAE): [email protected]

Call follows last month’s teleconference with Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo

WASHINGTON DC – Today,Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Grover Norquist to talk about immigration reform and the Senator’s ideas to strengthen border security, reform existing immigration laws for employers and attempt to find common ground on smaller immigration related matters, on the second teleconference in a new monthly series hosted by the Partnership for a New American Economy and Americans for Tax Reform. Last month, the series launched with Tea Party Express Co-Founder Sal Russo and Al Cardenas, former Chairman of the American Conservative Union, expressing their support for immigration reform. The calls feature prominent conservative leaders’ perspectives on the need for reform and are moderated by Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.

“Immigration is the United States’ great competitive advantage,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. “The hardest working, brightest people in the world want to come and work and thrive here. Those were our grandparents and now they are our neighbors and future in-laws. Our nation’s immigration laws need to catch up with our opportunities. We cannot live hobbled with a 55 mph speed limit in a 75 mph nation.”

“Everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken and that simply maintaining the status quo is unacceptable and unworkable,” said John Feinblatt, Chairman of the Partnership for a New American Economy. “Today’s call with Senator Rand Paul shows strong support for fixing our outdated laws from one of the leading conservatives in Congress. Senator Paul and the majority of the American public want reform this year, and political spin over a single house district primary election does not change the reality that our immigration system is broken, hurts our economy and needs to be overhauled.”

Some Key Facts About Immigration Reform

Tea Party voters want immigration reform this year: In a national survey of 400 Republican Primary voters who identify with the Tea Party released last month by the Partnership for a New American Economy, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Tea Party Express, 71 percent said it is important that Congress act on immigration reform this year.

Kentucky voters support immigration reform: In a national survey of likely voters released last summer by the Partnership for a New American Economy, the Alliance for Citizenship, and Republicans for Immigration Reform, 73 percent of Kentucky voters said that they would support an immigration reform plan that includes a way for undocumented immigrants to achieve legal status.

Kentucky’s immigrant business owners are helping the economy: Immigrant business owners generate $451 million annually.

Many of Kentucky’s brightest students are forced to go back home after graduation: Between 2006-2010, 79.5 percent of Kentucky’s engineering PhDs were temporary residents, a group with no clear path to stay after graduation.

 

[Brett85]

I'm not meaning to bash Ron, but there have been a number of votes where Ron has voted against increased border security, including voting against putting troops along the border. That's why I consider Rand to be more conservative on the issue, even though he's obviously not a hardcore conservative on the issue.