Rand on immigration w/Norquist-Bloomberg 6/11

[Brian4Liberty]

I'd say the same about libertarians. Whose rights does an immigrant violate which requires the state to violate the NAP, "defensively"? Not directed at you Feeding, I know your on the good side.

Well, it depends upon the individual who is calling themselves a "libertarian". Probably more people call themselves "libertarian" than are actually members of the Libertarian Party. Bill Maher and Sean Hannity have both called themselves "libertarian" at times.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

That's a pretty exaggerated claim from my perspective, as I've heard literally nothing about immigrants for a few months.

It's probably better for a person's sanity to avoid the mainstream media and right wing radio.

But actually, this has been a huge issue in the past couple of weeks, and it probably helped Dave Brat win his election.

The following thread has some current events buried in there somewhere:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...bama-encouraging-aliens-to-invade-U-S-borders!

 

[nayjevin]

It's probably better for a person's sanity to avoid the mainstream media and right wing radio.

But actually, this has been a huge issue in the past couple of weeks, and it probably helped Dave Brat win his election.

The following thread has some current events buried in there somewhere:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...bama-encouraging-aliens-to-invade-U-S-borders!

I thought that might be true, but my finger is not on the pulse of professional narrative drivers, social engineers, story creators, and spin doctors.

 

[nayjevin]

The idea that Rand is Mr. "Let's Compromise on Amnesty" is out there

True

and it isn't anybody's fault but his own that is the case.

False. He says if you want immigration reform you have to compromise. He does not say 'I am Mr. Let's Compromise on Amnesty.'

He's being lumped in to the same pile as Rubio, Graham, Cantor, and Boehner on this issue and if there is some reason he thinks that isn't fair then he needs to come out and explain in plain terms why that is the case and what his actual position really is.

That's what he's doing by giving interviews. People will misinterpret it and spin it no matter what he says. Give it some time and lay off 'the sky is falling' posts.

 

[nayjevin]

Your moderation has gone over the top the past few days. Take a chill pill.

Over the top does not give me anything to improve upon. Too vague. Report posts and make a case that I didn't uphold a guideline, or that a guideline wasn't broken.

 

[nayjevin]

Rand Paul press release on immigration:

I will not let sloppy journalists characterize my position as “amnesty.” It is simply untrue.
READ: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/12/Op-Ed-Secure-the-Border …

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453843-Rand-Paul-Press-Release-on-Immigration-(6-12)

 

[r3volution 3.0]

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

Would you elaborate?

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.

Invasion? That's an abuse of the English language. These people are not a military force or threat. They are not here to annex territory. They are not here to rape and pillage. They are people crossing an imaginary line in the desert in hopes of picking fruit.

Mass third world immigration turns mass areas of the United States in to third world enclaves.

How so?

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.

It lowers wages in some industries, while lowering prices for consumers: just like the importation of cheap foreign goods.

Banning the import of cheap foreign goods/labor screws consumers for the benefit of uncompetitive American workers.

Are you opposed to free trade generally, or only in the case of labor?

If banning the import of labor is a good idea at the federal level, why not at the state level? Should Maryland ban Virginians from entering Maryland to work? If it's a good idea at the state level, why not at the county level, the municipal level, etc?

 

[Todd]

I'm sure others have thought the same thing....

but someone needs to remind Rand why Eric Cantor got his ass handed to him yesterday

 

[Carlybee]

Would you elaborate?



Invasion? That's an abuse of the English language. These people are not a military force or threat. They are not here to annex territory. They are not here to rape and pillage. They are people crossing an imaginary line in the desert in hopes of picking fruit.



How so?



It lowers wages in some industries, while lowering prices for consumers: just like the importation of cheap foreign goods.

Banning the import of cheap foreign goods/labor screws consumers for the benefit of uncompetitive American workers.

Are you opposed to free trade generally, or only in the case of labor?

If banning the import of labor is a good idea at the federal level, why not at the state level? Should Maryland ban Virginians from entering Maryland to work? If it's a good idea at the state level, why not at the county level, the municipal level, etc?

Have you not read anything about what's going on? It is an invasion. Drug cartels have control of the border. The US is looking the other way. It is unconstitutional that the government is not securing the border. This is no longer just poor people coming here for jobs. It is a full fledged tsunami of criminals coming over.

 

[CaptUSA]

Would you elaborate?
Invasion? That's an abuse of the English language. These people are not a military force or threat. They are not here to annex territory. They are not here to rape and pillage. They are people crossing an imaginary line in the desert in hopes of picking fruit.

I used to think that, too. However, I'm starting to question whether there is a concerted effort to flood our system to the breaking point.

Forget what you think for a second and consider this: Let's say country A is so powerful that it cannot be defeated through a normal invasion. But if you are a leader of a threatened country B, you can tell your citizens that they will get free stuff if they move to country A, knowing that country A cannot withstand it. Wouldn't that be an invasion of another sort? The Mongols used to fling the diseased bodies of the dead over castle walls - could this be another strategy?

I'm not entirely convinced this is what's happening, but I am beginning to think it may be a possible reality. If that's the case, then the real way to solve this is to stop giving out free shit. To anyone.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I used to think that, too. However, I'm starting to question whether there is a concerted effort to flood our system to the breaking point.

Forget what you think for a second and consider this: Let's say country A is so powerful that it cannot be defeated through a normal invasion. But if you are a leader of a threatened country B, you can tell your citizens that they will get free stuff if they move to country A, knowing that country A cannot withstand it. Wouldn't that be an invasion of another sort? The Mongols used to fling the diseased bodies of the dead over castle walls - could this be another strategy?

I'm not entirely convinced this is what's happening, but I am beginning to think it may be a possible reality. If that's the case, then the real way to solve this is to stop giving out free shit. To anyone.

Whether such a plan exists or not (it might well), the solution as you say is to deny immigrants welfare, not deny them entry.

Obviously, there should be no welfare for anyone, but that's politically impossible at the moment.

Whereas, it's completely doable politically to deny immigrants welfare.

Likewise with the vote.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Have you not read anything about what's going on? It is an invasion. Drug cartels have control of the border.

Which is the fault of immigration? No, that would be the fault of drug prohibition, and will not change until drug prohibition is ended.

The US is looking the other way. It is unconstitutional that the government is not securing the border. This is no longer just poor people coming here for jobs. It is a full fledged tsunami of criminals coming over.

No doubt there are criminals amongst the immigrants, but how many? Do you have statistics? What percentage of immigrants are criminals?

 

[CaptUSA]

Whereas, it's completely doable politically to deny immigrants welfare.

But it's more than just welfare. It's health care, it's education... It is not politically doable to stop any of it, unfortunately.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Hannity, Levin and Savage have been waiting for an excuse to turn on Rand. We'll see what happens now.

Just listened to a little bit of Pat and Stu (sitting in on Glenn Beck show). They just said that Marco Rubio is now better than Rand on immigration. You could see that one coming a mile away.

Of course one of those two has always been a neoconservative (was it Pat or Stu?), so it's not a surprise.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

But it's more than just welfare. It's health care, it's education...

That's all welfare to my mind.

It is not politically doable to stop any of it, unfortunately.

Well, I hope you're wrong.

The following, I think, is doable:

1. overkill border security
2. unlimited work visas
3. no welfare for first generation
4. no vote for first generation

Aside from the know-nothing fringe, I can see most GOPers getting behind this. Think about how you would sell this platform to voters. You could use nationalism (welfare and the vote for Americans only! USA! USA! ), boost your national defense cred (put a ridiculous amount of soldiers on the border, WW1 style trenches for the photo-ops, looking steely eyed at the horizon...), and that peculiar blend of racism and rugged individualism prevalent in the GOP (no more food stamps for your beans Jose! ). The right politician could have a field day with this. And at the slightly more sophisticated level, by making the rational economic case, you'd win over the beltway libertarians, the Steve Forbeses, etc. Not to mention the interest groups that want that cheap labor. It's a winner IMO.

P.S. I might add, this could be cleverly tied in with non-interventionism, as part of a broader "fortress America" approach.

 

[Carlybee]

Which is the fault of immigration? No, that would be the fault of drug prohibition, and will not change until drug prohibition is ended.



No doubt there are criminals amongst the immigrants, but how many? Do you have statistics? What percentage of immigrants are criminals?

Until the drug war ends the government has a constitutional obligation to secure our borders from invasion. They won't let us do it ourselves.

This is a link with some statistics but does not have this most recent incursion being allowed and encouraged by the administration. http://cpwp.swehes.com/illegal-alien-crime-and-violence-by-the-numbers-were-all-victims/

 

[compromise]

Who cares about the Pat Buchanan crowd and NumbersUSA? They do not win presidential elections.

If either Allen West, Jeff Sessions or Steve King run, he will lose, just like every other anti-immigration candidate (Cain, Bachmann, Tancredo, Hunter). Their candidate likely won't break 3rd. If Rand wants to win he has to move beyond the hardcore Bachmann fans and go for the Romney and Bush voters.

 

[Carlybee]

Who cares about the Pat Buchanan crowd and NumbersUSA? They do not win presidential elections.

If either Allen West, Jeff Sessions or Steve King run, he will lose, just like every other anti-immigration candidate (Cain, Bachmann, Tancredo, Hunter). Their candidate likely won't break 3rd. If Rand wants to win he has to move beyond the hardcore Bachmann fans and go for the Romney and Bush voters.

Yeah and who cares about the victims of these illegal alien criminals.....let them eat cake. So what if their tax dollars pay for them to be robbed, raped or murdered....ingrates.

 

[Brett85]

Apparently not since he seems to talk about no amnesty.

No, Cruz just opposes citizenship for illegals. He supports giving all of them a legal status. He opposes deportation and self deportation.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/09/13/immigration-cruz-aims-middle-ground/

“I have said many times that I want to see common-sense immigration reform pass,” he said. “I think most Americans want to see the problem fixed.”

What Cruz has tried to articulate in both word and deed is a middle ground. It got no support from Democrats in Washington, but it goes further than many on the far right want to go by offering leniency to undocumented immigrants here already: A path to legal status, but not to citizenship. A green card with no right to naturalization.

Immigration-reform legislation from the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight passed that chamber in June and includes a 13-year path to citizenship. Cruz pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would have, among other things, eliminated the citizenship component.

Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.

“The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.

 

[compromise]

Yeah and who cares about the victims of these illegal alien criminals.....let them eat cake. So what if their tax dollars pay for them to be robbed, raped or murdered....ingrates.

Do you seriously think that people who come to the United States through unofficial routes want to rob, rape and murder you? Most of them just want to achieve the American dream they've heard so much about in their homelands.