Rand Paul "Open to Voting for Senate Immigration Bill"

[LibertyEagle]

That's fine. As a libertarian, I support free travel and migration across borders as well as amnesty.

That's nice and all, but you are not speaking for libertarianism. There are a whole lot of libertarians who are not for amnesty; nor open borders, especially as long as we have the welfare state.

 

[LibertyEagle]

People that would normally support Rand Paul are leery of him because he is "open to immigration reform ..." The "if ..." part doesn't matter because Rand Paul just invoked a emotional response and logic flies out the window.

You are going to have to deal with it, Frank. The voting public is much larger than just these people. Explain it to them and while you are doing that, try your best not to further the false meme.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is not representative of the American Hispanic community to put it mildly...It speaks for cheap labor interests more than anything else. This is what was so troubling about Rand's immigration speech, even more troubling than the contents of it.

When Obama gave his major speech on immigration reform he went to Las Vegas public school, full of sweet little Mexican children. Now, that's how you do PR.

I don't have a problem with businesses doing their best to hire "cheap labor", as long as they are required to pay the same crappy taxes as we are.

What I do have a problem with is giving welfare to anyone, much less illegal aliens, whether that be free healthcare, free schooling, or whatever and certainly not amnesty. I agree with Ron on this. Cut off the handouts and the biggest part of the problem will disappear.

 

[FrankRep]

You are going to have to deal with it, Frank. The voting public is much larger than just these people. Explain it to them and while you are doing that, try your best not to further the false meme.

"Rand Paul's Support Just Dropped" is not a false meme.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

"Rand Paul's Support Just Dropped" is not a false meme.

Some article comes out and now the soft support all bails? Doubt it. He's been in front of huge audiences talking about what exactly his kind of reform is so this is no surprise. Currently, he's trying to network with other Senators by playing positive yet ultimately trying to build concessions for true border security, among other things. If he doesn't get his way, he votes no as the bill would be crapola.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's nice and all, but you are not speaking for libertarianism. There are a whole lot of libertarians who are not for amnesty; nor open borders, especially as long as we have the welfare state.

Honestly, I think that's a utilitarian consideration more than a libertarian one, and besides, don't libertarians want to get rid of the welfare state? Isn't overloading it kind of a back door way of destroying it? Imagine if we had 20 senators who would vote for all of this stuff, LOWERING the SS retirement age, exc. but would block every tax increase and would always vote for tax cuts. How long would the system last? IMHO any attempt to delay the destruction of the welfare/warfare state is unlibertarian.

That said, even though I disagree with your argument, you are 100% correct that immigration is an issue libertarians can disagree upon. Ron Paul is basically the man who made me a libertarian, and I ended up disagreeing with him on this one, but it also doesn't really matter to me all that much as far as it goes.

That's dishonest of you Frank to snip my post like that. Here's what I said again.

Those were my thoughts exactly. "I'll support immigration reform as long as you take the core of it out." I don't understand the point of the

Ron Paul said he'd support immigration reform if it included getting rid of the welfare state. And as others have pointed out, Ron said he'd support John McCain or Mitt Romney if they totally changed their platforms.

Regardless, it what you really care about is Rand's electability you should applaud this move. He has effectively outflanked Marco Rubio who is his only real competition at this point. If Chris Christie jumps in the race, he will hardly be a factor in courting conservatives with his whole "Praise be Obama for helping with Sandy" grovelling.

As much as I hate Christie, and even the thought of standing next to a mass murderer, I don't really think that particular smear had any validity.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The vast majority of Americans support the general concept of immigration reform, although they may not support the Gang of Eight Bill.

I've seen polls that show that close to 50% of Republicans support a path to citizenship.

Pure propaganda and brainwashing. The Dems (and corporatists) have pushed this immigration agenda for the last 15 years at a minimum. In the past five years, the left has stepped the propaganda up to a fever pitch, equating any opposition with being racist. A dishonest and despicable tactic. After the last election, the establishment in the GOP has even jumped on that bandwagon.

There is not as much support for amnesty or reform as is spewed by the media. What has happened is a propaganda campaign that denounces all opposition as nearly criminal, and attempts to shame any political discourse. It has been very successful.

Many on the right would like to see current immigration law enforced, no "reform" necessary. What we have is lack of enforcement. And this is not some "white racist" issue. There are plenty of Americans of all races and ethnicities that are opposed to massive immigration and amnesty.

Will those "vast majority of people" be voting in the Republican Primary? Nope.

That.

GOP voters have held their noses when voting for GOP candidates that support amnesty. And on top of that, there are those who have been (purposely?) deluded into thinking that Dems will suddenly vote for the GOP if only the GOP candidate will support amnesty. Only a fool would believe that. Dems will only keep pushing their global Marxism, and will laugh at the foolish Republicans that fell for their tricks.

 

[FrankRep]

I've seen polls that show that close to 50% of Republicans support a path to citizenship.

Share those polls please because I question those statistics.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Share those polls please because I question those statistics.

Here's one for you. http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/04/april-2013-religion-politics-tracking-survey/

This one is probably the most pro-ptc, but there are others that aren't far off.

 

[LibertyEagle]

"Rand Paul's Support Just Dropped" is not a false meme.

And you are doing your part to further it, eh Frank?

 

[Brett85]

Share those polls please because I question those statistics.

Well, there's this one towards the bottom of the page, although it does just say "stay in the country legally" rather than mention "citizenship." But, some of the other polls on the top of the page show about 70-80% support for a path to citizenship overall. I'm not saying that I support a path to citizenship either, just that it's stupid politically to take a hardline stance on immigration in this political climate.

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

"Which comes closer to your view about how to handle immigrants who are now living in the U.S. illegally? They should not be allowed to stay in the country legally. There should be a way for those who meet certain requirements to stay in the country legally."


NOT stay Stay Unsure/
Refused
% % %
ALL
27 71 2
Republicans
34 64 2
Democrats
21 76 3
Independents
29 70 2

 

[Brett85]

Oh, and the Fox News poll below that one has 63% among Republicans for a path to citizenship. Granted, a lot of it just depends on how the question is worded.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

There is currently a legal path to citizenship. Many people use it.

Why is nearly everyone conceding to this false premise that everything is broken, and needs to be fixed? The current process and laws are abused and unenforced. There is no reason to believe that future laws would be any better. As a matter of fact, the way in which this Gang of Eight Bill has been written, it is guaranteed to be much worse.

 

[Brett85]

There is currently a legal path to citizenship. Many people use it.

What Rand has been saying is simply that those who are here illegally should be allowed to get in the back of the line of the path that already exists, that no new pathway to citizenship should be created for those here illegally. I don't necessarily see a problem with that, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There is currently a legal path to citizenship. Many people use it.

Why is nearly everyone conceding to this false premise that everything is broken, and needs to be fixed? The current process and laws are abused and unenforced. There is no reason to believe that future laws would be any better. As a matter of fact, the way in which this Gang of Eight Bill has been written, it is guaranteed to be much worse.

There are several things that need to be fixed. For one, it shouldn't take a person TEN YEARS to get citizenship after they have already been approved for it. It's ridiculous.

Now, as far as illegal aliens go, if I could, I would send every one of them back from whence they came. I damn sure wouldn't give them any kind of amnesty and I don't think Rand wants to give them amnesty, either.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There are several things that need to be fixed. For one, it shouldn't take a person TEN YEARS to get citizenship after they have already been approved for it. It's ridiculous.

Now, as far as illegal aliens go, if I could, I would send every one of them back from whence they came. I damn sure wouldn't give them any kind of amnesty and I don't think Rand wants to give them amnesty, either.

Good luck sending everyone back on a tax rate of (Being super generous here, anyone who wants more than this is DEFINITELY not a libertarian or even a conservative for that matter) 15% or lower (In my opinion, three times or more lower, but then, I'm closer to the hardline libertarian position moreso than the moderate libertarian or paleoconservative position on government.)

Rand does support some type of amnesty: he just doesn't support making them able to get citizenship faster. I'd go one step further and not let ANYONE have citizenship because that means giving them the right to vote (ie, to demand money from me at gunpoint) and access to welfare.

 

[Brett85]

Now, as far as illegal aliens go, if I could, I would send every one of them back from whence they came.

There's still a group of Republican voters that have that position, but that position is a non starter for anyone running for President. Romney ran on a less hardline position of simply supporting "self deportation" and only won 29% of the Hispanic vote. Rand realizes that in order to win a general election he can't take a hardline stance on this issue and alienate Hispanic voters, so he's correctly taking a moderate to center-right position on this issue in order to give him a chance to win a general election. Even if his position hurts him in the primary, I think he just figures that there's no point of winning the primary if he can't win a general election. And yes, he is taking a position that some people view as "amnesty," although I wouldn't call it that.

 

[supermario21]

I just think that Rubio already is the target for immigration. Many of the guys running are going to support immigration reform in one way or another anyways so Rand doesn't have much to lose here by taking a middle ground. The only thing worrisome is we could have a guy like Santorum run right on immigration.

 

[Southron]

There's still a group of Republican voters that have that position, but that position is a non starter for anyone running for President. Romney ran on a less hardline position of simply supporting "self deportation" and only won 29% of the Hispanic vote. Rand realizes that in order to win a general election he can't take a hardline stance on this issue and alienate Hispanic voters, so he's correctly taking a moderate to center-right position on this issue in order to give him a chance to win a general election. Even if his position hurts him in the primary, I think he just figures that there's no point of winning the primary if he can't win a general election. And yes, he is taking a position that some people view as "amnesty," although I wouldn't call it that.

I don't think you need the Hispanic vote to win. Romney would have lost even if he had Obama's Hispanic vote percentage, which no Republican has ever accomplished to my knowledge. It's much easier to concentrate on the working class white vote. Taking a soft stance on immigration loses working class white voters.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

I don't think you need the Hispanic vote to win. Romney would have lost even if he had Obama's Hispanic vote percentage, which no Republican has ever accomplished to my knowledge. It's much easier to concentrate on the working class white vote. Taking a soft stance on immigration loses working class white voters.

Isn't the population of working class whites shrinking while the number of Hispanics continues to rise, though? Can't just appeal to the White Anglo Saxon Protestant vote and hope that'll clinch it. Not saying that's what you said, but considering how much the minority vote played into helping Obama- doesn't help that the Republicans are alienating them- taking a stance that doesn't go against his principles, but garners attention from Hispanics could help.