Rand Paul "Open to Voting for Senate Immigration Bill"

[Brett85]

Taking a soft stance on immigration loses working class white voters.

I think Rand is basically taking a moderate stance, not a soft stance. He's all in favor of border security and doesn't support creating a new pathway to citizenship. He's just not in favor of sending all of those here illegally home on buses. Frankly, I think that Rand's position on this issue is at least better than Ron's. Ron went from taking a strong stance on immigration in 2008 to almost making it sound like he supported open borders in 2012. He spoke out against the border fence in a Republican primary debate, which didn't do any favors for him. Rand is taking a moderate position on this issue, but in my opinion his position on this issue is still more conservative than Ron's position.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think Rand is basically taking a moderate stance, not a soft stance. He's all in favor of border security and doesn't support creating a new pathway to citizenship. He's just not in favor of sending all of those here illegally home on buses. Frankly, I think that Rand's position on this issue is at least better than Ron's. Ron went from taking a strong stance on immigration in 2008 to almost making it sound like he supported open borders in 2012. He spoke out against the border fence in a Republican primary debate, which didn't do any favors for him. Rand is taking a moderate position on this issue, but in my opinion his position on this issue is still more conservative than Ron's position.

Did Ron ever support open borders? I was almost certain he did not.

Of course Rand's position is "More conservative." Rand is actually a conservative. Ron is not.

 

[Warlord]

Did Ron ever support open borders? I was almost certain he did not.

Of course Rand's position is "More conservative." Rand is actually a conservative. Ron is not.

Here we go again. FF bringing up Ron in Rand's subforum.. who'd have thought it.

 

[Brett85]

Did Ron ever support open borders? I was almost certain he did not.

Not in 2008, but he made it sound like he did in 2012. He spoke out against the fence in a GOP primary debate and wouldn't say what he would do to secure the border as an alternative to the fence. In the last Presidential election he never really advocated border security. He went from having a B rating to a F rating from a conservative immigration group during the 2012 Presidential campaign.

I'm not a libertarian on the immigration issue, but I'm also not on the far right either. I'm not in favor of rounding people up who are here illegally and sending them home in buses, and I'm in favor of creating a guest worker program, which I believe would help reduce the problem of illegal immigration. But, I just don't agree with libertarians who actually advocate open borders.

 

[Brett85]

Here we go again. FF bringing up Ron in Rand's subforum.. who'd have thought it.

You're not a moderator. Get over it.

 

[Southron]

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.

Romney got 27% of the Hispanic vote and Obama got 71%. Even if it had been reversed Romney would have still lost. If Republicans continue to alienate their core voters, they will never win another Presidential election.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did Ron ever support open borders? I was almost certain he did not.

Of course Rand's position is "More conservative." Rand is actually a conservative. Ron is not.

Ron disagrees with you.

 

[supermario21]

A Republican can win by squeezing out more whites for sure. Look at states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Those aren't minority heavy. Yes, Republicans won 59-60% of the white vote nationally, but only low-mid 50s in a state like Ohio and they didn't even win whites in New Hampshire and Iowa. Republicans win somehwere between 80-90% of the white vote in the south if you could believe that, it was something like 91% in Mississippi. Obama's coalition is going to be divided on things such as labor/environmental issues. The union base which is popular up in the north wants Keystone but all the other cogs of Obama's coalition are opposed to it. If Obama pisses away the northern edge of his working class coalition, then Republicans can win without dramatically increasing the Hispanic vote share. Yes, there's Florida, but even in this rock bottom Hispanic year, Romney barely lost it.

 

[Warlord]

You're not a moderator. Get over it.

Oh look. Warlord spotted you in Amash's subforum bringing up Rand with your tag team partner FF.

Who'd have thought that?

 

[Brett85]

Oh look. Warlord spotted you in Amash's subforum bringing up Rand with your tag team partner FF.

Who'd have thought that?

I guess I missed the rule that says that Amash is the only politician that can be talked about in Amash's subforum, that Rand is the politician that can be talked about in Rand's subforum, etc. For some reason I never read that in the forum rules.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Here we go again. FF bringing up Ron in Rand's subforum.. who'd have thought it.

On RON Paul Forums. And I wasn't bashing Rand with that at all, I was simply stating what I believed to be true.

Not in 2008, but he made it sound like he did in 2012. He spoke out against the fence in a GOP primary debate and wouldn't say what he would do to secure the border as an alternative to the fence. In the last Presidential election he never really advocated border security. He went from having a B rating to a F rating from a conservative immigration group during the 2012 Presidential campaign.

I'm not a libertarian on the immigration issue, but I'm also not on the far right either. I'm not in favor of rounding people up who are here illegally and sending them home in buses, and I'm in favor of creating a guest worker program, which I believe would help reduce the problem of illegal immigration. But, I just don't agree with libertarians who actually advocate open borders.

I'm pretty close to being in favor of open borders, but that's not necessarily the libertarian position. Hans Herman Hoppe didn't agree with that, and I don't believe Murray Rothbard did either. Its one of those things that libertarians can disagree on. Anarcho-capitalists (The most extreme libertarians) agree with each other on the ideal policy but not necessarily on the "Least bad one" in a world with a nation state. With minarchist libertarianism [my position] or anything more moderate than that: there's no real agreement even on the ideal policy.

I'm a bit strange in that I favor letting nearly everyone in but not letting ANYONE else vote. Then again, if you could find a way to limit voting to the Libertarian Party my only real problem with that would be pragmatic. Democracy is a phony freedom, not a real one.

Ron disagrees with you.

I suppose he's defining his terms differently than I would, which is completely fine. And then you've got that whole "libertarian = libertine" stereotype, and the false belief that libertarians have to be pro-choice, so it was probably smarter for him to just call himself a conservative. But he takes libertarian, minarchist positions on almost every if not every issue. Of course he does take positions on issues that theorists haven't necessarily figured out yet but I don't think Ron believes anything that is AGAINST libertarian theory. Granted, that's distinct from the subset of libertarianism known as "Anarchy." Remember that not all libertarians are anarchists.

 

[Warlord]

I guess I missed the rule that says that Amash is the only politician that can be talked about in Amash's subforum, that Rand is the politician that can be talked about in Rand's subforum, etc. For some reason I never read that in the forum rules.

I dont think there's a rule buddy but it's pretty obvious what you and FF are up to when you join threads in other subforums and immediately seek to drive a wedge.

You do the same thing in here with Ron and try and attack Rand with his own father.

Constantly. Every day.

Shameful.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh look. Warlord spotted you in Amash's subforum bringing up Rand with your tag team partner FF.

Who'd have thought that?

Well, if the fact that we disagree on this particular issue isn't enough, look up the 14th amendment...

We don't agree on everything. We agree with each other a lot (Heck, I probably agree with even the most moderate members here over 80% of the time) but we definitely don't agree on anything. And I wasn't bashing Rand Paul either...

 

[Brett85]

I dont think there's a rule buddy but it's pretty obvious what you and FF are up to when you join threads in other subforums and immediately seek to drive a wedge.

You do the same thing in here with Ron and try and attack Rand with his own father.

Constantly. Every day.

Shameful.

I have no problem with Rand. I criticize him when I think he's wrong and praise him when I think he's right. If you actually read this thread, you would see that I've been defending Rand's position on immigration in this thread.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I have no problem with Rand. I criticize him when I think he's wrong and praise him when I think he's right. If you actually read this thread, you would see that I've been defending Rand's position on immigration in this thread.

But that would require reading...

 

[anaconda]

Immigration Reform/Amnesty is a hot button issue like Abortion. People freak out if you give the impression that you may support it.

Rand is doing an overall great job working his talking points. From my vantage point, he appears very immigrant friendly, which is great for growing the party and attracting moderates and independents, but he will end up appealing to social conservatives because he will vote against the final bill, which will be unlikely to have sufficient border security provisions.

Rand is a genius, he came out early on support of expanding work visas and not deporting people, and took the heat for a couple of weeks, knowing this would be the case. Now the pressure is on everyone else in Congress and he's just sitting back musing at their circular firing squad while he simply repeats that he is "pro-immigration" but insists on "border security." He's been consistent and has placed himself in an optimal position on this.

 

[Warlord]

I have no problem with Rand. I criticize him when I think he's wrong and praise him when I think he's right. If you actually read this thread, you would see that I've been defending Rand's position on immigration in this thread.

You have enough of a beef with Rand to join Amash's subforum, open threads and immediately bring up Rand Paul.

 

[Brett85]

You have enough of a beef with Rand to join Amash's subforum, open threads and immediately bring up Rand Paul.

I did that once. And my point was simply that Amash seems to be more solid than Rand on the war on drugs. The only thing I've really criticized Rand on is some of his foreign policy votes and statements and some of his comments on drug policy. On everything else I've basically said that he's been great and don't really have a problem with his votes and his public statements.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Did Ron ever support open borders? I was almost certain he did not.

Of course Rand's position is "More conservative." Rand is actually a conservative. Ron is not.

Ron said free and open trade and travel is the goal, and that there is no reason not to move in that direction immediately in response to a question about open borders at a New Hampshire rally.

 

[Warlord]

I did that once. And my point was simply that Amash seems to be more solid than Rand on the war on drugs. The only thing I've really criticized Rand on is some of his foreign policy votes and statements and some of his comments on drug policy. On everything else I've basically said that he's been great and don't really have a problem with his votes and his public statements.

Why can't you open it and talk about the war on drugs or Justin Amash without bringing up Rand?

Obsessed much?