Rand Paul Opposes Amnesty and Believes We Must Secure The Border While Encouraging Legal Immig

[phill4paul]

Added to that- no more catch and release, and mandatory prison sentences for those that get deported once (with the free plane ticket) and then get caught entering illegally again.

Awesome. I'm glad your a taxpayer.

 

[phill4paul]

Well, in that case, since you are not banned, we can safely conclude (by your own "logic") that you do not tell too much truth.

Good to know. Thanks for the heads-up ...

Heads-up? Head shot, BOOM.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Sorry. You're out of luck. Trump flip flopped on that. Now he wants his wall built with a 'big, beautiful door' by which he will let all the people he just deported right back in.

He said so on CBS Sunday morning. With millions watching.

What he said was that he wanted the illegals to come back legally. As a practical matter, because of current immigration law quotas, most would die long before they'd get off the wait list for the legal immigration track.

 

[erowe1]

What he said was that he wanted the illegals to come back legally. As a practical matter, because of current immigration law quotas, most would die long before they'd get off the wait list for the legal immigration track.

What do you think is the likelihood that Trump knows anything about that?

 

[Ayn Freidman]

I believe that we need a mix of a closed and open border. We need strong border security to protect against people with dangerous intentions (such as terrorism) and I think that people need to be checked for any diseases that could be potentially dangerous to people near the immigrant, but anything more than that? If someone poses no danger to other people and is here to become an addition to society, why stop them? Why not just let them in?

 

[derek4ever]

What is Rand's position on those 4.5 million immigrants that are in the backlog?

 

[RandPaul4Prez]

I like trumps plan, but I believe the illegals should pay a hefty fine before they are given the boot.

 

[derek4ever]

I'd like to see what would be the best idea to deal with the 4 million legal immigrants who are waiting in line and are part of the immigration backlog. This is another class of immigrants we're talking about here, since they're in line and did their paper work. :o

 

[dusman]

I'd like some thoughts on the following idea.. it gets complicated with our stance against the IRS and the Tax Code, obviously. My main objection is it would give ICE more authority and gives government more intrusion into business affairs.

Revocation of All Deductions, Credits and Subsidies - If any business is found to be hiring workers with no legal status, all expense deductions, tax credits and government subsidies are revoked. Tax liability is then adjusted accordingly without factoring these three elements that reduce liability. Companies violating this provision would be given one year to demonstrate that they have removed illegal workers and if they have been found not in compliance, the above revocations go into effect that next tax year. This is so business isn't entirely crippled by needing to respond immediately and allows time to transition their business model to hire legal workers. They would then be subject to random reviews up to 3-5 years.

Reporting Illegal Hiring Program - Could something not be modeled around the anti-piracy programs? With those, employees are given a way to anonymously report illegal piracy and if the offending company is found to have broken license agreements via piracy, the employee who reported the activity is given a monetary reward. I feel this could be adopted in illegal hiring practices too. Perhaps it comes as a tax credit?

-------

Employee reporting serves to identify violations, ICE follows up and imposes the 1 year probation period on violations and then conducts a review the next year. By cutting off employment opportunity, it should cause self-deportation. This avoids the government needing to deport millions of illegal immigrants by force, while also not accepting amnesty as the only option. The risk of paying full tax liability with no deductions, credits, or subsidies is aggressive enough to discourage these hiring practices, but also doesn't impose the penalty immediately and provides an "amnesty" period of 1 year for businesses to correct the violation.

IMO, it's more cost-effective than a wall and also removes most of the benefits of jumping the border in the first place.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, in that case, since you are not banned, we can safely conclude (by your own "logic") that you do not tell too much truth.

Good to know. Thanks for the heads-up ...

Well, I think DFF got the last laugh in the end.

DFF
DFF is offline
Banned

 

[Occam's Banana]

Well, I think DFF got the last laugh in the end [because DFF is now banned].

Only if you don't understand the fallacy of affirming the consequent (which was my point about DFF's "logic" to begin with).

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Only if you don't understand the fallacy of affirming the consequent (which was my point about DFF's "logic" to begin with).

I wasn't claiming that what he said was logical, nor that I agree with it. Obviously! Just noticing a funny coincidence.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I wasn't claiming that what he said was logical, nor that I agree with it. Obviously! Just noticing a funny coincidence.

 

[merkelstan]

Being libertarian and nationalist is somewhat at odds.

 

[AuH20]

Being libertarian and nationalist is somewhat at odds.

Not in 2017.

 

[merkelstan]

Not in 2017.

It's pretty complicated. Libertarians are supposed to judge people as individuals. Nationalists judge, at least partially, by ethnic groups.

 

[AuH20]

It's pretty complicated. Libertarians are supposed to judge people as individuals. Nationalists judge, at least partially, by ethnic groups.

Globalism is swallowing up nations at an alarming rate. Even libertarians prefer a smaller pond.

 

[phill4paul]

Globalism is swallowing up nations at an alarming rate. Even libertarians prefer a smaller pond.

My "smaller pond" doesn't require more Federal Government involvement. I don't particularly care to trade one for the other.