Rand Paul to outline immigration policy platform on Tuesday 3/19

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I loved the speech and I'm extremely anti-amnesty and mass immigration (even though I am Hispanic).

 

[supermario21]

Rand's speech will be discussed on FOX in the next segment.

 

[Brett85]

I'm an immigration hardliner but there is just no way out of this mess for us. Sadly.

Me too. But unfortunately the time to be an immigration hardliner was when we had 2 million illegal immigrants and had a small number of Latino voters here in the U.S. Now that we have 11 million illegal immigrants and a growing population of Latino voters, it's basically impossible to be an immigration hard liner. The cat has already been let out of the bag.

 

[AuH20]

Me too. But unfortunately the time to be an immigration hardliner was when we had 2 million illegal immigrants and had a small number of Latino voters here in the U.S. Now that we have 11 million illegal immigrants and a growing population of Latino voters, it's basically impossible to be an immigration hard liner. The cat has already been let out of the bag.

I think the numbers are much higher than that.

 

[Varin]

Erick Erickson claims that Rand offered no path to citizenship.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/19/...ds-more-into-rand-pauls-speech-than-is-there/

 

[Brett85]

The thing about it is that even without amnesty or a path to citizenship, eventually Latinos are going to become the majority race in America because of the fact that 1 million of them are coming here legally each year, and they give birth at a faster pace than whites and are growing much more rapidly. So allowing the illegals who are here to become citizens really won't make any difference in the long run. Eventually hispanics are going to become the majority race in America even without an amnesty.

 

[AuH20]

This is what I would have released as a statement:

"America is a nation of immigrants, but America was founded upon the rule of law. There isn't a silver bullet to rectify this complex problem."

End of statement. Safely punted away. There wasn't any reason to grovel with a speech like this. Democrats are going to ridicule him as racist regardless of what he does. That's all they know how to do.

 

[eating_nachos]

The thing about it is that even without amnesty or a path to citizenship, eventually Latinos are going to become the majority race in America because of the fact that 1 million of them are coming here legally each year, and they give birth at a faster pace than whites and are growing much more rapidly. So allowing the illegals who are here to become citizens really won't make any difference in the long run. Eventually hispanics are going to become the majority race in America even without an amnesty.

So, you're plan is to just give up? How very courageous of you.

 

[AuH20]

The thing about it is that even without amnesty or a path to citizenship, eventually Latinos are going to become the majority race in America because of the fact that 1 million of them are coming here legally each year, and they give birth at a faster pace than whites and are growing much more rapidly. So allowing the illegals who are here to become citizens really won't make any difference in the long run. Eventually hispanics are going to become the majority race in America even without an amnesty.

The final nail in the coffin so to speak. The core nails were laid in 1913 and later in the 1930s, and now thanks to our wonderful, rigged "democracy" the cofffin will be officially nailed shut. If Texas ever goes blue, I will likely reolcate to the North Pole. I hope to God that America separates by then.

 

[No Free Beer]

For anyone who is very much against some sort of immigration plan, I ask you this: Have you ever dealt with our immigration process?

My wife did an internship program for a German College student. She needed a J1 visa to come to this country to be able to legally stay for 6 months. She was not going to earn one red cent above room and board.

It took countless hours, home inspections, work place inspections & interviews. It took a couple grand in fees. At the end of the day I’d say it took 80 hours AND $1k. It took at least twice that from her. It would have been dramatically cheaper for us/her to have flown home in the middle of her internship (since you legally can be here 3 months) get her passport stamped and turn right around and fly back. It also would have been dramatically cheaper for us/her to have flown into Canada or Mexico. Come across the border for 3 months and then get re-stamped back in another country.

All I can say is after dealing with the bureaucracy that is our immigration system that if my kids were starving and there was a job north of a fence. I’d be the first one over that damn thing. Prior to that experience I would have been one of the ones yelling the loudest about building a taller fence.

Point being right now we have a terribly ineffective immigration policy in that we really don’t have one. I look forward to some constructive way to make it easier for those who want to come or go and a way for those that are already here to stay because you’re not going to get rid of them.

That justifies amnesty?

 

[abacabb]

This is what I would have released as a statement:

"America is a nation of immigrants, but America was founded upon the rule of law. There isn't a silver bullet to rectify this complex problem."

End of statement. Safely punted away. There wasn't any reason to grovel with a speech like this. Democrats are going to ridicule him as racist regardless of what he does. That's all they know how to do.

I agree, it's hardly a tactful political move. Simply a plan to secure the border and cut out welfare would help win a Republican primary. Sucking up to illegals isn't going to win elections. We need to appeal to second generation and above, because they will actually have some skin in the game in this country. They don't want tidal waves of immigrants taking their jobs and ruining their schools.

We don't need to deport you, but if you came here illegally, we don't need to legally recognize you either. The argument to give anyone working status is simply to tax them and to aggressively go after people without status, such as criminals and terrorists. This stance doesn't bode well for civil liberties.

Easier just to let illegals exist in a gray area and to do everything possible to secure the borders north and south, and to cut out welfare.

If we have to recognize immigrants A "Pathway to Paying Taxes" is what should have been the proposal. We are playing into the Democrats hands and Pat Buchanan's racist theories of civilization will only be proven right.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I thought it was a fine and intelligent speech.

Now one clarification: he is not proposing giving the "illegal" (under an illegal "law", that is, non-law) immigrants citizenship, but rather giving them work visas. Of course, issuing visas of any kind, much less requiring them, is utterly unconstitutional, and thus illegal, and thus null and void. So Rand is calling here for the violation of the US Constitution. But, it's being violated right now already. His plan would be a step in the correct direction -- that is, towards liberty.

 

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

That justifies amnesty?

I don't see anything about amnesty in Rand's speech. What he's advocating is securing the border and granting temporary work visas. His speech never mentioned a blanket amnesty or automatic citizenship. I imagine his detailed plan will have a lot of conditions, such as paying a fine, background check and probationary period before a green card is given.

and what jbauer said had nothing to do with amnesty, he was talking about making the visa and immigration system easier and less costly.

 

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I thought it was a fine and intelligent speech.

Now one clarification: he is not proposing giving the "illegal" (under an illegal "law", that is, non-law) immigrants citizenship, but rather giving them work visas. Of course, issuing visas of any kind, much less requiring them, is utterly unconstitutional, and thus illegal, and thus null and void. So Rand is calling here for the violation of the US Constitution. But, it's being violated right now already. His plan would be a step in the correct direction -- that is, towards liberty.

How are visas unconstitutional? The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over naturalization, and visas are a part of that. Are you saying that "permanent residence" before citizenship is also unconstitutional?

 

[Brett85]

So, you're plan is to just give up? How very courageous of you.

Not give up, but just create a conservative comprehensive immigration proposal like Rand is proposing.

 

[Brett85]

I thought it was a fine and intelligent speech.

Now one clarification: he is not proposing giving the "illegal" (under an illegal "law", that is, non-law) immigrants citizenship, but rather giving them work visas.

I think he is to some extent. His plan is that the illegal immigrants who get work visas should have to go to the back of the line before they can become citizens. But he would still allow them to become citizens without returning to their home country. It's just that it would basically be like a ten year process since they couldn't become citizens before the legal immigrants already applying for citizenship.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

How are visas unconstitutional? The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over naturalization, and visas are a part of that. Are you saying that "permanent residence" before citizenship is also unconstitutional?

Setting rules of naturalization -- determining who can become a citizen and what process they must go through -- is a power delegated to the US federal government.

Making laws regarding peaceful immigration of ordinary civilians is not a power delegated to the US federal government. It was not delegated. It's not on the list of things they can do. Thus, they can't do it. Here's the list:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.​

It's not there. Item 4 is not about travel, neither permanent nor temporary. It's not about moving. It's not about immigration. It's about citizenship.

Congress shall make no law, except those the Constitution tells them they may make. Congress shall make no law respecting the immigration nor emigration of individuals, nor abridging the freedom to do so. That is, of course, why they didn't make any such law for about the first 100 years after the Constitution. They didn't have the authority. They still don't.

If people, perhaps such as yourself, now think that they ought to have that power, then they should amend the Constitution to give them that power. They should not merely trash the Constitution and encourage Congress to make laws regarding whatever suits their fancy.

 

[cheapseats]

Call a spade a spade, a path to Citizenship for someone who is here illegally IS a path to Amnesty.

"Broaden the base" in debt ceiling/tax increase talks has always been code for Amnesty For Illegals.

Who will mainly vote Democratic . . . to get all the stuff that sub-subsistence wages just don't buy.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yep. At least he isn't standing up there with McCain, Graham, Rubio and Flake proposing amnesty. But it could be perceived that way if he is not very careful. Or the neo-conservatives could turn it around and label Rand the amnesty guy in the GOP.

Lol! Just saw an extended segment on Fox about Rand's immigration speech. They did it. Here is a summary:

- the Jeb Bush plan is much tougher and is not amnesty.
- the "bipartisan" plan (ie, McCain, Graham, Rubio and friends) is much tougher and is not amnesty. (And they didn't name who was on the committee. Rubio is now safely disassociated.)
- Rand Paul said "default amnesty"! He's for amnesty! We tried that with Reagan, and it didn't work!


Rand may have stepped in it on this one. Where's that Star Wars "it's a trap" picture?

 

[No Free Beer]

I don't see anything about amnesty in Rand's speech. What he's advocating is securing the border and granting temporary work visas. His speech never mentioned a blanket amnesty or automatic citizenship. I imagine his detailed plan will have a lot of conditions, such as paying a fine, background check and probationary period before a green card is given.

and what jbauer said had nothing to do with amnesty, he was talking about making the visa and immigration system easier and less costly.

Unless I am not understanding correctly,

he is saying we should provide temporary visas until they become citizens. Where in his speech did he mention fines?