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

[lib3rtarian]

Anyone have a full video of the speech yet? I have only seen small clips so far.

 

[puppetmaster]

All the illegals I know that play on my futbol team work and don't have any kids. They do pay half for groceries because you can find someone on welfare to buy list of stuff and they pay that person cash. Prob about 15 live in a house and they are from Honduras. They send money to Honduras because they said that money has 20 times purchasing power. They save money in Honduras for 5 years and go back to live like Kings. Just my take.

This is typical.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I agree that preserving our culture is important, if it's a worthwhile culture. I think one worthwhile part of our culture is following the Constitution. Shouldn't showing respect to the Constitution, and the principles of human liberty it represents, be a part of our culture we work to preserve? Isn't that part of American culture? Is it worth it to trash that part of the culture in order to preserve the racial aspect of the culture? Which is more important: rule of law, or being surrounded by whites?

 

[cheapseats]

All the illegals I know that play on my futbol team work and don't have any kids. They do pay half for groceries because you can find someone on welfare to buy list of stuff and they pay that person cash. Prob about 15 live in a house and they are from Honduras. They send money to Honduras because they said that money has 20 times purchasing power. They save money in Honduras for 5 years and go back to live like Kings. Just my take.

This is typical.

It is common even among illegal immigrants who are married with children, to send money "home" while reaping all manner of "free" stateside benefits.

They go "home" on VACATIONS. They are less fearful of travel than I am.

 

[eating_nachos]

I agree that preserving our culture is important, if it's a worthwhile culture. I think one worthwhile part of our culture is following the Constitution. Shouldn't showing respect to the Constitution, and the principles of human liberty it represents, be a part of our culture we work to preserve? Isn't that part of American culture? Is it worth it to trash that part of the culture in order to preserve the racial aspect of the culture? Which is more important: rule of law, or being surrounded by whites?

Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.

 

[AlexAmore]

So, you're for cheap labor that isn't actually cheap?

I'm for open borders and no welfare. But I don't live in utopia yet. So I'm for getting Rand elected in the absolutely awful, horrid political climate that we reside in. Rand is making all the right moves to make this happen and I support him every step. There are no perfect solutions in an imperfect world. You need to make compromises which is different than laying down (current Republican leadership). So when I'm arguing the opposite of what I ULTIMATELY want in my unicorn-rich utopia, it's because it'll get Rand elected given our support. Then Rand can go into the White House and take a chainsaw to the budget and maybe we'll get a D.C shutdown every once in awhile for kicks.

Mr. Apple meet Mr. Orange.

Nice deflection.

I'm saying there's never enough workers if you have enough freedom. Your problem would be a non-issue. Imagine taking a chainsaw to regulations, the tax code, and taxes. Businesses wouldn't be able to flock to America fast enough. Everyone would get a pay raise because workers would be a valuable and scarce commodity. We can easily grow our way out of any immigration-caused debt with less regulations and taxes that Rand would implement. That's why this is a good compromise so Rand can get the votes.

 

[AlexAmore]

Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.

That is a terrible argument. That's a statist argument. Obama makes a law to take your guns....do you say "yes sir"?

 

[lib3rtarian]

Steve Stockman [R-TX36] also joined as a co-sponsor yesterday.

EDIT: sorry, wrong thread. This was meant for the hemp bill thread.

 

[eating_nachos]

That is a terrible argument. That's a statist argument. Obama makes a law to take your guns....do you say "yes sir"?

Taking our guns away would be unconstitutional, protecting our borders and our sovereignty wouldn't.

I'm not a libertarian so you can go ahead and call me a statist.

 

[AlexAmore]

Taking our guns away would be unconstitutional, protecting our borders and our sovereignty wouldn't.

I'm not a libertarian so you can go ahead and call me a statist.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow congress to make laws restricting free access across borders. It allows Congress to grant citizenship, but that's different. Now if you want to be more accurate, the states can make laws regarding immigration and I'll go along with that.

Our government or America has a collective doesn't have sovereignty. The individual has sovereignty. In a perfect world all property would be private and as such immigration would be up to the individual to decide if they want immigrants on it or not.

 

[Slutter McGee]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow congress to make laws restricting free access across borders. It allows Congress to grant citizenship, but that's different. Now if you want to be more accurate, the states can make laws regarding immigration and I'll go along with that.

Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.

Slutter McGee

 

[america]

As a long time NumbersUSA supporter, I find this position disturbing. If employers were criminally charged for hiring illegal workers, just as citizens are charged for copying a music CD, the illegal workers would soon self deport and our unemployment would decline and American workers would have their wages increased based upon free market rates.

Having financially supported Ron Paul in 2008, 2012 and Rand Paul I am puzzled why he his now jumping on the bandwagon to reward 20 million low skilled illegal immigrants with citizenry. Not only will this change the face and culture of America, it will decimate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the legal citizens. Regardless of what the politicians say, amnesty is the intermediate end game, and ultimately merging of the Americas and replacement of the USA Constitution just as the bankers pushed the same on Europeans.

The bankers pushed the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Amendment down our throats in 1913, because our system is so corrupt that their money bought our officials then as it does now.

It is disheartening that so few American politicians actually work for Americans. Most are beholden to global banking interests and the media propagandists that have a mission of harm towards the citizenry and country we once had. They sent our economy to Asia and our kids to wars all under false pretenses and false flags.

 

[AlexAmore]

Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.

Slutter McGee

Naturalization is reactionary. People from around the world and within our borders opt to become citizens and congress reacts with a system. That's all that is explicit in the constitution.

To prevent border crossing is proactive and has nothing to do with naturalization. People come here all the time legally and aren't naturalized.

 

[thequietkid10]

My local afternoon talk radio host is hammering Rand on this. I'm not sure he did this well.

 

[erowe1]

Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.

Slutter McGee

I don't see the connection.

 

[erowe1]

Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.

What do you mean "our"?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Every illegal in this country has broken our laws.

If the law itself is illegal, then are they breaking a law? An illegal law is a non-law, null and void, the way I see it. There cannot be any valid law restricting peaceful civilian immigration. The Constitution forbids it. The Constitution trumps all other laws. Any laws in violation of it are null, void, non-existent, and totally bogus.

No, Congress has broken our laws. "Illegal" immigrants sometimes have, sometimes have not, but they certainly have not merely by their act of relocating into the country. That act is not illegal, nor can it be, not under the Constitution. If you feel this situation is not ideal, then you should perhaps seek to amend the Constitution rather than crumpling it up, tossing it in your compost heap, and telling Congress to feel free to do whatever it wants.

 

[compromise]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?408463-VIDEO-Rubio-responds-to-Rand-s-immigration-speech

Rubio responds.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Sorry. If Congress has the power to naturalize it follows that they have the power over immigration. I'm a constructionist but also believe in something called logic.

Actually, McGee, that does not follow. There is no logical connection between the two. Many citizens do not reside within the US. Many non-citizens do reside within the US.

One can reside in the US without being a citizen.
One can reside outside the US and yet be a citizen.
One can reside in the US and be a citizen.
One can reside outside the US and not be a citizen.

In short, all possible combinations of US citizenship and US residence are possible, are legitimate, and do currently exist.

The US Constitution states that Congress has the power to set rules for naturalization, that is, for determining who can and who cannot become a citizen and what they must do, if anything, to gain that status. The US Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to make any such rules, nor, indeed, any rules whatsoever, regarding who can and cannot enter the country. It just doesn't. It's not there.

The logic is airtight. There is no way around it. The Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. Thus, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. Ergo, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. Hence, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. And from all this, we can make the following earth-shattering conclusion: the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. A is A. That's all there is to it.

 

[erowe1]

Actually, McGee that does not follow. There is no logical connection between the two. Many citizens do not reside within the US. Many non-citizens do reside within the US.
One can reside in the US without being a citizen.
One can reside outside the US and yet be a citizen.
One can reside in the US and be a citizen.
One can reside outside the US and not be a citizen.

In short, all possible combinations of US citizenship and US residence are possible, are legitimate, and do currently exist.

The US Constitution states that Congress has the power to set rules for naturalization, that is, for determining who can and who cannot become a citizen and what they must do, if anything, to gain that status. The US Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to make any such rules, nor, indeed, any rules whatsoever, regarding who can and cannot enter the country. It just doesn't. It's not there.

The logic is airtight. There is no way around it. The Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. Thus, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. Ergo, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. Hence, the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. And from all this, we can make the following earth-shattering conclusion: the Constitution does not grant the power to restrict immigration. A is A. That's all there is to it.

Wouldn't connecting the two mean that you think the federal government had a right to expel native americans from the lands it claimed under its jurisdiction?