Posted on 03/19/2013 1:24:28 PM PDT by wesagain
I'm a Conservative.
I don't like “clever” politicians.
I like politicians who tell me EXACTLY what they believe and EXACTLY what they hope to accomplish.
As I stated earlier, to my knowledge Rand Paul has never endorsed universal E-Verify and has never endorsed employer sanctions.
His policy on welfare is bizarre.
Here in Washington state, illegal immigrants are eligible for almost EVERY kind of state and federal welfare.
Rand Paul wants me to believe that when these people become LEGAL he is going to take away all the welfare benefits they are currently receiving!
Rand Paul is not “clever.”
Rand Paul is a Libertarian on immigration, which means he supports some variation of “Open Borders.”
And that means political death for American Conservatives.
You can wish anything you want. Hard cold fact is you got Obama for 4 more years AND You got more democrats in Senate and House. Learn to live with it. The losers of elections become powerless and irrelevant.
In order to further the agenda, first you have to win elections.
I understand winning. I am a follower of Vince Lombardi who famously said “Winning is not everything, it is the only thing”.
From that angle you are beyond help.
Stop hiding behind skirts of the founders. They won't save you from Obama/Holder who are now in charge for 4 more years. If any of the immigration bills which require closing the border can be passed, it reduces flow of illegals sooner than waiting 4 more years of Obama and then heaven forbid how many more years of Hillary.
I'm sure that's a great response to somebody’s comment.
Just not my comment.
We are fighting the same enemy and have similar agenda. Except my weapons are practical and effective sooner. Any bill which can be passed with closing the border is my top priority in 2013. At my age on Medicare, I am past wishful thinking and seeking “pure” and “idealistic” solutions.
You’re right about legal immigration being the bigger threat. Any conservative immigration reform would drastically reduce legal immigration. It would abolish Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Visas. It would end chain migration. It would end the refugee settlements.
Paul has at times displayed hopeful signs, like when he questioned Iraqi refugee settlements in Kentucky, and when he suggested that legalization of illegal aliens be paired with a moratorium on legal immigration.
But now Rand Paul sounds almost as liberal and worthless as a Bush on immigration. His rhetoric is nauseating and infested with one tired cliche after another. And he has said something along the lines that Republicans must embrace more legal immigration, which is just insane. I had hoped he was too smart to buy into the fantasy that his libertarian, small government ideas will appeal to immigrants. Apparently I was wrong.
How good do you really think a remotely conservative GOP can do with Hispanics?
Let’s suppose Paul and Rubio manage to mollify Hispanics on immigration, and remove that as a reason lations have to vote Democrat. But what about all of the other reasons? Hispanics overwhelmingly support obamacare. Hispanics are widely supportive of more gun control. Hispanics express disturbing levels of hostility towards capitalism. Hispanics express support for bigger government. Which is all to say that Hispanics are overall a liberal group. They’re natural Democrats. It’s distressing to hear so many Republicans (like Paul) repeat the myth that Hispanics are natural conservatives. If this is so, then why haven’t they injected even the slightest bit of conservatism in the Democratic party? Why is the state where their power is perhaps the greatest - California - increasingly left wing as their power grows?
So even if we manage to remove immigration as an issue (which apparently can only be done by agreeing to amnesty and ever more mass legal immigration), and ‘soften our tone’, why would Hispanics (and Asians) move to us in large numbers when they still side with the Democrats on most issues?
And to one of kabar’s points, so what if we manage to pander our way back to shameless panderer George W’s 40% showing with Hispanics in 2004? Maybe that would make a difference in a close race in the near future. But eventually the sheer absolute numbers would overwhelm a relative increase. Losing 60-40 with 50 million people is worse than 70-30 with 20 million.
And therein lies the tragedy of it all. If the GOP had ended mass immigration when it had the chance, then it could still easily win with only about 60% of the white vote.
But that’s the past. What to do now? I’d rather go down fighting trying to enact conservative immigration reform. I think the GOP should offer Americans a real choice. Contrast a call to end mass immigration with the Democrats plan to push our population to over 500 million by mid century. Maybe it would fail, but if successful at least it would give conservatives a fighting chance going forward, demographically speaking.
I do not like “going down” fighting. Because then you are dead and nothing is gained. But if you like that outcome, go ahead because it is your right to fail completely and totally ala Todd Akin.
I would rather gain some valuable results such as closing the borders if that is the first requirement in a immigration reform bill. If not, then I have no use for it. Rand Paul’s bill stipulates closing borders as pre-requisite to other items.
If you hold out for a “pure” bill meaning all illegals must be deported, the result will be no closing of borders, and more illegals will keep flooding in.
Illegals are collecting welfare benefits now!
Illegals are known to be voting now!
Illegals are holding jobs now!
Illegals are working for cash and paying no taxes now!
With your ideology, get prepared for more illegals flooding in.
So you actually trust that any secure-the-border-first provision would actually be enforced, or adhered to?
But let’s say it is. Let’s say we do get real border security out of it. My question remains; what kind of future to you think a remotely conservative GOP has where mass legal immigration continues? How do we appeal to a liberal group like Hispanics w/o becoming much more liberal on a whole host of issues?
If we adopted the standard left/libertarian solution to illegal immigration, and massively increased already mass levels of legal immigration to the point that pretty much anyone who wanted to come could do so legally, then that would be a worse disaster than allowing illegals to continue to flood in.
And I’m not talking about a pure bill. Deportation should of course be a part of the strategy, but I don’t think we should try to deport all illegal aliens. We should at least try self deportation/attrition through enforcement for several years. It’s frustrating now to hear many attributing Romney’s loss to this when he didn’t campaign on it in the general, and never tried to actually explain what it means. We should try it. Let’s see how many illegals would voluntarily leave. The choice is not between mass deportation and a path to citizenship. There is a lot of middle ground. I wouldn’t even care if a sizable number of illegals stayed permanently...if they are never allowed to bring in relatives and if overall legal immigration were greatly reduced.
And I thought Akin should have dropped out of the race. It still bothers me that we pissed away two Senate seats with Akin and his fellow idiot Mourdock. And this wasn’t a case like Vermont, where someone as awful as Mike Castle was probably as good as we could hope for in that state. This was Missouri and Indiana, where conservatives can and do win...so long as they don’t fall into obvious abortion question traps and make statements that sound as if they were scripted by David Axelrod.
I agree with much in your post. The first priority to me is stop the leaking dam of illegals flooding in. That means closing the borders AND much more stringent enforcement of people who enter on a legal visitor/student visa and overstay their visa. There are many ways to achieve the visa overstay situation which involves half of all illegals.
It is true that new immigrants gravitate towards the deocrat party. Their message is easier to sell. Strong safety net, education subsidies, rent subsidies, easy access to food stamps, subsidized healthcare....all are very attractive to a poor new immigrant. I was for LBJ over Goldwater when I arrived. As I progressed on the economic ladder, my conversion to republicans was complete by 1976.
We have ageing population. We need younger workers to keep paying into social security for it to survive. Ditto with other entitlements. So I am not paranoid about younge new immigrants. However I would only support an immigration reform which encourages skilled immigrants over the unskilled.
‘As a teenager, I was not always the model citizen that I am today.’”
They got something on him.
Yes, the aliens have broken the laws, but so have their employers. And not just be turning a blind eye to the lack of documentation. Too many created working conditions that only a worker desperate for work would accept. Just for example, a white guy I knew was a roofer. He went to work for this contractor who dropped the crew off at a job in the country with only a watering can, and left them working in a hot sun for the whole day. The straw boss spoke almost no English nor did the rest of the crew and so working with them became hard just from a lack of communication. Even though he spoke some Spanish, several of the crew were from South Mexico and barely spoke . that language themselves. He stayed on the job until the roof was finished than after getting his pay, told the contractor what he thought. Though he was the most experienced man, the contractor just told him to pleasure himself. If the crew had been white, they would have all quit on him.
Sen. Paul has indeed endorsed your point 3. He wants a database of all guest workers, and wants that database checked whenever someone applies for welfare.
Plummz,
I've posted multiple times on this issue.
ILLEGAL immigrants in the state of Washington are CURRENTLY eligible for every welfare program that Rand Paul claims he will stop AFTER Amnesty!
In Washington state no one is required to show proof of legal residence for Food Stamps, for heating assistance, for subsidized rent, for AFDC, for the Earned Income Tax Credit, for pregnant women care, for child Medicaid - there are more, but I always forget some.
This tells me one of three things about Rand Paul:
(1) He doesn't know that illegals already get this welfare.
(2) Or, he thinks illegals will sign up for Amnesty and voluntarily give up the welfare rights they currently have.
(3) Or, he thinks the same Congress that gave welfare rights to illegals will now take those rights away when they become legal.
My guess - Rand Paul, and most Americans, have no idea that illegals already get welfare.
Bad guess. Sen. Paul’s plan is designed explicitly to get aliens off of welfare and voting rolls; and he has said as much.
Illegal immigrants will sign up for Amnesty and voluntarily give up the welfare rights they currently have.
That's delusional.
It also means Rand Paul believes that Congress will pass, and Obama will sign, an immigration bill that takes away existing welfare rights from a special group of 11 million people.
That's also delusional.
Even if such a law could be passed, there are hundreds of Democrat federal judges who would instantly block it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.