Posted on 03/19/2013 2:01:47 PM PDT by WCH
Rand Paul’s plan for immigration has no chance.
1) He wants to cut off the giveaways that attract a lot of illegals. That won’t fly. The grievance class will paint that as “racist”.
2) “Legal status” isn’t what this is about. “Legal status” as a taxpaying guest worker means YOU CAN’T VOTE. That’s the whole purpose behind this push for amnesty.
3) He wants to secure the border. There is no political will to do so.
Rand Paul can say whatever he wants on these issues, but it’s going to be outright amnesty, or more of the same.
How do you define status quo? Not enforcing our immigration laws? Not securing our border? Not tracking down and deporting visa overstays? Not penalizing employers who hire illegals? Providing a backdoor amnesty to 1.8 million Dreamers circumventing Congress and the law? Providing n-state tuition to illegal aliens? Issuing driver's licenses to illegals? Calling for a blanket amnesty of 12 to 20 million lawbreakers?
When you reward something, you get more of it. In 1986 the proponents of amnesty said it would be a one-time event never to happen again. The USG estimated that one million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. The 1986 amnesty bill (Simpson-Mazolli) contained penalties against employers who hired illegals. The recipients were required to learn English. There were background checks, etc. The only problem is that none of the enforcement provisions were implemented. And the entire process was rife with fraud with phony document mills being set up blocks from the processing centers. We had a flood of illegals enter the country once the word was out about amnesty even though you have had to have been here prior to 1982 to qualify.
We now have 12 to 20 million illegals and we have the same people or those like them saying we should do the same thing. Immediate amnesty followed by promised enforcement. This is the real status quo. The same failed solution to the same problem.
NB: As someone who is deeply involved in this issue and knowledgeable about the 1986 legislation, 2006 Hagel-Martinez, 2007 McCain-Kennedy, what Paul and Rubio are now selling is essentially the same thing. It especially mirrors McCain-Kennedy, which also had probationary status using the infamous "Z" visa. It is just old wine in new bottles. Let's call it what it really is: AMNESTY.
Once we give the illegals legal status, they will be able to bring in their families thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And this didn't include Obamacare. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
Any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here, the object of their crime, is amnesty. A path to citizenship is a bonus. Giving them green cards entitles them to all the benefits of citizenship except voting. They can receive welfare and entitlement benefits, SSNs, driver’s licenses, work permits etc.
Let’s not focus on voting as the central issue. It should be legalizing their status.
And let’s get real about legal immigration. Every ten years we have what amounts to an amnesty. With 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ENTERING ANNUALLY, they will be able to vote eventually and two thirds of them will vote Dem. Illegal immigration is the shiny little bauble that distracts us from the real game changer—legal immigration. The status quo will make the Dems the permanent majority party. Amnesty just hastens the process.
The status quo is everything you describe.
Seems we’re stuck with it.
And why do we still think the GOP-e opposes amnesty after El Presidente Jorge Arbusto?
Both parties are in cahoots on this one.
All children? And forbidden by whom? And why? Why would anyone do that? And you know you are speaking for ALL families? I doubt that.
Yes. As a rule, their parents, there was order, Their parents wisely determined through thinking and discussing and by experience, that their children would have a chance to make it in the new country t- to succeed, actually, by learning the language.
Every child I knew and everyone now an adult who grew up in those times, say that their grandparents or parents spoke german or Italian or so but that they never learned the language. And none of them really expressed regret at least to me, in general. Nobody in society nor at school ever talked about it, it was a family rule.
In other words, it was back when parents actually paid attention to what the other parents were doing for the good of their children and families. They wanted their children to assimilate.
Another promising white turning yellow. SOMEBODY STAND UP AND TAKE A STAND FOR STOPING ILLEGALS FROM INVADING OUR COUNTRY!
“certifying that border security has improved”....THE NEW REPUBLICAN WORD FOR .........AMNESTY.
extending to them is a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship
///////////
Politicians are latching on to this tactic of broadening the definitions of something to make it so broad that it is not specific enough to mean anything! Marriage is now between anybody and anything.....same will be done with citizenship = normalization of immigration status = citizenship means just being normal = nothing.
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.