Posted on 04/19/2013 1:38:20 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Whether or not you admire the bold individualistic leadership of Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on other issues, I know you will be disappointed and maybe even shocked by the immigration platform he outlined this morning before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
KEY POINTS OF THE RAND PAUL AMNESTY •The 11-19 million illegal aliens would get to live permanently in the United States. •One year after passing the amnesty, illegal aliens can start getting work permits to compete directly in the legal job market with Americans. •New illegal aliens who are enticed by the amnesty will continue to have a relatively open access to U.S. jobs because Sen. Paul opposes mandatory E-Verify and other means to keep employers from hiring illegal aliens. •Sen. Paul will force American workers to compete with far more new legal immigrant workers in the future.
Nowhere in his long speech did Sen. Paul indicate any concern for the 20 million Americans who can't find a full-time job or for the taxpayers who have to support them in myriad ways while 26 million legal and illegal foreign-born workers hold U.S. jobs.
Instead, Sen. Paul emphasized the need for even more foreign workers as if there can never be a downside of too much immigration. He called for a:
. . . dialogue that shows that the GOP sees all immigrants as assets. . . . The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.
Nonetheless, Rand Paul outlined his amnesty with enough ambiguity to give some hope that Kentuckians can rescue him -- and the country -- from disastrous leadership on this issue.
WHAT ABOUT CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS?
An AP story before the speech stated that Sen. Paul was endorsing a path to citizenship. This has spawned a lot of erroneous stories and tweets on the internet.
But Paul said nothing about citizenship in his speech. Rather, it looks like he is proposing a permanent-residency amnesty and work-permit amnesty but not a citizenship amnesty. That is more than enough amnesty to be truly harmful, but it is interesting that Paul is differing with Pres. Obama and the Senate Gang of Eight on the citizenship point.
WHEN DOES JOBS-AMNESTY KICK IN?
Sen. Paul leaves no doubt that he wants all the illegal aliens to be competing with Americans equally in the jobs market. But he proposes a phase-in system that he describes in very general terms.
You can read for yourself what his prepared text said:
The first part of my plan - border security - must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished.
This is what I call, Trust but Verify.
With this in place, I believe conservatives will accept what needs to come next, an issue that must be addressed: what becomes of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States?
My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work.
A bipartisan panel would determine number of visas per year.
There is a lot there that needs to be explored
OPPOSING E-VERIFY TO KEEP ILLEGAL ALIENS OUT OF JOBS
In one way, Rand Paul's plan is far more radical and pro-illegal-immigration than anything proposed by Pres. Obama or the Gang of Eight, both of whom are at least promising workplace verification to cut off the jobs magnet that has created the giant illegal-alien population in the first place.
My plan . . . will also not have mandatory E-Verify. I don't mind if there's E-Verify, maybe related to the tax code somehow, but I don't like the idea of making every business owner a policeman.
How radical is this idea of not having business owners responsible for avoiding hiring illegal aliens? Well, business responsibility was about the only thing that was given in return for the first (and supposedly last) amnesty in 1986. Sen. Paul today seemed to say that the only thing that should stand from the 1986 compromise was the amnesty itself.
BACK OF THE LINE? NOT AN AMNESTY?
Like Pres. Obama, Sen. Paul makes two highly questionable assertions about his plan:
My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line.
In fact, his plan does both.
Rand Paul and Barack Obama claim they don't support amnesty because they define amnesty differently than most of us. They contend that if illegal aliens pay a fine it isn't amnesty to give them the lifelong residency and jobs they broke immigration laws to steal.
Of course, one of the last things citizens should do is allow their politicians to define away words that are inconvenient to them. Nobody who cares about the rule of law and an immigration system that serves the American people would call the Paul plan anything but an "amnesty," although it is not as generous of an amnesty as Pres. Obama and the Gang of Eight are proposing.
The "front of the line" line in some ways is even more maddening because it pretends that only future legal immigrants matter and that current unemployed Americans don't count at all.
Sen. Paul and Pres. Obama say that the illegal aliens should not get citizenship before the foreign citizens who are waiting in a backlog line to get immigration status. So, they each have provisions that delay how fast the illegal aliens get a green card that puts them on a path to citizenship.
But what about the unemployment lines for millions of Americans -- 20 million who can't find a full-time job?
Sen. Paul and Pres. Obama basically put the illegal aliens at the FRONT of the line.
Obama would give illegal aliens work permits almost immediately. Paul seems to say he would make them wait a year.
Why do I say the illegal aliens would be in the front of the line just because they get work permits? Because most of them already have jobs. Obama and Paul would be giving them the legal permits to continue holding the jobs that they have already taken from Americans.
Many otherwise intelligent people have the idea that illegal aliens take jobs that Americans don't want.
But fewer than 5% are in agriculture, for example. The rest of the illegal workers are in jobs in which the majority of workers are U.S. citizens. In other words, those are clearly jobs Americans WILL do and ARE doing.
There are more than twice as many less-educated Americans looking for jobs in construction, manufacturing and service where the 7 million illegal aliens already have jobs.
That apparently is just fine with Rand Paul and all the other supporters of amnesty.
Is it fine with the citizens of Kentucky?
>> Notice that the core element of all the efforts by the Left now involve the establishment or improvement of databases on the citizenry. <<
Except there is no new database. Pay attention.
>> They want them for you to work, <<
Your problem appears to be with Ronald Reagan’s I-9 program. Tell you what, when you succeed in getting rid of social security, welfare, medicare, income tax, earned income credits, etc., the E-Verify program probably will be much less necessary. In the meanwhile, we can quit shooting ourselves in the head in spite of our Democrat opponents.
>> Exactly. I’m self-employed, and every few months, I find it enraging that I have to sign yet another declaration that I’m a citizen and present my passport to another private citizen who has no official government function whatsoever. <<
If you ever do, it has nothing to do with E-Verify.
>> Right, and even in the absence of the government doing the job it’s empowered and paid to do, it’s still not on me to determine someone’s legal status. That’s forcing Americans to perform law enforcement functions. How is that even Constitutional? <<
You mean like filing W-2s, I-9s, and all those other functions?
I’m sorry you can’t see the difference between a voluntary and a mandatory use of this database to determine whether or not someone can earn their daily bread.
Of course, anyone with a brain has known all along that their intent in establishing the voluntary database was to turn it into a mandatory one.
The answer when the statist camel’s nose is in the tent is not to resign yourself to living with the camel, the answer is to cut off the camel’s nose.
An America in which a citizen has to get permission from the government to work is no longer America. It’s the Soviet Union.
No. Don Quixote fought imaginary monsters. The drive for government to possess thorough databases of information on every aspect of your life is quite real. In fact, you will find such an overriding desire on the part of the statists at the core of almost every important policy question right now. Education. Work. Commerce. Healthcare. Guns. You name it.
Can you point me to that part of the Constitution which grants to the general government the power to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to whether or not you are qualified to earn your daily sustenance?
So, the answer to my question is “no,” right?
The answer to your question is that the first step for accomplishing this is to convince conservatives to return to the plumb line of principle and to then think through the consequences of the policies they support. So that we can then argue from a firm basis and put forward a strong united front.
It’s amazing how much power there is in having the truth and right on your side.
In God we trust, not luck.
Food for thought...
It is a crime to enter and overstay your visa. If it’s not legal for the person to BE here, they used to be deported. Back in the day (when there was some semblance of law) this was not questioned by Americans.
Some employers hired illegals, but there were legal ramifications if they got caught.
Nowadays the government is unconstitutionally providing benefits to people, but for the moment, let’s forget the unconstitutional part.
Even without e-verify, people should have to prove citizenship to get government benefits. And if they are illegally here, they should be deported.
Since we have millions of illegals here, we have a problem - they have all committed the crime of entering illegally, the main thrust of the penalty for which is deportation. I don’t want to be mean to “nice” people, but if you committed the crime just admit it. If I went to the illegal’s home country and stayed illegally - you can bet I’d be in jail there and then deported. The Constitution does grant the power to pass laws to solve such problems, IMHO.
To me, if I go rob a bank, I will have committed a crime. The police will go look for me and arrest me. They will search LIKELY places for me.
I see suburban LE all over the place with some time on their hands. IMHO, every town and city should have a process of continually finding illegals, arresting and deporting them, and it should not cost one extra penny for LE to work on this on the back burner.
As a business owner, I do not want to hire an illegal. I should not be. If it’s not illegal any more - it should be.
LIKELY businesses should be checked up on by LE - and if illegals are found, they should be arrested and deported.
Restaurants, landscapers, etc.
The law USED TO be the law.
When I go for a driver’s license renewal, I have to prove who I am; it’s a whole big deal.
Employees all have to fill out an I-9.
Yes, I should as an employer have to keep an eye out for people committing crimes that work for me. If I think an employee robbed a bank, would I say it’s not my business, I have no right to bother the person ?
When my business gets its feathers ruffled because LE surprises me during the dinner rush looking for illegals, I get mad ? No way. I’d love to hire you, but you have to be a citizen. Just because I own a business does not give me the right to be part of the problem and harbor criminals.
IMHO...
You’re going to use that as example? In fact, it makes my case. If you violate your principles on the excuse that it’s just too hard politically to do right, all you have done is assure that the price that will have to eventually be paid, either by yourself or your posterity, is a much higher one.
Again, cut off the camel’s nose, don’t invite him the rest of the way into the tent.
Maybe if folks would simply recommit themselves to doing right, no matter the cost, or the perceived chances for “success,” we would see revival, eh?
In other words, it’s you that has the cart before the horse, not me. The first step to revival is to change our mind to come into line with what God thinks. In other words, to repent. In other words, to begin to simply begin to do what is right. THEN, and only then, is the door open to revival.
I’m tired out. Gotta hit the hay. Have a good night.
Which the EPA would promptly prohibit the extraction of.
I didn’t say i endorsed those, just that they are a fact. Drivers license records are shared with Insurance brokers as well as some Federal agencies. In any case any data that is entered into a computer can be accessed by the Fed whether they admit it or not.
So you're a big government type who likes piling on more regulations. Check.
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.