Posted on 03/20/2013 9:58:22 AM PDT by AuntB
Amnesty is bad. Everyone agrees on that. Even the senators who support amnesty claim not to support it. Instead they support “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” with “A Path to Citizenship”. They support a comprehensive solution that will be compassionate and work as an immigration policy for the 21st century.
But they don’t support amnesty. Except that they do.
No one uses the term “amnesty” anymore except opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens and their more vociferous advocates. This makes for some confusing speeches and press conferences.
That’s what happened today with Rand Paul, who is absolutely against amnesty. His Senate campaign website says so. But he is for a path to citizenship.
Rubio is also against amnesty. He repeatedly emphasizes that his plan is not amnesty. Except it is. It’s just amnesty renamed as a path to citizenship and with a lot of talk about border security. That’s the same old amnesty.
Rand Paul’s amnesty plan has more of a border verification mechanism than Rubio’s, but no employment verification. Rubio’s amnesty plan has employment verification but weak border security verification. It’s two flavors of amnesty, both bad.
The sales pitches all depend on assuming that conservatives are dumb. Rubio and Paul both repeat that there is a de facto state of amnesty. Somewhere some Republican consultant came up for that and he no doubt de facto earned his de facto money. For about a week, some conservative figures appeared to be impressed by the irrational de facto argument which is akin to arguing that if we don’t arrest a criminal, then we have de facto found him not guilty of the charges and set him free.
There’s a lot of talk about back of the line and front of the line and none of it really matters. If the Senate is stupid enough to give Obama a law, then he will implement it however he pleases. Considering that Obama has unilaterally passed his own DREAM Act, you can only imagine how quickly those 12 million illegals will be citizens or the state of the border.
Even if there is a political argument to be made for amnesty, doing it under Obama nullifies those arguments because Obama will win most of the political Latino benefits from amnesty while the Republicans will get the crumbs. But the Republicans getting out in front of the amnesty bids, like Rubio and Rand Paul are prospective presidential candidates. They’re not doing this for Republicans, they’re doing this for themselves.
The big sales pitch for 2012 was overall electability. The sales pitch for 2016 is Latino electability. The GOP only wants someone who has a shot with the Latino vote. And Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are busy polishing their Latino vote credentials. It’s a stupid way to run a political movement, but a great way to get ahead.
Even if amnesty is good for Rubio or Paul, it’s not good for the Republican Party, for America or for Latino immigrants for that matter, who are entitled to a legal system of entry, rather than being told that their best route into the country is by bribing a coyote and trying to make it across the border.
And during an economic downturn, championing mass immigration is insensitive to the majority of American workers. The GOP failed to properly make its case to them in two elections. Now it’s giving them a big middle finger while chasing after the Mexican-American vote, even though far from all Mexican-Americans support amnesty.
And worst of all they’re doing it dishonestly.
Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are pushing amnesty. They should admit it. We shouldn’t have to get the information that Rand Paul supports a path to citizenship from one of his flunkies or from follow-up interviews. He should have openly put it in his speech. Did he really think that no one would ask?
Similarly the back of the line nonsense has to stop. No one is buying it and it’s destroying the credibility of supposed conservatives who use it.
If McCain, Rubio, Paul etc want to sell us on amnesty, then they should be honest about it. Honesty will win them more points than all the euphemisms and word games.
They aren’t entitled to “this land” at all.
You’re the lazy one. You want to do what is easier and makes you feel good.
My family has pioneered from one coast of this country to the other...several times. We’ve been run out of our homes from the 1600’s to the last few years with government land grabs. Some group always came along who thought they were more entitled to our home than we were.
I’m TIRED of it! I’m more tired of people like you who facilitate the robbery and elimination of we natives!
I’m not going to read any more of your openborder, bleeding heart propaganda. Go back to LaRAza where you came from.
Yes, that's kind of a big "duh" right there, buddy. It's right in the preamble to the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to ... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
Posterity noun
1: the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
Get it? The blessing of liberty were secured by our forefathers for US and OUR posterity, not the posterity of everyone else in the world. We may choose to extend those blessings which we have to others, but they are certainly not entitled to them.
Looks like Paul really stepped in it this time, lol, he should have learned from McCain, Bush, Perry. I think his plan is better then others put forward in the past. But he has lost a lot conservative support. If something gets pasted in Congress and I think that is likely Paul will take the fall for it.
Senators make for poor Presidential candidates for this very reason.
No executive experience, and they have a trail of the things they voted on, which over a course of time will tend to be contradictory.
“Ourselves” = the people in this land who drew up the Constitution and abide by it. There’s no valid reason other than selfishness not to let those who are here partake of the same, provided they are not murders, robbers, thieves, or Communists.
It’s actually harder to bring them in and teach them than it is to kick them out, but the benefits are greater.
Government land grabs are not the same as private citizen land grabs. We, the private, conservative citizens ought to invite more of the same and train them to be conservatives. But . . . too lazy! Too chicken! Too cynical! Too selfish!
Since we know the liberals and RINO’s are going to push some kind of amnesty through anyway, let’s call their bluff.
We will stop fighting against giving legal residency (amnesty) under these conditions:
1 - Amnesty only gives legal residency and is limited to the 10 million illegals the government says are here.
2 - All illegals over the 10 million limit are to be deported as soon as the 10 million are identified. All illegals over the 10 million must be deported before amnesty granted for any of the 10 million.
3 - Before amnesty is granted the Mexican border is to be closed and secured with a real fence - not a virtual fence, not a promised fence, not a picket fence, but a real fence actually designed to keep illegals out.
4 - After amnesty, any and all illegals found here are to be immediately deported unless they have committed other crimes. In that case they will be immediately imprisoned until trial, if guilty serve their full time, then deported.
immediately means “immediately” - No legal appeals, no trials, no hearings, no lawyers, no delays. When caught an illegal will be detained and deported within a few days at the longest.
5 - No government aid or handouts: no free medical (except life threatening first aid), no free college, or other services of any kind for illegals after the amnesty. That applies to those granted amnesty and any other illegals found here going forward.
6 - No US citizenship for those granted amnesty. No “path to citizenship”. They can live here and work here as legal residents but remain foreign citizens. If they want to apply for citizenship they can leave the US and apply from their own country.
7 - No “right of return” for illegals granted legal residency (amnesty). If they travel outside the US they are not permitted to return. No exceptions.
8 - Foreign relatives of illegals granted amnesty do not receive any preference or special treatment if they want to apply for legal entry.
Sounds good...who do you think you could get to do it?
You’re still avoiding the first question I asked you at the beginning of this ‘discussion’...HOW MANY????
Hey, MLK isn't the only one with a dream!
“There’s no valid reason other than selfishness not to let those who are here partake of the same, provided they are not murders, robbers, thieves, or Communists.”
No, there’s no valid reason in your mind. That doesn’t mean there is no valid reason, since you are willfully oblivious to all of the very valid reasons, many of which have been posted on this thread, which you ignored.
““Ourselves” = the people in this land who drew up the Constitution and abide by it”
No, ourselves means only the citizens of the nation at the time the Constitution was signed. Their posterity means their natural descendants. Nobody else is entitled to anything promised in that document, unless our country has been charitable enough to extend them citizenship, and graft them into the promises of the document.
Illegal immigrants have absolutely zero entitlement to those promises, or to be on our land without our permission.
“Hey, MLK isn’t the only one with a dream!”
Yep, the one thing they can’t take from us.
When we came to this country, formed it, and established the nation legally, we made ourselves citizens of it, claiming for ourselves inalienable rights. There is no reason whatsoever we are disallowed from granting the same to anyone within our borders if we so choose. Your reason for opposing amnesty is pure selfishness. And if you’re so concerned about the illegal “criminals” on your street, why not call ICE down on them. They’re wasting your precious air and health care.
I don’t have numbers. They say up to 100 million are here now. As long as they are not inclined to steal, murder, etc. and can be productive, they are worth claiming as citizens and teaching the ways of prosperity received from our forefathers. But they should be admitted under qualification of private sponsorship, private education, etc., while we also aim to tear down the Communists and throw THEM out; the peole who are idle and bring us down to mediocrity.
LOL. Pushed your buttons to the point of blather.
“There is no reason whatsoever we are disallowed from granting the same to anyone within our borders if we so choose.”
First, you show a fundamental lack of understanding as to what constitute “inalienable rights” if you think that we have any power to grant them to anyone. Second, you claimed that they were “entitled” to our land. Of course, we can choose to give them our land, but they are in no way entitled to it, or any of the promises of our Constitution.
“Your reason for opposing amnesty is pure selfishness.”
No, it’s not, and you have no way to know such a thing, because you’re not a mindreader. You’re just a self-important know-it-all who likes to fancy themselves superior to others by mounting the moral high horse.
“And if you’re so concerned about the illegal “criminals” on your street, why not call ICE down on them.”
What good would that do when the government has a stated policy not to enforce the immigration laws, and they live in a sanctuary city?
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.