Posted on 11/25/2011 9:41:29 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Unfortunately, it appears that Paul's views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp. ... Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require "splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades." ... As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not. According to Paul, deporting such people would be "incompatible with human rights."...So if we can't enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, "Maybe a 'green card' with an asterisk could be issued." This "asterisk" would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate "automatic citizenship." Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty. I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
There isn't anybody for him to endorse. The people closest to his views are Michelle Bachman (who won't actually say she WILL deport every single illegal in this country) and Mitt Romney (who will say absolutely anything you want to hear). Neither of them, are actually totally in line with his views.
He really doesn't have anyone that he can totally support.
As Rush said Wednesday, we have three conservatives in the race, Cain, Santorum and Bachmann, make your choice. Any of the three are better than obummer.
Paul himself would disagree with you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2770198/posts
I’d no more listen to Tom Tancredo than I’d listen to Rob Blagoavich.
“You see, Newt Gingrich – who previously warned of the dangers of the Patriot Act - now wants it expanded.
He wants amnesty, too – to keep American citizens footing the bill for government services for illegal immigrants.”
That’s the most recent message from Ron Paul on this.
Well now, let me see. Oh, I know! He could endorse the only conservative who is in the top tier, Herman Cain. I think those two would hit it off great.
This is why even though I consider Paul to be the best candidate of our current slate of candidates - I think our current slate is simply downright awful.
To go with any of our current candidates including Paul simply means the Democrat Party has a fighting chance.
Polls suggest otherwise - I don’t buy those polls for one second.
We are being hoodwinked big time.
We would have 10X a stronger slate of candidates if our slate were composed of the likes of:
Tancredo
McClintock
Hunter
Ron Paul conveniently forgets that even our very libertarian founders understood that if you are going to create even a minimalist nation-state at best with just an inch of oceanfront property - you have to provide for a Navy and it’s Marines without qualifications - and you have to allow the Executives - federal and state - to repel invasions and suppress domestic disturbances.
Too many libertarians try to tiptoes around that - far as I’m concerned they’re anarchists - not libertarians.
Illegals are exactly that. Even moreso, they’re invaders. Don’t care what country they’re from - if negative incentives don’t get ‘em to leave - actual arrest and deportation is absolutely appropriate. To argue otherwise is sedition in my honest opinion.
=8-)
Herman Cain does not support amnesty either. And he is still in the top tier, the only conservative there, as a matter of fact. The media won’t tell you. Obama owns the media. But the people tell us they want Cain. But then, of course, the people no longer matter since we are now a Communist country, thanks to the unwashed masses.
Newt has always been famous enough to be the front-runner.
There was a reason why he wasn’t the front-runner. He was dismissed immediately this spring/summer when he announced, mostly simply on the basis of global warming.
Santorum does have a very purist Social Conservative resume, and Iowa, specifically, does have purist Social Conservatives, and a solid resume with very little embarassing or stupid on it. Bachmann, Cain and Perry (a pretend Conservative) have a bunch of very questionable marks on their resume. Santorum really doesn’t. There’s really only so far the “didn’t support Toomey” attack can go. Gingrich had no reason to get involved in the Dede election. No one really wanted to know what he thought, there. Santorum was expected to get involved, and it was clear that he was between a rock and a hard place with that one.
Ron Paul has Old-fashioned foreign policy conservativism. There are very few Old-fashioned foreign policy conservatives any more. Most “conservatives” today are happy with the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama foreign policy. They note that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is different from the BCBO foreign policy, which they call “conservative”.
Cain didn’t have a problem describing what he would’ve done in Libya. Cain had a problem describing what he would do different from Obama. Because you really have to be a true foreign policy scholar to describe the differences between the “Liberal” foreign policy and the “Conservative” foreign policy. And Cain isn’t a true foreign policy scholar. Not saying that’s a bad thing, it just means that the same people will continue with the same foreign policy whether it’s Obama or Cain or Romney.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is clearly different and many who like BCBO foreign policy think Ron Paul’s foreign policy isn’t conservative. BCBO all took much more military intervention than Reagan did, for example.
Anybody see Paul Wolfowitz calling Bush “conservative” at the debate? Uh huh.
He could, if Herman Cain ever gets around to explaining what he did, or what his position on illegals was when he was the head of the National Restauranteurs Association........Which, he has yet to do.....The "N.R.A." is a very very big supporter of the open borders/we need illegals group (Tancredo has battled them in the past).
I honestly have no idea, if, while Cain was there, that was their view, of what impact he had regarding illegals, and Cain, to date, has never really disclosed it, or talked about it. That organization by the way, is pretty hostile to arizona style immigration laws (they claim it'll destroy restaurants across the country), Cain himself hasn't said anything about it, I guess Tancredo is just waiting for him to get around to it.
That is his spin this season on his campaign website. He is good at changing his message to fit whomever is listening. This is the same fraud who compared a border fence to the Berlin wall and said it would be used to keep in citizens in.
In the link provided is his voting record which has strongly been opposed to any sort of border security and is almost indistinguishable from most liberals.
Not the greatest sales pitch I have seen in my time.
Explain what he did? He has already said that he did not do what those bimbos said he did. How can he prove a negative? Such behavior does not fit in with his character. It is up to the bimbos to prove he said what they say he did. Both of them work for the government. Sharon B. has been accused by her ex boss at CBS of coming on to men and accusing them of what she herself did! And Karen was fired from NRA with severence pay. So that bit of Obama administration filth does not stick to Herman Cain in any way shape or form.
Now as to his views on illegal aliens: Mr. Cain has said on a number of occasions that he favors a double border fence.l He wants to enforce the current immigration laws. I don’t know if he has been asked the question about his position on amnesty, but my money is on that he does not.
Who do you work for? Do you believe everything your employer believes? Neither does Mr. Cain.
Farmers love illegals, restaurants, too because they are cheap labor. Mr. Cain is no longer involved in restaurants. Being a Constitutionalist, I doubt he ever would willingly put foreigners ahead of Americans.
And as far as Mr. Cain’s foreign policy views are concerned, nearly everyone in the last debate used parts of his answer on that as their comments as well.
washingtontimes.com ...
Ron Paul reminds me of Alan Simpson - feeble of mind.
Lets be clear here, I do not believe for one second any of the accusations against Cain, not one, I do not believe there was any misunderstanding, I do not believe these women were over sensitive, I believe these women are flat out lying, period, no ifs ands or buts (no pun intended). Not one shred of truth to any accusation, his campaign honestly could have done a better job of making that clear, but he is absolutely 100% innocent, and its not what I was referring to.
Now as to his views on illegal aliens: Mr. Cain has said on a number of occasions that he favors a double border fence.l He wants to enforce the current immigration laws. I don’t know if he has been asked the question about his position on amnesty, but my money is on that he does not.
Yes he did say that, and George H.W. Bush said no new taxes, not my point, the reason I am skeptical, is that I remember when Tom Tancredo ran for Governor as an independent, and I watched him on TV specifically cite the NRA as one of the groups that was and has had a history of going after him (he even clarified that it was the national restauranteurs association, not the National Rifle Association). They NRA has a pretty agressive history of attacking politicians who are anti-illegal, Herman Cain at time was their head, he hired, and fired the lobbyist, he is in charge (and was quite good at his job).
The big question, while he was there, what did he do, in regards to illegal aliens ? Today, the NRA is almost like the corporate daddy of LaRaza, so I want to know if this was something that was like this when he was in charge or was it after. I'm not asking to prove a negative, I'm asking me tell me what he did and what was the position of the org he was in charge of when he was there.
Who do you work for? Do you believe everything your employer believes? Neither does Mr. Cain.
Great point, but the better question is, do I do everything my employers tell me to do, and what did they tell me to do, and what did I do. In regards to illegals, that is the big question.
Farmers love illegals, restaurants, too because they are cheap labor. Mr. Cain is no longer involved in restaurants. Being a Constitutionalist, I doubt he ever would willingly put foreigners ahead of Americans.
I don't doubt anything, I just want him to sit down, and answer questions about illegals, while he was head of a group that now has one of the hardest pro-illegal stances, what did he do when he was there ? What was his position ? What did he tell the lobbyists ? What did he say to the politicians ? He isn't there now, and Romney isn't governor anymore, Rick Perry isn't a democrat anymore, Gingrich isn't a speaker anymore, fine, did Cains position change ? Was he supportive of cracking down on illegals as head of an organization that probably employs more illegals then any other industry ? or was he opposed to such efforts ?
Simply put, forget the sex harassment B.S, and tell me what happened regarding illegals when he was in charge of this organization......
The foreign policy issues are something he needs to work on, but to me, its not that a big a concern yet, unless he doesn't do anything with it, that said, its not like he'd debating a bunch of foreign policy experts up there, in fact, he could honestly state that he has just as much or more experience in international relations then most of them.
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.