|
 |
Posted on 03/10/2013 6:58:09 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
“Likely fellow 2016 GOP presidential rival Marco Rubio has taken some heat from the conservative grassroots for being the face of “comprehensive immigration reform” (or what many conservatives call amnesty). Now it appears Rand Paul is going to the left of Rubio on this issue if you read his column in The Washington Times,” says Steve Deace.
The entire premise of Rand’s piece is what’s best and fair for the illegal aliens, and never discusses what’s best and fair for the people here legally, paying taxes, and paying the freight for those who aren’t.
Gang of 8 Plan A Security Nightmare
“While the Democratic Party has been most often seen as the party that was eager to enable and encourage millions of aliens, including illegal aliens, to enter the United States, the reality is that both Democrats and Republicans see significant gains to be achieved by opening America’s borders to aliens from around the world, irrespective of how they enter the United States,” says Michael Cutler at GOPUSA.com.
“[I]t is impossible to understand how the Gang of Eight has utterly ignored the fact that there is virtually no integrity to the process by which aliens are granted lawful status and U.S. citizenship under the current circumstances. Aliens who are applying to participate in the “DREAM Act” program cobbled together by the President without the consent of Congress are not being interviewed in person.”
Jan Ting – Say No to Another Amnesty
“The so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposed by a group of senators and President Obama amounts to immediate amnesty for millions of immigration-law violators, and the lifting of limits on future immigration, with some window dressing designed to assuage skeptical voters. We’ve seen this act before,” says law professor Jan C. Ting.
“The 1986 amnesty promised to fix the immigration problem by granting amnesty to three million immigration-law violators, strengthening the border, and penalizing employers for hiring illegal immigrants. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.”
Fitton – Don’t Be Fooled by Deceptive Amnesty Claims
“More than a few Republicans in the United States Senate seem to have contracted a severe case of what Harry Truman called “Potomac Fever” (wanting to go along to get along in Washington). Apparently still trembling from the recent election debacle, they have cobbled together a deceptive and destructive “bipartisan” compromise on illegal alien amnesty,” says Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.
“There is no question that the Senate plan is unjust. Illegal aliens have broken our laws, and they shouldn’t be rewarded with amnesty and immediate legalization. Here’s something else: Simply talking about providing a “pathway to citizenship” is only going to worsen the already out-of-control illegal immigration crisis by inducing greater numbers of illegal aliens to flood across the border to take advantage of the program.”
|
|
The Real Rand Paul ping!
Is there a link to the column the article refers to?
The one important thing missing from the piece is a link to Rand Paul’s Washington Times piece. So, here it is: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/8/sen-rand-paul-trust-verify-immigration-reform/
This is probably Paul’s weakest area. I completely agree with him on the vast majority of issues and vehemently oppose him on a few.
You may not agree with all parts of his plan but at least he has one that secures the border, creates a visa tracking system and places illegals at the back of the line (all good things). No mass deportations is missing as is giving legal work status to illegals and this is where I completely disagree with him.
So, there you have the real and Paul. Have any other GOP presidential hopefuls put forth a plan that goes beyond this? It’s not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in knowing.
Doesn't matter which modern politician from which party, the above is only something one of them - at an expedient moment - might give lip service to ... nothing more.
They will all gore your ox when convenient for them; fixing or solving your particular plight is not relevant.
Always follow the money and pay attention to what they do when you are not supposed to be looking ...
What would have been fair for us was never letting them in in the first place. Now that they are here, and nobody has the stomach for mass detention and deportation at gunpoint, another solution has to be found.
Rand Paul, like his father before him, supports "Open borders - no benefits". The argument really isn't with the illegals themselves, it is with a certain political entity that desperately wants to buy their future votes. That door has to be slammed shut and locked.
Stop the Border crossing for a year, THEN we will talk amnesty.
So I oppose Rand Paul on immigration.
Do you support Ben Carson’s belief that the second amendment should be limited?
You aren’t changing anyone’s mind with unwanted pings.
The left has successfully linked and conditioned enforcement of law to the adoption of their agenda. Until their agenda is adopted chaos will ensue and any & all steps to promote chaos will be taken.
Witness the federal suits against Arizona. Witness federal refusal by ICE to accept aliens arrested by local law enforcement. Witness federal release of 1000’s of aliens. All to promote chaos.
These people are vicious subversive vile traitors.
I hope Rand is in the Senate a good long time.
He can broaden the tent of our team and he’ll be right about 80% of the time, while his 20% wacko policies can be blunted by his colleagues.
However, as president or a presidential candidate, he’d be a disaster for us.
I prefer the whole Ted Cruz political package but I agree that Rand Paul needs to stay in the senate a good long time.
>> However, as president or a presidential candidate, he’d be a disaster for us.
In comparison to whom?
Here’s the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/8/sen-rand-paul-trust-verify-immigration-reform/
But we always get the open borders with benefits. That's the libertarian position and anyone flirting with libertarian candidates (no matter what party they're in) should never forget it.
And whenever any state has tried to deny benefits to illegal aliens, courts have struck down such laws. The libertarian position on borders is a fantasy position that won't become a reality in the foreseeable future. A libertarian president would be disastrous on many fronts.
Duh. I just saw the link in comment #4. I’m not fully awake yet.
“I hope Rand is in the Senate a good long time.
He can broaden the tent of our team and he’ll be right about 80% of the time, while his 20% wacko policies can be blunted by his colleagues.
However, as president or a presidential candidate, he’d be a disaster for us.”
Who, in your opinion, would surpass your 80% minimum requirement? I’ll take 80% anyday of the week.
Never mind. I found it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/8/sen-rand-paul-trust-verify-immigration-reform/
I am in favor of immigration reform. I am also wary of reforms granted now for a promise of border security later. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a deal that made just such a promise, yet we are still waiting for the border security that never came. Conservatives are also still waiting for the promised three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax hikes. Fool me once … So, it is understandable conservatives should insist that any immigration reform incorporate the principle of trust but verify.
In that vein, I approach these efforts in good faith. I will advance both immigration reform and verifiable border security. Under my plan for comprehensive reform the US would begin with prioritizing Visas for immigrants with advanced degrees, the so-called STEM Visas and an immediate expansion of the work Visa program. These reforms would happen immediately.
But, as a matter of both national security and immigration policy, it is absolutely essential that we both secure our border and modernize our visa system so we know who comes and who goes on travel, student and other temporary visas. And it is vital all other reforms be conditioned on this goal being met.
Border Security, including drones, satellite, and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the General Accountability Office. Most importantly, and in contrast with any other plan out there, my plan will insist that report be presented to Congress for a vote. If, and only if Congress agreed that border security was progressing, then more reforms would ensue. If we can’t secure our border, and if we cannot prove we can modernize our system of issuing and tracking visas, we cannot take on the task of adding more people to our system.
More at link.
This is actually my biggest beef with Rand Paul.
Policies aside...can we as a country please stop with the language used by commies? The “Gang of 8”, Czars, etc. I find this in and of itself, makes me angry to the point where I can’t actually read the proposals, etc. We really are in trouble.
“Rand Paul, like his father before him, supports ‘Open borders - no benefits’.”
That is an absolutely untrue statement. Shame on you.
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.