What do you want him to do? round them up?It's been done before.
Posted on 03/19/2013 10:23:20 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
National Review's Robert Costa reports from Washington DC that the GOPe are 'wary' of Sen. Rand Paul but are 'surprisingly open' to him
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
No where in his speech did he endorse a “path to citizenship”. The media are reporting it incorrectly, shocking isnt it?
No, it’s called giving them a visa so they can work and live within the United States.
Of course Rand supports amnesty—why do you think the GOPe is tolerqting him?
I think an Operation Wetback would be impractical these days. The numbers are too many and they’re breeding. Many of these people are in the community. I dont think it’s humane to round them up and deport them.
I would support giving them a visa and not allowing them any access to welfare as I believe that would unsustainable. I doubt the Democrats would go for that though, it’s true that they do want a rich vein of new socialist voters .
I am proud to be a libertarian and have no problems with immigrants. America is a nation of immigrants. I dont want them to get welfare though.
That won't be your call.
If the GOPe want to give them welfare and “tax credits” I am not for that and neither would Rand either I hope.
If the GOPe want to use them for low skilled labor then what’s the problem?
America is a nation of legal immigrantsFixed.
BTW, it appears Senator Paul is not locked into a position of absolutely opposing citizenship for current illegal aliens.
Without using the phrase, Paul appeared to confirm to reporters that he does support a path to citizenship after a probationary period.
“You have an option to get in the line, and you get a work visa if you want to work,” Paul said when asked if he supports a path to citizenship.
Paul rejected the idea of deporting undocumented immigrants or immediately giving them citizenship. Instead, he argued for a probationary status.
“The solution doesn’t have to be amnesty or deportation — a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period,” Paul said.
Paul also said his team is in talks with the Gang of 8, but it isn’t the “gang of eight plus one” … yet.
Byron York notes that Paul’s plan calls for border security, verified by Congress in an annual vote, before any path to citizenship is on the table.
How are masses of people arriving from Ireland and England on ships to New York “legal”? Please explain that to me.
Yes.
Round a bunch of them up. Require eVerify. Cut them off from benefits. Create some fear and hardship. MAKE THEM SELF-DEPORT.
Why?? Let them come here... who cares? as long as they’re not claiming welfare. All throughout America’s history immigrants have been welcome in huge numbers. That’s why the population exploded over 200 years.
The AP claimed this morning that Paul was set to endorse a path to citizenship in his speech today. Not so, countered conservatives on Twitter: Read his prepared remarks and you’ll see that citizenship is never mentioned. Which is true, and also irrelevant. The whole point of Paul’s speech is GOP rapprochement with Latino voters; he spends nearly two-thirds of it extolling Latinos’ work ethic, reminiscing about his friendships with Latinos growing up in Texas, name-checking Jaime Escalante and Pablo Neruda, and of course citing the ancient canard that Latinos are really just Republicans who don’t know it yet. (He mentions abortion and gay marriage as particular areas of overlap. In fact, younger Latinos support legal abortion in all or most cases and nearly 60 percent of Latinos overall support state recognition of gay marriage.) There’s no earthly way that Paul, having made a conciliatory pitch that florid, would ultimately turn around and insist that illegals be forever barred from seeking citizenship. In his op-ed on immigration today at the Washington Times, he actually refers to them at one point as “undocumented citizens.”(!) When pressed on the issue in the Q&A after his speech, he said this:
Following speech @SenRandPaul said he would back system where once undocumenteds had work visa they could get in back of citizenship line
So no, he won’t create a special path to citizenship to help move illegals quickly through the green-card process but there’s a path to citizenship through normal channels in the end. Then again, with the singular exception of Jeb Bush, whom no one believes is serious anyway, every prominent Republican politician I can think of supports a path to citizenship eventually. That’s my whole point: If you’re trying to build goodwill with Latinos, there has to be. But what about the rest of Paul’s plan? Quote:
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…
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…
After an Inspector General has verified that the border is secure after year one, the report must come back and be approved by Congress.
In year two, we could begin expanding probationary work visas to immigrants who are willing to work. I would have Congress vote each year for five years whether to approve or not approve a report on whether or not we are securing the border.
Byron York’s right that that’s a key difference with the Schumer/Rubio bill. The Senate bill would grant probationary legal status to illegals on the day the bill is signed into law; the path to a green card and eventual citizenship would, however, be contingent upon improvements in border security. Immigration hawks argue that that’s not good enough. Realistically, once someone has probationary legal status, there’ll be no political will to revoke it or to postpone the citizenship process indefinitely until border security has been tightened. Paul’s solution is to make that initial probationary legal status also contingent upon better border security. Illegals here get nothing until there’s real evidence that the border’s being enforced more comprehensively. (Paul has been talking about that for weeks, in fact, as a contrast to Rubio’s plan; I wrote about it on January 31.)
There’s just one hitch. Democrats will never agree to let Congress decide whether the border’s been sufficiently secured yet, especially with the GOP poised to gain seats in the Senate next year. The left wants llegals on the track to citizenship as quickly as possible, but if you make that track contingent upon border security, you risk letting a Republican Congress block it every year by voting that the border hasn’t been tightened quite enough yet. Although actually, I think the left’s fear there is overblown: As we get closer to 2016, the specter of alienating Latinos anew by consistently voting to delay citizenship for illegals would convince enough Republicans in Congress to join with Democrats in rubber-stamping border security to get the citizenship process moving. Paul’s bill is actually better politics for the GOP, arguably, because it lets them sound tougher on the border now, when conservatives are paying attention, while letting them go soft later when right-wing voters will be more forgiving of GOP caves that are aimed at winning the election.
One other footnote: He wants to modernize the visa system so that we can better track illegals who are here, but he opposes E-Verify because it “forc[es] businesses to become policemen.” That’s a concession to his libertarian base, many of whom support open borders and won’t like seeing him acting like a border hawk today. The least he can do for them is make sure that private enterprise isn’t being deputized by the state to carry out its regime of policing labor. Why a libertarian would necessarily favor more robust federal visa-tracking over E-Verify, though, I don’t know. Granted, without E-Verify illegals who lack probationary status have a better chance of finding employment, but on the other hand Paul’s scheme would likely require a bigger, more intrusive government agency to check up on illegal workers in lieu of letting employers do it. But then, let’s not get bogged down in the details. This isn’t meant as a viable plan for the Senate, as Rubio’s is, but as a political document aimed at showing grassroots conservatives that he’s tougher on the legalization process than Rubio and at showing independents and Latino voters that he’s compassionate enough towards immigrants to want them to stay and work here as long as they want.
Let’s see.
First of all they’re loyal to other countries, not the US.
Second, they mostly don’t pay taxes, but consume services and get EITC, instead.
Third, they drive down wages and reduce opportunity for Citizens and legal residents.
Fourth, they commit crimes all out proportion to their percentage of population.
Back then, there was a frontier to populate, and industrial revolution in need of labor, both of which are notably absent from the nation today. We don’t need the labor and we don’t need the population.
I sure there were Romans who thought the exact same thing you do just before the Goths rolled over them.
How are masses of people arriving from Ireland and England on ships to New York “legal”? Please explain that to me.Two words: Ellis Island
After its opening, Ellis Island was expanded with landfill and additional structures were built. By the time it closed on November 12, 1954, twelve million immigrants had been processed by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration.[19] It is estimated that 10.5 million immigrants departed for points across the United States from the Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal, located just across a narrow strait.[20][21] Others would have used one of the other terminals along the North River (Hudson River) at that time.[22] The peak year for immigration at Ellis Island was 1907, with 1,004,756 immigrants processed. The all-time daily high occurred on April 17, 1907, when 11,747 immigrants arrived.[23] After the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, which greatly restricted immigration and allowed processing at overseas embassies, the only immigrants to pass through the station were displaced persons or war refugees.[24] Today, over 100 million Americans - one third of the population - can trace their ancestry to the immigrants who first arrived in America at Ellis Island before dispersing to points all over the country.
Generally, those immigrants who were approved spent from two to five hours at Ellis Island. Arrivals were asked 29 questions including name, occupation, and the amount of money carried. It was important to the American government that the new arrivals could support themselves and have money to get started. The average the government wanted the immigrants to have was between 18 and 25 dollars. Those with visible health problems or diseases were sent home or held in the island's hospital facilities for long periods of time. More than three thousand would-be immigrants died on Ellis Island while being held in the hospital facilities. Some unskilled workers were rejected because they were considered "likely to become a public charge". About 2 percent were denied admission to the U.S. and sent back to their countries of origin for reasons such as having a chronic contagious disease, criminal background, or insanity.[25] Ellis Island was sometimes known as "The Island of Tears" or "Heartbreak Island"[26] because of those 2% who were not admitted after the long transatlantic voyage. The Kissing Post is a wooden column outside the Registry Room, where new arrivals were greeted by their relatives and friends, typically with tears, hugs and kisses.[27][28]
I do not support giving them welfare and that must end. If they’re coming here for hand outs then they should be told NO and put to work instead.
There is plenty of room in America, the country is huge and can still develop further with more immigrants. The more the merrier I say. This has happened all throughout history... now you want to pull up the draw bridge? It does not make sense.
OK... so lets re-open Ellis Island and route them through there.. does it matter? The concept is still the same. Americ was built on immigration and assimilation
How about we cut the welfare out and/or refuse it to them and instead put them to work in a GOPe’s local factory? (if they’re still open after Obama’s anti-business policies)
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.