Even that doesn't seem to have sufficient impact. Perhaps this
Or, maybe this
Posted on 02/09/2014 10:03:55 AM PST by jimbo123
HOUSTON — Sen. Rand Paul on Saturday predicted that Texas would turn blue within a decade if the Republican Party doesn’t become more inclusive.
“What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change,” Paul (R-Ky.), who grew up in Texas, said at a dinner held by the Harris County GOP. “That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.”
-snip-
The senator, whose father was a longtime congressman from Texas, acknowledged that immigration reform is a “touchy” subject before offering his vision for people who want to come to the United States.
“We won’t all agree on it,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.”
There was some quiet applause in the massive hotel ballroom, in which hundreds of Republicans — a mix of high-dollar donors, activists and state officials — were gathered. But Paul remarked that the response was “kind of tepid.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Yes.
Paul says things in an annoying bass ackward way that reflects the liberal slander more than the conservative promise.
Needs to be made more often.
Well it reinforces that he’s clueless at minimum. The goal should be reducing the need for what comes in and the associated spending, not making ‘what comes in” the yardstick for acceptability. Basic “Conservatism 101” and he failed.
And also, it’s not “What conservatives want to hear” it’s the basis of constitutional governance. Spending what comes in sounds like gateway liberalism.
Even that doesn't seem to have sufficient impact. Perhaps this
Or, maybe this
A few months ago I researched New Zealand policies on immigration. I found they have a very smart immigration policy. They will welcome you only if you have either (1) US$1.5 million to bring with you or (2) you have skill currently in high demand in NZ (3) and if you can pass their English proficiency test, this is a must.
Wish we had that type of policy to filter legal immigrants.
Giving blanket amnesty ala Ronald Reagan makes no sense. It has already proven that type of action attracts more illegals.
With respect to Texas, his warning is correct. It could be sooner than 10 years. Just look at Virginia and Colorado. Texas is the prize in the gunsights of the left. If they can turn it, it is game over for America, and they will run rampant through the land. The remnant American population will have no say in government.
I have long pondered what you do in response to leftist takeovers that are based not on the consent of the governed, but on decisions by leftist judges and on changing the makeup of the electorate through ignoring immigration laws. In my opinion, even if a state like Texas does become majority democrat, even if America has a majority that votes for socialists like Obama, it will have been accomplished in ways that are illegitimate.
This country was founded by Americans for Amerians, so that they could build their own nation, a godly nation with a culture all its own, and respect for the inherent, inalienable rights of its citizens. They spilled blood and spent their treasure defending their nation. The history of the last 80 years seems to me to have been a concerted effort to tame the Americans so that they would be like citizens of the rest of the world, and when that effort failed, they instead changed the electorate. Combined with a generations long effort to propagandize the young and destroy the family, the end result has been a situation where they are on the precipice of a nation in which Americans, real Americans, are going to be a persecuted minority in the land that their forefathers created. It is going to be taken over by disaffected blacks who have been radicalized by their leaders, immigrants, illegal aliens, single women and that 10 or 20 percent of the population that Lenin referred to as the "useful idiots".
If the country had evolved to this situation through the will of the electorate, if the Americans and those assimilated citizens that joined our enterprise had voted to break down their own culture and then become a socialist tyranny in which individual rights are meaningless, then at least we might say that this is the governance we agreed to and deserve. But that is not what happened. At no point in this progression did the people consent to their demise as a free people. It was imposed on them.
Texas is the tipping point. They already pretend to let us vote for our government, but if Texas turns, they won't have to pretend anymore. The national elections will be like California, but DC will be run by people who control the IRS and NSA. Freedom will be dead, and when freedom dies, there is no getting it back.
I say if this thing is not turned back by the elections of 2014 and 2016, if the efforts of Mark Levin and others to reign in the feds through amendments fail (and I am not optimistic about that effort, but support it), if the feds start coming for the guns and shutting down the voices of dissent, then I don't care what the marxist judges say and how many welfare mothers vote to allow the government to run our lives and take our rights. No one can take our rights, even if they vote for it. It will be time to take them on. In the revolution, 1/3 of the population fought against the 1/3 who favored the royalists, and the third in the middle swayed with the breeze. That may be how the numbers work out again.
Let's hope it never comes to that but be ready if it does.
What you said. I’ve been saying the same thing. The anchor baby interpretation would be the hardest part of it because of so many court rulings assuming that illegal babies are citizens based on a misinterpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language. We’d need a Supreme Court ruling (that is not likely), or a law (that might be thrown out), and, failing that, an amendment. Add it to Levin’s proposal.
Design and production of Atomic bomb which was decisive in defeating Japan was made possible by immigrants. I worked at the lab which created the first sustained nuclear reaction in the world, the Fermi Lab under Dr. Enrico Fermi, an immigrant. The lab is now known as Argonne National Lab. Many of the scientists and engineers working in the Manhattan project were immigrants.
Silicon Valley is replete with immigrants, where most of our high tech products and research initiated.
But there is huge difference between skilled legal immigrants and low-skilled illegal immigrants. We must prefer the former over the later.
That was his greatest mistake. And he had the guts to admit it. Trouble is, many on the GOPe right point to it and say “LOOK! The Great Reagan did it!” to justify their actions in the eyes of conservatives.
And they skip the part where he said he hosed it.
I personally am all for immigration. LEGAL immigration. When the immigrants have skills we actually lack. And when people are genuinely oppressed (As are many Christians and Jews across the world. Hindus as well. Buddhists. Muslims oppress themselves/everyone else and have no skills we need. Yhey can find another country to pollute.
It ain’t rocket surgery. The thing is, the GOPe knows full well that’s the case. They just side with libs because they are fellow travelers. People need to take off the blinders and see them for who they truly are. Their actions scream who they truly are. People just refuse to listen.
I agree. Low levels of immigration to gain high value foreigners who agree to and do assimilate to American culture is fine. Unlimited illegal immigration, and excessively high levels of immigration, especially of people incompatible with America, such as Muslims, is a mistake and part of an effort to divide us and dilute the population so that leftists can eventually take over.
Thanks for the correcion.
Clearly a Freudian slip on my part.
Sometimes when Rand Paul talks it sounds a lot like what I would expect from his father. -Tom
I agree. I am astounded at some of the people I see supported as “conservatives” by some here. Including certain politicos who voted for redistribution scams-a leftist policy if there ever was one-and conservative spokesmen who are weak on the Second Amendment, a bedrock principle of conservatism.
1: Kinky sex practices/internet viewing recorded in NSA records
2: Various other background that would cause their duped constituents to not vote for them in upcoming elections also recorded in NSA records.
3: Legalized deals struck with Dems to profit from insider trading they’d rather not had made public.
But often it’s just plain sex issues they’d rather not have broadcast.
He's a Jeffersonian liberal.
Nothing wrong with that. Most of the United States' founding fathers were.
Who or what are they excluding? And how?
As always, follow the money. Statesmen are an extinct species.
It’s clear now why Rand Paul is backing Mitch McConnell and not Matt Bevin. Paul has turned against the very people who elected him in 2010.
There is so much to like about Rand Paul It’s a shame he doesn’t see the harm illegals and mass immigration causes our economy, national security, and traditional culture.
I’d say there’s a lot wrong with it if it opens the borders and ignored their own Constitution. Which the founders definitely were not proponents of for obvious reasons. Had they been, we’d be playing God Save the Queen at sporting events.
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.