Posted on 03/08/2014 7:52:17 PM PST by teg_76
Rand Paul is slightly ahead of Ted Cruz....and most of us know that Rand, through his endorsement of Mitch McConnell, has already sold us out. Go Ted!!!!!!
Paul voted against Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
If he favored amnesty if would have voted for the gang of 8 plan.
So what you are saying is that we secure the borders (which does nothing about the ones who are here), cut off benefits (which they are not legally getting now anyway) and then after a few years "have a look" at the illegals that are still here (in other words the criminals who have managed to continue to work illegally after the border is secure) and then let these master criminals have a shot at legalization.
Haven't we been told by our government that the border IS secure?
Haven't we been told by our government that illegal aliens are NOT getting benefits?
So if we just leave these people to continue to commmit their crimes of tax evasion and identity theft for a few more years, that THEN we can welcome them into America as we do the immigrants who went through all the hoops to come to America legally?
Is that the ticket?
What the Hell are you talking about. These CRIMINALS buy Social Security cards from illegal vendors off the street. Your own Social Security number might be one of the numbers that one of these criminal aliens is using right now. You wouldn't even know it unless you were audited by the IRS.
But maybe it is, I do not know but I'd bet dollars to donuts the feds will not prosecute you for giving them money.
Maybe you are that dense.
In fact one reason no one in fed gov really wants to try to solve our illegal immigration problem is because of all the $$$ the feds rake in from illegals.
Yes, I do believe you are THAT dense. You cannot be serious. The feds are raking in all this money from people who don't pay income taxes? You really believe that?
Securing the borders is the top priority. After that is done then and only then can we address our other problems. Without secure borders we can do nothing.
Reagan granted AMNESTY on the promise by the democrats that the border would be secured.
How'd that work out?
Your position is being over run by the enemy. Battle plan; Fortify the perimeter so that no more enemy troops can gain access to you interior lines. SECURE THE BORDER!
So you are saying nothing can be done? Reagan was promised employers sanctions not border security. But the feds never really went after employers of illegals because illegals give the feds money via fake SS accounts that never claim benefits.
You do realize that after the border is secured and amnesty is granted to the 12 million illegal aliens and their 25 million children that they can then legally bring in all their foreign relatives and they will be given immediate legal status?
Any path to legalization must be opposed. We cannot reward these criminals.
No amnesty. No way.
Paul is against any new pathway to citizenship. If Paul retreats from this position I will not longer support him. But thus far Paul is holding firm. A bit wobbly from time to time I will admit. But what are we to do will 30 million people? One tenth of our population! It is a serious problem that Paul/Cruz/Walker did not create. Blame Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama not Paul.
Very few of yall gave a damn about illegal immigration when Bush was president. I was in the trenches on this issue for a long time. I’ve been screaming for enforcing the immigration laws since 1986. I am almost a single issue voter on illegal immigration. I know this issue! Paul while not prefect is damn good on illegal immigration. Way better then Bush whom yall loved with an ever day “Day in the life” thread.
Ansell using the straw man trick works against a low info voter. ..take that lame a@@ bs to someone else
I started raising cain about the immigration laws in the mid 1960s, and in 1967 as a teenager made a condition for me to take over a work crew, that I could fire all the illegals and hire Americans.
For me the immigration issue was a major source of frustration by the early 1970s.
My feelings on immigration is one reason that I try to keep some distance from it here at FR.
You are anti-conservative because of social issues.
Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism.
When Bush tried to ram amnesty down our throats I called for his impeachment.
Illegals threatened to kill my bar manager, illegals do lots of work I could do better and cheaper. I want them gone too.
When did I say I wasn’t conservative on social issues? I am . That said I don’t want your version of conservatism. Screw that. Free man...Free Markets...no abortion...get off my lawn unless you have a warrent
as in "vice president?" -- yes
If you are a social conservative, and a conservative, then why are you so angry all the time and raging at conservatism, and social conservatives?
Well I was pleading with folks to vote Steve Forbes back in 2000. Paul is a serious person. I trust him on illegal immigration. That is about all I can say.
I think I understand now, you really are anti-conservative, you are the Giuliani type.
Social issues are taking a back seat in these perilous times to leadership and competency. Even conservative voters many are willing to overlook Rudy’s past positions on social issues ..poll after poll after poll clearly show this. It may not be Rudy it may be Romney....... The social right does not have a candidate interested in running who radiates competency and leadership ...they don’t have en electable candidate. It’s getting late.
Thats a hard truth that just really unnerves some folks here.
271 posted on 9/28/2006 6:42:37 AM by Blackirish
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.