Rand Paul to GOP: Change your tune, or Texas goes Democratic

CBS News ^ | 2/9/14 | JAKE MILLER

[jimbo123]

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., delivered a stark demographic warning to his party on Saturday, predicting that Texas – a sizable electoral prize that Republicans cannot afford to lose in national elections – may tilt Democratic within 10 years if the GOP doesn’t broaden its appeal.

“What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change,” Paul told the Harris County Republican Party on Saturday, according to Politico. “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.”

Paul’s pitch to Texas Republicans focused largely on the party’s appeal among Hispanic Americans, who have trended strongly Democratic in recent elections. He acknowledged that immigration reform, a top priority for many Hispanic political leaders, is a “touchy” subject for Republicans. But he counseled the GOP not to shy away from the debate, though it may expose intra-party divisions.

“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.”

[Graewoulf]

Obanmacrat Senator Rand Paul wants Republicans to be more like Democrats.

Why else would he endorse Amnestry for Illegal Alien Invaders from Mexico by saying to them “- - we’ll find a place for you.” - - - “ ?

It is easy to smoke out the traitors when a major battle looms.

Bye, Senator Rand Paul: we know for sure that you will always put politics before Country.

[Eagles6]

I agree and I don’t know. They are complicit in the destruction of the Republic.

[VRWC For Truth]

Ca$h > principles. Rand is a MF’ing whore.

[maddog55]

Once again I see FRs hammering someone for his approach yet I have yet to see who the “perfect” FR messiah would be.

For the GOP to broaden it’s appeal doesn’t mean you have to change your views on everything and accept everything you’re against it’s as simple as changing they way you get your message out so more people understand your views and come around to your way of thinking. The GOP sucks at getting any message out and that’s been seen on everything from healthcare to the war on poverty to immigration. There’s some great ideas but they’re useless if you can’t get your point across.

Immigration reform could work wonders for the GOP if they could convert the majority of immigrants as to why they should reject the liberal ideas. You do that first, then talk immigration reform.

[xzins]

I agree. Especially in a time of record joblessness, there is absolutely no need to allow legal immigration.

[xzins]

Great charts. What’s really dumb about Paul’s comment is that for some reason he’s trying to give the impression that conservatives aren’t accepting of Hispanics.

There is nothing farther from the truth. Americans are Hispanics, Italians, Germans, Africans, Scottish, Dutch, etc. We cherish our fellow citizens.

Conservatives already accept Hispanics and have for a long, long time.

We don’t accept illegally entering the country by anyone. We have immigration rules. Man up and get in the line with your number and await your turn. It’s the law. It’s the only thing that’s asked.

Paul only meaning can be that he wants us to embrace illegal behavior with open arms. That’s nuts.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Thanks for the data on Latinos scamming the system. The border must be closed! Even if it take a million men and a project to rival the Great Wall of China—the Border must be closed. Mines, machine guns, tank traps, what ever it takes. I would say take ten years with no border crossings—no people, no trucks, no products, until Mexico sorts out her problems. An iron curtain to keep out drugs, gangs and other problems!

[kabar]

The border solves only part of the problem. 40% of the illegals got here legally and then overstayed their visas.

And we must drastically reduce LEGAL IMMIGRATION which is even more of a problem when it comes to the use of our social safety net.

[Norseman]

>> What’s really dumb about Paul’s comment is that for some reason he’s trying to give the impression that conservatives aren’t accepting of Hispanics.<<

That’s because it’s really, really, easy to find all kinds of comments on conservative forums where conservatives themselves give the impression they aren’t accepting of Hispanics. Start at the beginning of this post and read all the comments, for example. You’d have to be a pretty thick-skinned Hispanic to sort out the difference between anger at illegal immigration and anger at Hispanics, and don’t deny that you won’t find at least some of the latter in these comments.

You said “we don’t accept illegally entering the country by anyone.” The problem is that we have done exactly that under both GOP and Democrat administrations. Okay, you can argue that the GOP under Bush wasn’t conservative if you want, but still, Hispanics entered the country illegally even under Reagan.

I completely agree with the sense of what you write, but not your conclusion. And I particularly disagree with your made-up-out-of-whole-cloth conclusion that Paul therefore wants to embrace illegal behavior with open arms. He’s trying to solve an existing problem and build a political consensus to get it done. If that consensus is ever to be built, it had better include HIspanic citizens here legally, or the GOP can kiss off the Hispanic vote for decades.

As soon as someone stands up and recognizes that we have to deal with the reality that there are millions of working illegals here and looks for a way to address the issue via green card legalization, they suddenly become pariahs to the “No Amnesty” crowd. You are marginalizing yourselves without even realizing it.

If any of you think your heated letters to Boehner got him to change his mind on addressing amnesty, you’re wrong. You just got him to wait until after the Senate hopefully goes GOP, after which amnesty will be addressed, and not in the way the “No Amnesty” crowd wants, either.

In that environment, Senator Paul is showing terrific courage to wade into an issue that needs addressing. He does so knowing full well the lambasting he’ll get from the no amnesty crowd and has my respect for doing so.

[Norseman]

I have no problem with what you say. The employers should certainly play a key role. But that doesn’t mean we can’t address policing the border, issuing green cards, returning criminals to their home country, and employment all at the same time.

In fact, that’s probably the rational way to go at it, because each element makes the other elements easier to enforce.

As for your mistrust of another Obama-like, lawless, administration, I share it, particularly if he manages to appoint a liberal Supreme Court in the next three years.

[xzins]

I just read each of the first 40 posts of this thread and haven't found a single racist comment about Hispanics.

My comment in my post stands: Conservatives already accept Hispanics and have for a long, long time.

I had hopes for Rand Paul, but if he goes down the amnesty road, then I abandon him. Period. It is insane to bring additional workers into an economy with record numbers of its present citizens not working.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with racism, (which is really Rand Paul's accusation.) It has to do with reality. You injure Americans of all ethnic backgrounds by driving down wages and enticing them into the welfare cycle.

My pointed letter to my own congressman (across town from Boehner's district) has been supported by him. He'll not be voting for amnesty anytime soon...or for its clandestine sibling, comprehensive immigration reform.

I'm now perplexed about Rand Paul's game. I've always been taught to follow the money.

[USNBandit]

Without stopping the ability of illegals to get employment it won’t matter how many assets and people you throw at the border.

[Norseman]

>>Without stopping the ability of illegals to get employment it won’t matter how many assets and people you throw at the border.<<

I understand that, which is why I think the illegal immigrant issue has to be addressed on more than one front simultaneously. I absolutely hate “comprehensive” legislation because, as Pelosi famously said, “you have to pass it to see what’s (really) in it.”

I think each issue though, should be on the table at the same time, and addressed simultaneously. For example, a dependable means for an employer to check electronically on a green card should be in place. Right now, the illegal worker without one just disappears to a big city for a few days and comes back with one. He wasn’t waiting in line at the immigration office during that time away either.

Simultaneously, the streets have to be cleared of those here illegally who have criminal records. Deport them as soon as they’re caught.

Also simultaneously, the border has to be policed. It does no good to send them home if they can cross back over tomorrow.

But we also have to realize that there are millions here illegally who are already working. Whole industries will suffer if they’re all sent home overnight (as if we could ever actually pull that off.) To my mind, it makes complete sense to clear most of them for green cards so that we know who they are, how many they are, and where they are.

After those steps are taken, then it would make sense to start issuing green cards primarily based on which immigrants will do the most to improve our economic prospects.

And none of this should necessarily lead to a path to citizenship. If anything, someone who is here illegally should go to the back of the line. Furthermore, the Constitution should probably be changed so that automatic citizenship wouldn’t accrue to someone born here to a non-citizen. I can understand why it was put in there initially, for we are a nation of immigrants, but perhaps it would make more sense to award citizenship to a child born here only after their parents became citizens themselves. The constitution didn’t anticipate a workforce traveling back and forth across the border to the extent we have would have today if we had a workable green card apparatus.

[Norseman]

I too read the first 40 posts and agree with you. In this case, I saw no racist comments. Maybe #42, but most of them were just vitriol spewed at Senator Paul. So, I stand corrected, in this case.

What I don’t understand is your failure to recognize that this isn’t about bringing even more immigrants in to work, but rather it’s about getting a handle on the ones already here. We have to do that, and frankly, those who think we will ever be successful in deporting them all are just dreaming. It won’t happen. That’s reality, and my saying it doesn’t make it a reality. It just is, political reality.

The problem I have with the typical conservative tone in this debate (and Sean Hannity often provides excellent examples, by the way) is that halfway through a diatribe any reasonably neutral party can justifiably assume that the speaker hates Hispanics and wants to send them all home because a) they’re mostly Democrats, or b) they’re mostly leaches on society, or c) they’re mostly here to have babies that can then be citizens, or d) they’re taking our jobs, or e) All of the Above.

The distinction between illegal and legal gets lost in the vitriol. Hell, most of them don’t even want citizenship, they want jobs, but half the time the conservative arguing the point ends up sounding like it’s all about creating new citizens, not just legal residents. After all, they can only vote if they’re citizens and yet a lot of the conservatives commenting are claiming that amnesty of any sort will create millions of Democrat votes. They can’t vote; they’re not citizens. If they are voting anyway, that’s a completely separate issue that needs addressing separately.

You say follow the money. I say Senator Paul is following the votes, and if conservatives don’t learn to deal with a growing Hispanic community effectively then Texas will, indeed, be a blue state someday. I say give him a break and see if he can find a middle ground that helps the party instead of automatically assuming he’s gone all crony capitalist on us.

[CowboyJay]

"Most Latinos are by their nature conservative in many ways—we must reach out to them."

In my hometown there were some Spanish families that went even further back than mine in Colorado (and I'm 5th generation). They were all very conservative.

The father of one of my friends (1st generation Mexican immigrant) would literally spit on the ground any time Bill Clinton's name was mentioned. 3 sons who served honorably. One of the hardest working people I've ever met, too. Worked as a farm hand 'til they put him in a box.

But guys like my buddy's dad are the exception to the rule. An anachronism, really. The younger ones moving into the cities are mostly here for the freebies, or looking to put up a nest egg so they can retire back home by the time they're 50, or women looking to play the anchor baby game. While some maybe have pro-life sentiments, they wouldn't vote that way, and their kids definitely would not.

Other than being pro-life, most Latinos are Socialist to the bone. How else would you explain so many hard-left governments in Latin America? So I have to disagree that granting them citizenship would be a good idea. Unless you'd like to see a blue Texas in the very near future, that is.

I don't buy the line that the GOP has to openly pander to pick up conservative Latino votes. Conservative Latinos already vote Republican. Problem is, they're a minority within a minority.