Rand Paul....Proposing a path to CITIZENSHIP for illegals.


#1

“In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said he’ll return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party. He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (Socialist not Democratic…he caucuses with those to his right!) and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives.”[LEFT]
Read more: Welcome to the Rand Paul evolution - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Guess he won’t be running in 2016 then.:popc1:
[/LEFT]


#2

Well, I agree at this point. We aren’t going to get rid of these people, but we can secure the border and help make them good members of our society.


#3

With Rubio also proposing something this will not be an issue of argument in 2016.


#4

I can’t say I agree with the idea, but it’s now a political inevitability. (People should remember this when they say that voters don’t get what they want from their politicians. It just happens to be Hispanic voters in this case.) It became inevitable when the phrase “self-deportation” somehow became toxic. Sadly, we’ve all the tools we need in place already to solve the problem of illegal immigration, only lacking the will to use e-Verify and finish building the fence. We should still demand those, before we sign off on amnesty. If we do, we’ll be surprised to find that most Hispanic voters don’t object to either, once a solution is found for those already here.


#5

I’m against E-verify. I don’t like government tracking databases.

It’t not worth it.


#6

NONONONONO! Absolutely not…NO PATH TO CITIZENSHIP for the line jumpers. Rubio is NOT proposing a path to citizenship…so far…all he has sail is making them legal to BE here and work…IF other things are done. Only RAND is talking citizenship…if he wants to make 12 million ILLEGALS …VOTERS…then he has lost mine.
He’s turning out as wacky as his Dad.
Why don’t we just forget elections in the future.


Consolidated Gay Issue Thread
#7

I’m ready to what both Rubio and Rand actually have in their plans.


#8

I agree with you on the distinction, but I’m not sure that you can get it, without ultimately a path to citizenship. As a practical political matter. Like gravity. (Or homosexual marriage. <g>)


#9

I seem to have heard that Eisenhower had illegals removed.
Of course the numbers were a lot smaller.

Rand does have a point about anything the government subsidizes making it bigger.
Eliminate the bennies, require proof of citizenship to get them.

Of course you could do that if either side really wanted to fix the problem


#10

How about, first of all, making the path to citizenship easier for legal immigrants? Seems like every time we have a problem with illegal immigration, we just “refine” the rules to make citizenship more difficult for the *legal *immigrants. Just like, whenever a criminal kills someone with a gun, we try to make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to get a gun.


#11

I am for NEITHER a path to citizenship NOR amnesty…to be clear. One leads immediately to the end of Republican chances. The other takes about a generation as the illegals American babies get the right to vote. It is suicide for Republicans and bad for the Republic to open our borders and reward criminal behavior.
I am willing to consider some compromise…to effectively seal the border and REMOVE the non-tax paying illegals from doing illegal work and displacing or lowering the wages of similarly unskilled/low-skill Americans. Creating paths to ANY legal status is IMO an excercise in self destruction.


#12

CONTROL THE EFFING BORDERS!!!
Then maybe we can DISCUSS what to do about the illegals in the U.S., but don’t even agree to talk about it until the borders are secure and totally under control.


#13

Bah we are all children of immigants. THe problem is people immigrate here then try to burn the bridges behind them preventing others from doing the same. I think we see Mexican immigration as a threat to white demographic and the main republican voter block. As we saw in the presidential election the white majority is becomming the minority. Eventually, the rest of us are simply going to get use to teh USA becomming more mexican-Catholic rather then white secular. Its just going to happen.


#14

A point in search of relevance.

The US has some of the most liberal immigration policies of any country in the world and brings in more legal immigrants than any other nation in the world. Furthermore, no other nation in the world has nearly as high a percentage of its population who are themselves immigrants. The principle problem of US immigration law is that it does not give enough weight to the quality of the immigrant seeking entry.


#15

Once we became a nation, we became very careful about who we allowed in. And to begin with, only those who were determined to make something of themselves came, anyway. Read a book once, biographical, about a family who came to the US, and they almost had to send the one child back because she was crippled. But I think they finally allowed her in because the rest of the family let it be known that they would see to it that she was taken care of. Our early immigrants didn’t just flock across an open border; they went through great hardships to get here, and they worked hard to become productive Americans. Sure, some of them settled in their little national enclaves, but they learned to speak English, and they worked hard. They saw America as a country of opportunity, not of hand-outs.


#16

Has anyone even seen the bill yet?

I say read it before you judge it.


#17

[quote=“Susanna, post:15, topic:37087”]
Once we became a nation, we became very careful about who we allowed in. And to begin with, only those who were determined to make something of themselves came, anyway. Read a book once, biographical, about a family who came to the US, and they almost had to send the one child back because she was crippled. But I think they finally allowed her in because the rest of the family let it be known that they would see to it that she was taken care of. Our early immigrants didn’t just flock across an open border; they went through great hardships to get here, and they worked hard to become productive Americans. Sure, some of them settled in their little national enclaves, but they learned to speak English, and they worked hard. They saw America as a country of opportunity, not of hand-outs.
[/quote]In the past those coming in had to learn English and other stuff as a requirement but in today’s environment they still want to promote that emigrates native language over English and some of those want us to conform to their values which were the same values they were fleeing from in their country. Ain’t history interesting?


#18

I agree.

Rand is doing this to further his career and the parties chances in 2016. This is not an ideological push IMO.

I believe he will be offering a more conservative option than Rubio so there can be a compare-contrast, but we have to wait and see.


#19

He said PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. I don’t care what else is in the bill…I can judge it now…Pure Crapola!


#20

[quote=“Cam, post:19, topic:37087”]
He said PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. I don’t care what else is in the bill…I can judge it now…Pure Crapola!
[/quote]What if the path is that they have to wait in line behind all of the Mexicans who signed up already?

That seems reasonable. I’ve heard most conservatives advocate that in fact. The difference is they would wait here as opposed to waiting there. But I don’t even know if that is what is proposing…we’ll see.