Replies

Rand Paul is an amnesty supporter.

"In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said he’ll return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party...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."

Paul plans to inject himself into the middle of the GOP’s emotional immigration debate in the wake of Romney losing swing states with heavy Latino populations like Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Paul is working on a novel plan that he says would “assimilate” many of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those individuals, he said, could apply for legal status, but immigration would then be clamped down in the interim. He also says his plan would toughen security at the border.

“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”

Paul said the “trade-off” would be “not to accept any new legal immigrants while we’re assimilating the ones who are here.” Asked if he is concerned about the ripple effect that could cause around the world, Paul said the details over which countries would be affected are still in the works.

But it’s clear Paul wants to have a voice in the roiling debate, even as other prospective 2016 GOP players, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, plan to assert their views when Congress takes up immigration reform next year. “I think I might have the ability to get out in front of this issue,” Paul said when asked if he believed conservatives would cry “amnesty” over such a plan. “I think I might have the ability because nobody really questions — at least not so far — whether I’m conservative enough.”

I am all for LEGAL ( especially SKILLED ) immigration.

Why? Are you for the current 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who enter each year while 23 million Americans are looking for fulltime employment and half of college graduates can't find work in their fields?

The decade ending in 2010 saw the highest number of legal immigrants ever to enter this country--13.9 million. During that same period we suffered a net loss of jobs of 400,000. There is no correlation between immigration and our job needs.

In addition to permanent legal immigrants, we have at any one time over 2 million workers here under temporary work visas like H1B visas. Rubio and the Gang of 8 want to double that number. Is anyone concerned about the welfare of the American worker? Why can't we produce enough skilled labor?

Initially, we were told by the political class that we needed immigrants to do jobs Americans WON'T do. Now we need immigrants to do jobs Americans CAN'T do.

Rand Paul is no conservative if he wants to discard the Rule of Law and legalize lawbreakers while stopping entry of those who followed the rules and are waiting their turn to enter overseas. What kind of message does this send?

RE: Why? Are you for the current 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who enter each year while 23 million Americans are looking for fulltime employment and half of college graduates can’t find work in their fields?

_______________________________

I am going to disagree with you regarding LEGAL immigration.
And remember this word — LEGAL. I have no arguments with you when it comes to ILLEGALs.

Let’s ask ourselves one question first — are these LEGAL (emphasis ) immigrants taking jobs away from Americans? Or are they filling jobs that can’t be filled locally?

You talk about college grads who can’t find work.

How many of these college grads graduate with EMPLOYABLE degrees instead of taking fluff courses in liberal colleges?

I am in the IT field (Software Development). I HIRE people (mostly contractors) for projects. When I put out a job requirement, I get numerous resumes from recruiting agencies. I HARDLY ever find a name with the family name like SMITH or JOHNSON today (Occasionally I do, but they are few and far between ).

I do get a lot of resumes with Indian, Russian-Jewish, Filipino and Asian family names. I interview a few of them and found many to be QUALIFIED with the requisite skillset. ALL of them here LEGALLY.

What am I supposed to do? Tell the recruiting to find me someone with a European family name or else.... ?

Secondly, are these LEGAL ( emphasis ) immigrants coming here to be on welfare? Or are they self-sufficient and willing to work and start businesses (like my new LEGAL immigrant neighbor of a few blocks away, from Sri Lanka who just opened a newsstand, hiring one Hispanic in the process, and my other new LEGAL immigrant neighbor from a few blocks out from the Carribean, who took over a small deli with three employees)?

THESE ARE JOB CREATORS MAN AND WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE THESE.

If you can show me that these LEGAL (emphasis) immigrants are by and large WELFARE dependents, I’ll be on your side.

THIRDLY, You have to consider DEMOGRAPHICS.

In 1900, 4.1% of the US population was 65+.

By 1950, this number had almost doubled to 8.1%.

Baby Boomers (now ages 48-66) represent the most significant population wave in US history. According to the CBO, the population aged 65 and over will increase by 87% over the next 25 years as Baby Boomers enter retirement, compared to an increase of only 12% in those aged 20-64.

This year, 13% of the US population is 65+ and entitlement spending accounts for 8.7% of GDP. And that number only includes SSI and Medicare, not Medicaid and future Obamacare subsidies which add to these outlays.

In 10 years (2022): 16.1% of the population will be 65+, entitlement spending estimated at 9.6% ($1.5 trillion, based on 2011 US GDP)

2037 (25 years on): 20 % of the US population will be 65+, entitlement spending estimated at 12.2% of GDP ($2.0 trillion)

Not surprisingly, there will be far more women than men in the 65+ population. Women currently live about five years longer than their male peers, on average. Accordingly, the Census Bureau estimates that in 2030, there will be about 8 million more women than men that are 65 and older by 2030: 27.8 million versus 35.7 million.

Here’s something we ought to consider -— Like most of Europe and the more prosperous parts of Asia ( e.g., Japan, Taiwan and Korea ), our birth rate is BELOW replacement rates.

Our population growth is AT replacement rate BECAUSE of IMMIGRATION.

Unless we start having more babies instead of aborting them, we will need fresh, new blood coming in to take care of the growing number of old folks in America.

So, WE NEED MORE LEGAL (emphasis) IMMIGRANTS. The kind who will not be dependent on the government, but the skilled and entrepreneural ones who will help the economy grow.