Posted on 03/10/2014 7:36:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Legal status, but not citizenship, for illegal immigrants
Q: On immigration, you call your plan for creating a legal status—not citizenship, but a legal status—for the 11 million folks who are already here. But you oppose the E-verify system which would make it easier for employers to check whether their workers are legal or illegal. Why?
PAUL: Well, that’s not the main part of my plan. The main part of my plan is trust but verify, that says we have to have border security. The amendment that I will add to the bipartisan plan will ensure that there is border security and that Congress gets to vote on that border security every year, in order for it to go forward. With regard to E-verify, it’s not that I’m opposed to some sort of database check. For example, when you come into the country, I think the country should do a background check on you to find out if you are a felon or if there’s a problem. So I’m not against any kind of checking, I just would prefer the government to be the policeman and not the businessman.
Source: Fox News Sunday 2013 interviews: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Mar 24, 2013
We will find a place for illegal immigrants in America
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is endorsing a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants. In a speech, the potential 2016 presidential candidate declares, “If you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.”
Paul’s path to citizenship would come with conditions that could make it long and difficult for illegal immigrants. Chief among these, Congress would have to agree first that progress was being made on border security.
Paul’s speech is peppered with Spanish phrases from his youth in Texas, references to his immigrant grandparents and praise for Latino culture. He says his party must adopt a new face toward Hispanics and says conservatives must be part of it. “Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation,” Paul says. “Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport” the millions already here, he says.
Source: Associated Press in Los Angeles Times , Mar 18, 2013
Replace de facto amnesty with bipartisan reform
Paul would aim to secure the border before illegal immigrants could begin taking steps toward citizenship, as a necessary first step to get support from conservatives. Congress would also have to agree annually for 5 years that border security was progressing in order for the other reforms to keep moving forward. In year two of his plan, illegal immigrants would begin to be issued temporary work visas, and would have to wait in line behind those already in the system before moving forward toward citizenship. A bipartisan panel would determine the number of visas per year. High-tech visas would be expanded and a special visa for entrepreneurs would be issued.
Paul would not attempt to crack down on employers by expanding working verification systems, something he says is tantamount to “forcing businesses to become policemen.”
“My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line,” Paul says. “But what we have now is de facto amnesty.”
Source: Associated Press in Los Angeles Times , Mar 18, 2013
See immigrants as assets, not liabilities
We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better future. We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities. We must be the party that says, “If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you.”
Source: Tea Party Response to 2013 State of the Union Address , Feb 12, 2013
Obamacare treats illegal aliens because it’s illegal to ask
Q: You want to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what you call market-driven principles.
PAUL: We had 45 million people nationwide that were not receiving or didn’t have health insurance. A third of them were in the country illegally and were illegal aliens. And I don’t think we should be giving illegal aliens health insurance.
Q: No, that’s not true. Illegal aliens are not covered by “Obamacare.”
PAUL: I know, but it’s illegal to ask them if they’re illegal, so it’s sort of a Catch-22. The Republicans kept introducing an amendment to Obamacare to say, “You can ask if they’re illegal aliens,” and the Democrats kept shooting it down, saying, “No, you can’t ask whether they’re here legally or illegally.”
Source: Fox News Sunday, 2010 Kentucky Senate debate , Oct 3, 2010
Source: On The Issues
Maybe not as good as Palin, Nugent, West, or Cruz. Who, IMO, are perfectly acceptable as candidates as well.
I like your thinking...
Rand Paul is not winning. He and his dad pay for and bus in hundreds of their supporters to vote for them; no one else does.
Subtract out the people they pay to attend, and Rand would be lucky to get 7-8%.
He doesn’t see a way to get 12+ million people to get up and leave.
I do. But I don’t write his policies and my way would undoubtedly be considered “mean” or even “brutal”.
No. I think the number of illegals here is probably closer to 20-25 million. Even if they were granted work visas, this does not give them a right to vote.
So... What’s your solution? E-verify and shutting down the welfare tap are good starts. But what is YOUR proposal to get them to go home and which candidate supports your plan?
Take your time. I’ll wait. And yes, I really want to know. I’m not as at ease with Rand’s stance as you are making me out to be.
How is it a “fallacy” when the way it is currently being done is that the President says the border is secure when it plainly isn’t?
I take it you didn’t bother to read the amendment he proposed?
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/TrustButVerify.pdf
One page. Nice and short.
I still like my idea of “one deportation and if we catch you again we turn you into plant fertilizer”...
No. Your policies don’t go far enough.
Employers need to see jail time. A fine can be shrugged off. Corporatism means there is no personal cost for the Board/CEO.
E-verify is a trojan horse for a National ID. Are you ready to fight that fight?
No medical services. Period. Making a “humanitarian” loophole is already being exploited and used to give them further benefits.
Even still, you will have those willing to com up here and work in the black markets via fraudulent ID’s. These people must be hunted down, deported, and if found again, ended.
As for Rand, if he was so pro-illegal as you claim, why did he vote against the Senate bill? Why did he vote against expanding freebies for illegals? Why did he vote against a “front of the line” amendment for illegals?
Also, please note I’m trying to have a real discussion here and my mind is not made up about Rand. You can shove your little attempts at pejorative barbs up your sphincter sideways.
Lastly, odd that you’d support Palin when her stance on immigration so closely parallels Rands...
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Sarah_Palin_Immigration.htm
Which Party has a lock on “deceit and lies”? From everything I’ve seen, they are all a bunch of liars.
Which is why I try to pay more attention to how a politician VOTES rather than what they say on the 5o’clock news.
Yeah... That must be it. /sarc
>>Let people come here, work, take their tax money, BUT DON’T LET THEM VOTE???
That is flat out immoral.<<
Hmm. I guess anyone employed by a corporation who is not also a stockholder would be suffering from the same immorality then?
What is the logic that a green card, and a citizenship in another country to boot, should entitle one to vote in the country they’re working in, but not a citizen of?
We are not talking about green cards and temporary residence in foreign country. The illegal aliens in this situation would become permanent residents who could work but not vote. How long do you think that will stand up in court when the first one sues?
I ain’t going for him. Too much like his dad for me. I’d rather have Cruz, but I don’t expect him to get the nod.
I do think people harsh on Rand a bit much, though. He’s fairly much a states’ rights person and I go along with that.
It would stand up forever. Non-citizens have no right to vote. They would have no grounds to sue. You think if you work in Canada or Mexico, but retain U.S. citizenship, that working there would give you the right to choose their leadership?
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.