Rand Paul for Amnesty

[Liverlips]

Not a good sign ...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83737.html

In the wake of Barack Obama’s reelection win and ahead of a possible 2016 White House bid of his own, the Kentucky Republican plans to mix his hard-line tea party conservatism with more moderate policies that could woo younger voters and minorities largely absent from the GOP coalition. It’s the latest tactic of the freshman senator to inject the Libertarian-minded views shared by his retiring father into mainstream Republican thinking as the party grapples with its future.

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 “assimilateâ€￾ 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.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83737_Page2.html#ixzz2C8E7UQRR



​

 

[FootballDad]

This is the theme for the entire Republican establishment, and is absolute stupidity. Rush Limbaugh hit the nail on the head when evaluating the current pandering to illegals coursing through the GOP leadership. They think that backing amnesty will win them votes with Hispanics. Hispanics aren't interested in amnesty, they are interested in socialism, as they have believed all of their lives that money and power comes from Government. They come across the border as ready-made socialists. Who are socialists going to vote for? Democrats! It doesn't matter if some party loudly proclaims that they love hispanics, they are looking for government to "help" them.

To "conservatives" who back this strategy, explain this: Reagan won re-election in 1984 and garnered 37% of the hispanic vote, then backed and signed the 1986 Simpson Mazzoli amnesty act that was intended to help Republicans with minority voters. In 1988, GHW Bush only received 30% of the hispanic vote. Does backing amnesty work for anybody but Marxists?

 

[Strad]

:hail:Football Dad makes a brilliant assessment.

I would just like to add that the only libertarians I've met who could be trusted were libertarian nationalists. Your standard garden variety libertarian is an open borders fanatic.

 

[Westside]

Rand Paul and the rest of the GOP believe this will even the playing field in terms of attracting hispanics. It will fail. What they fail to realize is the Cultural Marxists have won the culture war. More takers(minorities, dwfs and liberals, femanists) than doers(people like Me) and makers(capitalists, corporations etc, the supposed bad guys according to the LSM). who make up the tax base who create jobs.

Something close to the whole house of cards needs to crash and burn to change the culture we have now. My hope is that alot of companies say FU to this Obamacare and not hire or just hire part time workers. This I believe is the only hope of at least being the beginning of the end of the socialist experiment in Amerika. I will not believe it until I see though.

 

[referendum]

The one positive is that he is talking about a shutdown of overall legal immigration as a trade off while this happens. This compares favorably with most amnesty plans which just envision amnesty coming on top of the already too high legal immigration, so Paul's plan is a win loss scenario, while others are of course loss loss scenarios. Of course the GOP is still the loser on this debate, as poor people who depend on the taxpayer for goodies don't usually vote GOP, and the illegal population has a poverty rate of 25% according to the census department, which matches blacks and US citizen hispanics. So many GOP politicians are amazingly shortsighted and foolish.

 

[FootballDad]

The one positive is that he is talking about a shutdown of overall legal immigration as a trade off while this happens.

Even if the bill is built around these new, tough security measures, they will never be implemented. The amnesty part will happen, but the borders and enforcement will not change meaningfully. The aforementioned Simpson-Mazzoli act was structured this exact same way, but the securing-the-border part never happened. How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I'm a Republican politician!

 

[Awake in America]

I'll be interested to see what Rand Paul actually ends up supporting. He talks of a path to "eventual" citizenship. It would be very disappointing for him to cave on this. I have a feeling he is just keeping himself in the conversation. I hope that's the case, because he is one of the few that I would support without holding my nose.

At the rate our economy is going, Mexico might be the ones that build a wall.

 

[Liverlips]

In all seriousness, Mexico should thank God it has a border that the U.S. won't protect.

Every year it belches millions of its surplus, unwanted population (almost all poor, low IQ Indians or mestizos) into the U.S. Instead of becoming Mexican problems they become the U.S. problem.

Imagine if we had a nation next door run by suckers/omega males who willingly took in our blacks and pretended they were being enriched because of it?