MSNBC's Morning Joe Discusses Rand Paul and the GOP Moving Forward

[Confederate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJSr0C9NMCI

I like how they called him a "prominent, influential republican." Good to hear he's going to introduce legislation to relax federal marijuana laws. Hopefully by that it means more than just hemp.

I was shocked to hear he's going to push a pathway to citizenship for illegals!

[itshappening]

Jindal is such a phoney and his public speaking skills are limited so I dont see much of a threat.

He will be one of the "i was such a great governor, look what i did in my state" sort of platform like Bush you cannot trust these governors who might have decent records in their state but when they hold the federal purse strings are another matter. Plus, I bet he will try and hide his foreign policy views.

[Southerner]

I was shocked to hear he's going to push a pathway to citizenship for illegals!

HUGE MISTAKE!!!

GACK!

[Brett85]

[video=youtube;NJSr0C9NMCI]I was shocked to hear he's going to push a pathway to citizenship for illegals!

I don't think that's true. I've never heard him say anything like that. He ran on a platform of opposing amnesty when he ran for the Senate.

[July]

From my memory, the immigration debate was right about when the tea party started to veer off into the more authoritarian wing, and away from the more libertarian-esque side.

As it stands now, I'm thinking all the 2016 candidates will be running on amnesty/immigration reform...assuming Obama doesn't get it done first. It's a done deal.

Up to Rand to get in front if it now, and introduce a solution that will increase the govt footprint the least. I will wait to hear it in his own words.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I was shocked to hear he's going to push a pathway to citizenship for illegals!

I was more happily shocked.

[Southerner]

Fuck, If I wanted to grant illegal aliens citizenship and have full open borders, I could just vote for Gary Johnson again.:mad:

[AuH20]

Unless Rand is advocating for a 25 year moratorium on all voting privileges for the newly certified citizens, I don't want to know about this plan.

[Agorism]

Fuck, If I wanted to grant illegal aliens citizenship and have full open borders, I could just vote for Gary Johnson again.:mad:


I agree. Rand endorsing Romney was already sickening enough.

[orenbus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdB-8eLEW8g

[itshappening]

Amnesty would give millions of new votes to the socialists :(

it didn't work for the GOP in 86.

[Agorism]

Rand Paul is kind of dense sometimes no?

[AuH20]

Fuck, If I wanted to grant illegal aliens citizenship and have full open borders, I could just vote for Gary Johnson again.:mad:

Fighting the welfare state by certifying new low skilled dependents to indulge at the welfare state trough? Huh. Germany already did this in the 1970s and they're experiencing a massive societal upheaval from their Turkish imports. But if the GOP want to whore themselves out for a minimal number of votes, so be it. They're never going to outdo the democrats, so this is equivalent to just stepping on the accelerator with a cliff ahead.

[thoughtomator]

Yes, certifying and rewarding the deliberate breaking of laws essential to the sovereignty of the nation is a big, big problem for me too.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I dig this, as long as he's proposing to get government out of the way of immigration. If he's going to spearhead whatever Graham and Schumer are cooking up... blech.

[LibertyEagle]

I'll believe it, when I hear it out of his mouth. Not before then. I can see tightening up the immigration process, like Ron talked about. It takes years to get through it, even after you have already been approved. It's ridiculous for it to take 10 frickin' years.

But, if he's talking about granting amnesty, I'm going to have a big problem with it.

[AuH20]

Yes, certifying and rewarding the deliberate breaking of laws essential to the sovereignty of the nation is a big, big problem for me too.

It's not even that. You're certifying low skilled and uneducated massess with no structural foundations set in place for future assimilation and upward economic mobility. You're literally bringing in the world's downtrodden during a period of unprecedented government expansion. The GOP may as well fold up the tent and go the way of the whigs, because the downscaling of the domestic welfare system becomes nearly impossible with such a move. If they think the Medicaid burden is bad now???? Pass this nonsense and see where it is five years from now. I am very wary of any these hegellian constructs coming from GOP thinktanks. This reeks of a trojan horse.

[LibertyEagle]

I dig this, as long as he's proposing to get government out of the way of immigration. If he's going to spearhead whatever Graham and Schumer are cooking up... blech.

If you dig it, then how about you bankrolling the money they cost me and everyone else. Until then, forget it, Jack.

[Agorism]

I'll believe it, when I hear it out of his mouth. I can see tightening up the immigration process, like Ron talked about. It takes years to get through it, even after you have already been approved. It's ridiculous for it to take 10 frickin' years.

But, if he's talking about granting amnesty, I'm going to have a big problem with it.


True. hearsay is always a problem.

Maybe he needs to take a lesson from Mitt Romney is keeping his mouth shut and controlling the message. Mitt had a good debate, and he avoided any gaffes thereafter that the media could run with in the final days. McCain had to the same thing with Palin last time as they put her into hiding after she had a decent debate.

[The Free Hornet]

Amnesty would give millions of new votes to the socialists :(

it didn't work for the GOP in 86.

Do you know how people are going to vote?

How are the GOP not the socialists as well? They spend as much if not more, create/support just as many entitlements, and they fully support corporatism (how socialists do business).

[Southerner]

[Bob Marley One Love]

My video response to that crap!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_s-Qk07KxA

[jj-]

I am very wary of any these hegellian constructs coming from GOP thinktanks.

Easing immigration might be bad policy, but a hegellian construct????????? WTF?

[AuH20]

Do you know how people are going to vote?

How are the GOP not the socialists as well? They spend as much if not more, create/support just as many entitlements, and they fully support corporatism (how socialists do business).

It's well established. A recent poll taken showed that 67% of all Hispanics support Obamacare.
And Pew recently compiled the voting trends of Hispanics in recent presidential elections. Note in 1986, Reagan actually granted amnesty and 2 years later the Republican nominee actually lost support!:


--1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21

--1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24

--1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39

--1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36

--1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51

--2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27

--2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18

--2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36

--2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44

.

[AuH20]

Easing immigration might be bad policy, but a hegellian construct????????? WTF?

Problem. Reaction. Solution. The narrative being carefully weaved is that the GOP lost because of lack of minority appeal. Meanwhile, 3 million less voters (largely white) didn't pull the lever for the Republican presidential nominee as opposed to 2008. There are certain forces at work screaming fire in the crowded movie theater for a reason.

[Southerner]

Honestly, We need to STOP all illegal immigration, return to SANE 1963 LEGAL immigration levels, and only allow SKILLED & educated immigrants.https://www.numbersusa.com/content/

Polling shows Romney's pro-enforcement more popular than Obama's pro-amnesty

By Roy Beck, Friday, November 9, 2012, 9:53 AM EST

Let me arm you with some very important numbers to resist a frantic push today by open-borders-leaning journalists and pundits to persuade congressional Republicans to help Pres. Obama pass a mass amnesty early next year.

Their argument is that Gov. Romney's highly public support for immigration enforcement cost him the election. And they suggest that Pres. Obama's support for legalizing illegal aliens was a much more popular position with voters.

Many Bush-era-retreads are part of the loud chorus of demands that Republicans will improve their popularity if they stop blocking amnesties.

Not so, according to exit polling sponsored by Breitbart News & Judicial Watch.

STARTLING EXIT POLL FINDING

The scientific national sample of 800 respondents by cell phone had a margin of error of 3.46%, and the partisan breakdown was D +3.

The poll found this support for two very different responses to illegal immigration:

61% of voters said they favor Arizona-style immigration laws.
40% of voters said they support the Obama Administration's administrative action to give two-year work permits to younger illegal immigrants.

The report noted that the exit polling was consistent with a CBS poll in August that found 63% of voters believed Arizona's immigration enforcement laws are either "about right" or "didn't go far enough."

For a fine overview of other polling and analysis of the media's illogical conclusions from this election, be sure to read (and comment on) Jeremy's blog.

PRO-Enforcement Romney Had Better 'Spreads' Than NON-Enforcement McCain In Most High-Hispanic States

With so much attention being given to Hispanic voting in the states, we wanted to see how such a strong pro-enforcement candidate like Romney did in the 20 states with the highest percentage of Hispanic voters.

The question on positions is not really about how a position might affect a single demographic group but what might be the overall net effect among all voters of that state.

So, we compared Romney's overall voter performance in those 20 states with that of the Republican nominee in 2008. While Romney ran as a decided PRO-enforcement candidate pushing especially for interior enforcement to keep illegal aliens from jobs and benefits, John McCain ran as a NON-enforcement candidate. He didn't oppose enforcement (like Obama), but he didn't advocate it.

What we found was that PRO-enforcement Romney significantly improved his "spread" in those high-Hispanic states, over that of NON-enforcement McCain.

For example, Obama's spread over McCain in Nevada was 12%. That means his share of the vote was 12 percentage points higher than McCain's.

But Obama's Nevada spread over Romney was 6%. The PRO-enforcement Romney improved the spread by 6 points. For whatever reasons, Romney's heavy pro-enforcement positions did not end up causing him to do worse than McCain who didn't push enforcement.

In Arizona, native-son McCain's spread over Obama was 9%. Romney's spread was 12%. So, Romney improved the GOP's Arizona spread by 3 points.

In 16 of the top 20 Hispanic states, Romney improved on McCain's spread with Obama:

Utah by 19 points
Illinois by 9 points
Kansas by 7 points
Nevada by 6 points
Connecticut by 6 points
Colorado by 5 points
New Mexico by 5 points
Washington by 5 points
Texas by 5 points
California by 3 points
Arizona by 3 points
Georgia by 3 points
Hawaii by 3 points
Florida by 2 points
Maryland by 1 point

There was no change in the spread in New York and Rhode Island. Romney's spread was worse than McCain's by 2 points in New Jersey and by 3 points in Idaho.

You may have noticed that there aren't many swing states in that list. That's because Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and other highly competitive states have very small Hispanic electorates.

It would be foolish to conclude that Romney's pro-enforcement positions were the primary cause of his improvement over McCain. But the open-borders journalists and pundits seem to be trying to say the opposite -- that maybe Romney lost some of these states because of his pro-enforcement positions even though he actually had some significant improvements over the non-enforcement GOP candidate in the last election.

For a much more thoughtful look at how issues other than immigration are the reason for Republicans' difficulty with Hispanic voters, read this blog in Slate.

POLL SHOWS HISPANICS SUPPORT THE E-VERIFY THAT CONGRESSIONAL GOP LEADERS CONTINUE TO BLOCK

Whether or not most Hispanic voters were able to find their way through all the media bombast, hyperbole and misdirection about Romney's immigration stance, a poll last month shows that most Hispanic voters support Romney's key plank of mandating E-Verify to keep illegal aliens from getting U.S. jobs.

Perhaps Romney didn't communicate his position adeptly enough. Even more likely is that most Hispanic voters marked their ballots based on a host of other issues in their choice for president. But Republicans failed to get the votes of anywhere near the number of Hispanic Americans who favor mandatory E-Verify.

A Pulse Opinion Research poll released last month found 66% of Hispanic voters favoring mandatory E-Verify.

The question was: Do you support or oppose requiring that every employer use E-Verify to electronically ensure that no U.S. job goes to illegal immigrants in the future?

75% of all voters said YES.
69% of Hispanic voters said YES.

The majority of Romney's immigration policy was just that. Mandatory E-Verify was nearly the whole basis of what he meant by "self-deportation." What he explained was that he would take away the jobs magnet and mainly let illegal immigrants make their own decisions about moving back home.

The question just before the E-Verify question was: Do you believe most parents around the world would stop bringing their children illegally to this country if they thought finding a job was doubtful?

66% of all voters said YES.
70% of Hispanic voters said YES.

Can these results be in the ballpark? Well, on the survey's question of sympathizing with so-called Dream-Act illegal immigrants, the result for Hispanic voters was 62%, with only 8% saying "not at all sympathetic." This poll did not over-sample Hispanics, so the margin of error was fairly high. Nonetheless, the key point here is that at least half of Hispanic voters recognize that illegal immigration is bad for the country and that taking away the jobs magnet with mandatory E-Verify is a great way to slow it down.

Thus, taking a stand for mandatory E-Verify should not hurt a candidate, especially Republicans who rarely get more than 33% of Hispanic votes.

Any candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- has an opportunity to improve standing with Hispanic voters by connecting support for E-Verify to tackling high unemployment among Hispanic Americans.

BUT DO WE FURTHER LOOSEN THE LABOR MARKET DURING TIMES OF HIGH JOBLESSNESS AND STAGNANT WAGES?

Finally, we must ask the pundits why they are insisting on loosening the labor market and further driving down the value of labor for our American workers.

Does morality ever enter the minds of these political scribblers?

America has a gigantic excess supply of workers. Even if increasing that supply would gain some short-term political advantage, is that really worth causing more suffering among the victims of that over-supply?

When House Speaker Boehner (R) and Majority Leader Cantor (R) say they don't want to hear any more enforcement talk from their Republican Members, all of you have to insist that your own Republican Congressman (if you have one) talks morality and what is right for American workers.

When Senate Majority Leader Reid promises that he will push a foreign-worker-increase bill through next year, all of you have to insist that your own Democratic Senator (if you have one) talks morality and what is right for American workers.

We cannot let up in our fight for less immigration and a tighter labor market while 20 million of our fellow Americans want a full-time job but can't find one, and when many millions more are stuck with declining real wages that already are barely able to support a family.

ROY BECK is the CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Honestly, We need to STOP all illegal immigration, return to SANE 1963 LEGAL immigration levels, and only allow SKILLED & educated immigrants.https://www.numbersusa.com/content/

Why should the government have the authority, resources, and raw power to decide which people are legal and illegal (which would assume some sort of national ID), which people have the authority to work here (E-Verify), and which people have the right to live or travel here?

I thought we opposed regulation and supported privacy? And where in the Constitution is such a positivist outlook given?


If you dig it, then how about you bankrolling the money they cost me and everyone else. Until then, forget it, Jack.

See above. Immigration controls massively grow the government. These powers and regulations are used against citizens, not the alleged targets of legislation. You should know better.

[surf]

i'm a bit surprised by the anti-immigration stance many seem to have taken here. it is strange to see discussion relative to an ability to control the executive branch when liberty is, for me anyway, an ultimate goal.

i'd have thought there would be more of an RP stance - remove subsidies and do not allow the government (any government) control of our peaceful movements. i.e. freedom.

hopefully that can be a direction whatever view Rand has is headed.

[AuH20]

Honestly, We need to STOP all illegal immigration, return to SANE 1963 LEGAL immigration levels, and only allow SKILLED & educated immigrants.https://www.numbersusa.com/content/

You're too optimistic. I've given up hope on this corrupt nation. We need to stop chasing our proverbial tails and secede. Be our own masters, instead of being drawn into these elaborate schemes in which our fate is sealed before "deliberations" even begin. I wasn't a huge secession guy, but the last 3 years has opened my eyes.

[Agorism]

Why should the government have the authority, resources, and raw power to decide which people are legal and illegal (which would assume some sort of national ID), which people have the authority to work here (E-Verify), and which people have the right to live or travel here?

I thought we opposed regulation and supported privacy?

I was never in favor if national ID or E-Verify. idk about everyone else.

I am opposed to another "Grand Bargain" immigration bill.

[AuH20]

i'm a bit surprised by the anti-immigration stance many seem to have taken here. it is strange to see discussion relative to an ability to control the executive branch when liberty is, for me anyway, an ultimate goal.

i'd have thought there would be more of an RP stance - remove subsidies and do not allow the government (any government) control of our peaceful movements. i.e. freedom.hopefully that can be a direction whatever view Rand has is headed.

Many have been down that road, but we cannot even get projected increases cut without hysteria ensuing. The welfare state is apparently sacrosanct, according to the establishment.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I was never in favor if national ID or E-Verify. idk about everyone else.

I am opposed to another "Grand Bargain" immigration bill.

As am I. I assuredly won't be in favor of whatever Graham and Schumer are cooking up. National ID and E-Verify will be a part of it.

What I'm getting at is when people here propose kicking out illegals or keeping immigration on a leash, that the result of these concerns will be more state power, and that power will be used against us.

[PatriotOne]

A little info on the immigration issue re: Rand:

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.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83737_Page3.html#ixzz2C8848KpU

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83737_Page2.html#ixzz2C87eZqAH

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If you dig it, then how about you bankrolling the money they cost me and everyone else. Until then, forget it, Jack.

How are they costing you anymore money than the legal citizens in this country who already receive welfare and other benefits that most "illegals" were never receiving in the first place?

[July]

Why should the government have the authority, resources, and raw power to decide which people are legal and illegal (which would assume some sort of national ID), which people have the authority to work here (E-Verify), and which people have the right to live or travel here?

I thought we opposed regulation and supported privacy? And where in the Constitution is such a positivist outlook given?



See above. Immigration controls massively grow the government. These powers and regulations are used against citizens, not the alleged targets of legislation. You should know better.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Feeding the Abscess again.

[orenbus]

My video response to that crap!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4

[Agorism]

This is sickening.

[Agorism]

I'm not voting for this guy in 2016.

Sorry!

[Brett85]

I'm not voting for this guy in 2016.

Sorry!

Who are you going to vote for then? Marco Rubio?

[trey4sports]

Looks like rand really wants to be president....

[Feeding the Abscess]

Toss in sending marriage and abortion back to the state level/opposing Constitutional amendments and I may have to consider supporting him in 2016.

[Confederate]

If Rand does propose giving illegals a pathway to citizenship (which doesn't involve them going back to their country of origin, applying, and waiting at the back of the line to come here and then following the exact same citizenship pathway as those who came legally in the first place) I'm not supporting him anymore. My support for him hasn't wavered even with the Romney endorsement, but this is a line I will not cross.

What I would be open to is allowing them to apply for a 2-5 year work permit, pay a fine, and at the end of that time have to leave and re-apply for a permit to reenter America legally, waiting in line like everyone else.

[AuH20]

I'm not voting for this guy in 2016.

Sorry!

It depends what Rand is planning. I think he's trying head off Rubio and Co. at the pass but we will wait until we see something in print. But given the rhetoric, I'm not too optimistic. He could theoretically lose his senate seat, if he massively screws up on this. I honestly hope he knows what he is doing.

[Agorism]

Who are you going to vote for then? Marco Rubio?

Whoever. Jut write someone in again. Whatever.

Not Rand Paul assuming this continues.

[AlexAmore]

I used to be against immigration, then I learned about the economic benefits of open borders on the Stossel show. In a free market it would be a huge gain for us as freedom in anything typically is.

[Confederate]

Toss in sending marriage and abortion back to the state level/opposing Constitutional amendments and I may have to consider supporting him in 2016.

Abortion isn't just a state issue though, the Constitution guarantees a right to life and the unborn deserve that right as individual human beings. The prosecution of abortion, like most other murders, should be left to the states.

[Southerner]

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.

Funny, thats pretty much what Reagan said in 1986!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

Edited.

[Brett85]

Why would this one issue cause people to not support Rand? I don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but it's not one of the most important issues our country faces, in my opinion. The issue of border security is more important than the issue of amnesty, and the Politico article stated that Rand's plan increases border security. It also said that his plan includes a moratorium on legal immigration until all of the illegal immigrants have been assimilated.

[Southerner]

Why would this one issue cause people to not support Rand? ...

You mean like endorsing Romney? I WILL support RAND because I KNOW he is closest to me on most issues, doesn't mean we can't bitch about it in the meantime.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why would this one issue cause people to not support Rand? I don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but it's not one of the most important issues our country faces, in my opinion. The issue of border security is more important than the issue of amnesty, and the Politico article stated that Rand's plan increases border security. It also said that his plan includes a moratorium on legal immigration until all of the illegal immigrants have been assimilated.

Color me less excited for the plan than I was 15 minutes ago. Way less. We'll see how it plays out, I guess.

[Brett85]

You mean like endorsing Romney? I WILL support RAND because I KNOW he is closest to me on most issues, doesn't mean we can't bitch about it in the meantime.

How about if we wait and see what he actually proposes before we make a judgement on it?

[Southerner]

That sounds too much like "we gotta PASS the bill to find out whats in it!" ;)

[AuH20]

I used to be against immigration, then I learned about the economic benefits of open borders on the Stossel show. In a free market it would be a huge gain for us as freedom in anything typically is.
In a free market, you would be absolutely correct. But we don't operate in a free market. The welfare & quality of life concerns associated with cheap labor via illegal immigration is shifted over to the taxpayers. That's the beauty of it from an industry's perspective. Circumvent certain unfavorable cost realities associated with nativeborn employees by hiring illegal labor. Instead of fighting the real causes of labor and price distortions, which would be union domination and centralized planning, we have politicians and the business community ( especially the Chamber of Commerce) selling out for third world labor.

[Southerner]

...we don't operate in a free market. The welfare & quality of life concerns associated with cheap labor via illegal immigration is shifted over to the taxpayers. That's the beauty of it from an industry's perspective. Circumvent certain unfavorable cost realities with nativeborn employees by hiring illegal labor. Instead of fighting the real causes of labor and price distortions, which would be union domination and centralized planning, we have politicians and the business community ( especially the Chamber of Commerce) selling out for third world labor.

DING, DING, DING!!! We have a winner! Massive applause!

[Brett85]

Color me less excited for the plan than I was 15 minutes ago. Way less. We'll see how it plays out, I guess.

I just got that from the article. I'm not exactly sure what he means by the moratorium on legal immigration, though.

"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."

"Paul said the “trade-off” would be “not to accept any new legal immigrants while we’re assimilating the ones who are here.”

[July]

How about if we wait and see what he actually proposes before we make a judgement on it?

Novel idea. :p

[Confederate]

How about if we wait and see what he actually proposes before we make a judgement on it?

Reading a bill? That's a crazy idea.

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rROcNu2hV-I

[Shane Harris]

Wow. Surprised some are willing to drop Rand at the first sign of not agreeing on every issue. Immigration is pretty much at the bottom of my list of issues, and a pretty gray issue even for libertarians. He also said he wants to end mandatory minimum sentencing for Marijuana possession. And lets not forget how much better he is than literally everyone else in the Senate with regards to spending, taxing, the Fed, foreign policy, etc. People here are such hipsters looking for any excuse to be too cool for Rand now that he's popular. Buchanan is a protectionist but he's head and shoulders above the rest on foreign policy and the like. I'd vote for him. Some here even have their avatars displaying Goldwater, who wasn't even pro-life, who thought that WWII got us out of the depression. If we can't get behind the most libertarian Senator since Robert Taft, we're pathetic.

[July]

In a free market, you would be absolutely correct. But we don't operate in a free market. The welfare & quality of life concerns associated with cheap labor via illegal immigration is shifted over to the taxpayers. That's the beauty of it from an industry's perspective. Circumvent certain unfavorable cost realities associated with nativeborn employees by hiring illegal labor. Instead of fighting the real causes of labor and price distortions, which would be union domination and centralized planning, we have politicians and the business community ( especially the Chamber of Commerce) selling out for third world labor.

No, we don't live in a free market, which is why I'd be shocked to see Rand propose full on open boarders without any kind of limitation or strings attached. On the other hand, How are we supposed to move toward a more free and less regulated market, if we keep asking for more government to solve this problem? Which they will do with more national ID laws, databases, spying, etc. Remember when AZ proposed their immigration bill, and all you could hear from the left was "show me your papers please!" That's just the kind of knee jerk reaction that will ensure a Dem sweep in 2014.

[Confederate]

No, we don't live in a free market, which is why I'd be shocked to see Rand propose full on open boarders without any kind of limitation or strings attached. On the other hand, How are we supposed to move toward a more free and less regulated market, if we keep asking for more government to solve this problem? Which they will do with more national ID laws, databases, spying, etc. Remember when AZ proposed their immigration bill, and all you could hear from the left was "show me your papers please!" That's just the kind of knee jerk reaction that will endure a Dem sweep in 2014.

He won't propose open borders. He'll probably propose some kind of residency and work permit for illegals with the condition that a border fence be built and tougher scrutiny of further immigration.

[Southerner]

Wow. Surprised some are willing to drop Rand at the first sign of not agreeing on every issue..., If we can't get behind the most libertarian Senator since Robert Taft, we're pathetic.

I understand. Surprises me that so many here would even CONSIDER RAND or RON, since they are both "pretty PRO LIFE"... not really "libertarian" on that issue either.

Everyone is gonna have different "hot button" issues. I almost always choose between the lesser of some pretty damn big evils. I WILL SUPPORT RAND PAUL! My concern is that the MAJORITY of AMERICANS (not just GOPs) are NOT in favor of amnesty for illegals, period stop. Check the recent polling, THATS a FACT.

[LibertyEagle]

It depends what Rand is planning. I think he's trying head off Rubio and Co. at the pass but we will wait until we see something in print. But given the rhetoric, I'm not too optimistic. He could theoretically lose his senate seat, if he massively screws up on this. I honestly hope he knows what he is doing.

Me too. Between that and legalizing marijuana, conservatives are not going to be happy.

[AuH20]

I understand. Surprises me that so many here would even CONSIDER RAND or RON, since they are both "pretty PRO LIFE"... not really "libertarian" on that issue either.

Everyone is gonna have different "hot button" issues. I almost always choose between the lesser of some pretty damn big evils. I WILL SUPPORT RAND PAUL! My concern is that the MAJORITY of AMERICANS (not just GOPs) are NOT in favor of amnesty for illegals, period stop. Check the recent polling, THATS a FACT.

I'm not thrilled about it. But if he does surrender amnesty, he better get something significantly tangible in return, or he will destroy his candidacy. The grassroots are already rolling their eyes at this headline because it sounds like he pulled a John McCain. McCain was irreparably politically damaged after his McCain-Kennedy amnesty proposal was beaten down by an incredible outcry by the electorate.

[Agorism]

He won't propose open borders. He'll probably propose some kind of residency and work permit for illegals with the condition that a border fence be built and tougher scrutiny of further immigration.

I don't want a border fence.

The idea they are going to build a giant fence across the whole thing is not what is going to happen anyways. The Democrats would never allow that compromise.

[Southerner]

Recent exit polling on immigration: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/cchmielenski/november-9-2012/polling-shows-romneys-pro-enforcement-more-popular-obamas-pro-

[Agorism]

Ron wanted to do away with all national ID (social security numbers), etc, and prevent the government from knowing the difference between illegals and legal citizens.

I thought this was a fair compromise.

[Confederate]

I don't want a border fence.

The idea they are going to build a giant fence across the whole thing is not what is going to happen anyways. The Democrats would never allow that compromise.

In return for legalizing 12 million potential voters who are more responsive to their big government platform that to conservatism? Yes, Democrats will take that compromise.

[Southerner]

In return for legalizing 12 million potential voters who are more responsive to their big government platform that to conservatism? Yes, Democrats will take that compromise.

LOL! "PUHLEESE don't throw me in that briar patch" The rabbit said to the fox.

[eleganz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJSr0C9NMCI

I like how they called him a "prominent, influential republican." Good to hear he's going to introduce legislation to relax federal marijuana laws. Hopefully by that it means more than just hemp.

I was shocked to hear he's going to push a pathway to citizenship for illegals!

This is good, a strategy to get national name recognition, great ways to get people to see how GENERAL our appeal is.

[orenbus]

This is good, a strategy to get national name recognition, great ways to get people to see how GENERAL our appeal is.

Agreed, this strategy is obviously focused with the media, and independents in the north east and the west in mind, our fellow patriots in the south and the mid-west are going to cringe a bit however at least until Rand Paul can present the case.

[Confederate]

Me too. Between that and legalizing marijuana, conservatives are not going to be happy.

He doesn't want to legalize. He wants to lower mandatory minimum sentences or get rid of them.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Sure is a lot of Rand Paul name dropping recently... What exactly are they up to.

[July]

Sure is a lot of Rand Paul name dropping recently... What exactly are they up to.

First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they try to buy you out, and then they try to imitate you.

Well anyway, this is what I recently heard Billy Corgan say about the music industry. ;)

[Southerner]

LMAO!

[Uriah]

How about if we wait and see what he actually proposes before we make a judgement on it?

Let's wait and see.

[Rudeman]

I'll wait to see what he actually proposes, but honestly immigration isn't a hot button issue for me.

[ClydeCoulter]

The answer is still "Constitution" !

[Brett85]

If we have to compromise on an issue in order to get more votes, I would rather compromise on an issue like this than compromise on the abortion issue, which I care much more deeply about. I'm willing to compromise on some issues but not others.

[RonPaul25]

Rand better not be serious about this pathway to citizenship crap

[Origanalist]

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.

Funny, thats pretty much what Reagan said in 1986!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

Edited.


I was thinking the same thing, we've been down this road.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I wouldn't have a problem with immigration if we also got rid of welfare.

[Rudeman]

I wouldn't have a problem with immigration if we also got rid of welfare.

Yup, that's the biggest issue.

[AuH20]

I wouldn't have a problem with immigration if we also got rid of welfare.

The crack cocaine of the American electorate. We will have the steady distribution of crack cocaine up until the last dying hours of this republic. Even FDR commented on the addictive qualities of the entitlement system in 1936:


The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America."

[Origanalist]

I wouldn't have a problem with immigration if we also got rid of welfare.

Get rid of welfare first.

[surf]

individually immigration is very low on my priority list. we all should be free wherever we are in the world. if we can agree on this (ignoring the obvious freedom/tresspassing argument for the moment), we are probably best served to rally around or support the guy that would seem to have the best chance of delivering this or moving in this direction.

i can think of a number of tropical locations with a good break that i could picture myself living, but many that i would be unable to for "immigration" reasons.

that's my .02. the only reason that i haven't resigned my position within the local republican party is because of Rand Paul. thank goodness we have another individual that will fight for us current citizens.

[Occam's Banana]

Surprises me that so many here would even CONSIDER RAND or RON, since they are both "pretty PRO LIFE"... not really "libertarian" on that issue either.

Why? There is nothing the slightest bit un-"libertarian" about being pro-life - as more than amply demonstrated by Ron & Rand Paul. In fact, the abortion issue is one of the absolute WORST litmus tests you could possibly use for deciding who is "libertarian" and who is not.

[Odin]

It's well established. A recent poll taken showed that 67% of all Hispanics support Obamacare.
And Pew recently compiled the voting trends of Hispanics in recent presidential elections. Note in 1986, Reagan actually granted amnesty and 2 years later the Republican nominee actually lost support!:

The talking heads know it will flip if the Republicans nominate a hispanic who supports immigration reform.

I'm not quite so skeptical about immigrants though, I think they are conservative or libertarian in their values and I don't think they come here with a sense of entitlement for the most part. They are a fluid voting block, not like the white 'intellectual' liberals.

[Odin]

Why? There is nothing the slightest bit un-"libertarian" about being pro-life - as more than amply demonstrated by Ron & Rand Paul. In fact, the abortion issue is one of the absolute WORST litmus tests you could possibly use for deciding who is "libertarian" and who is not.

Agree and I am pro-life, however I do think it is un-libertarian to not allow a woman who has been raped to have an abortion within a certain period of time. I think it is wrong to force upon someone an obligation that they did not consent to.

[AuH20]

The talking heads know it will flip if the Republicans nominate a hispanic who supports immigration reform.

I'm not quite so skeptical about immigrants though, I think they are conservative or libertarian in their values and I don't think they come here with a sense of entitlement for the most part. They are a fluid voting block, not like the white 'intellectual' liberals.

Desperate people will gravitate towards benefits and government assistance. African-Americans actually oppose gay marriage and abortion more than the American Caucasian population, yet still vote overwhelmingly democrat, due to pocketbook issues. Hispanics are generally good people, but when you encourage the movement of such a numerous, cohesive ethnic bloc to such a tempting environment, rife with goodies, you are creating a moral hazard of untold scale.

[Odin]

Desperate people will gravitate towards benefits and government assistance. African-Americans actually oppose gay marriage and abortion more than the American Caucasian population, yet still vote overwhelmingly democrat, due to pocketbook issues. Hispanics are generally good people, but when you encourage the movement of such a numerous, cohesive ethnic bloc to such a tempting environment, rife with goodies, you are creating a moral hazard of untold scale.

Well said. I guess the strategy would be to delay giving them citizenship until those who are already waiting in line have been allowed in, but to still allow them to stay here and participate in the economy and not punish employers for hiring them. It is really stupid for any candidate, but especially a Republican, to speak of 'self-deportation' because we will make living conditions so impossible for illegal immigrants that they choose to go back to MEXICO!

Ironically under such a plan (the 'strategy' I described), illegal immigrants would have more opportunity than Americans coming out of the worst schools, because the minimum wage laws would not apply to them. So they would get more work experience and be able to move upward economically quicker than Americans who are priced out of low-paying jobs by minimum wage laws.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Agree and I am pro-life, however I do think it is un-libertarian to not allow a woman who has been raped to have an abortion within a certain period of time. I think it is wrong to force upon someone an obligation that they did not consent to.

Take it further: read Walter Block's evictionism argument, it respects property and life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

[Odin]

Take it further: read Walter Block's evictionism argument, it respects property and life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

I'm not going to go quite that far - I've read the Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty, so I know Murray Rothbard's argument (I'm not sure if he reiterated it or came up with it himself), but I really think it comes from a dangerous perspective. Freedom is not about me, I would gladly give up my freedom and my life for those I care about. It is for my children that freedom is important. I believe that nature, or God, or whatever you may believe in, has endowed us with a purpose on this planet, which is to perpetuate life. That attaches obligations to us, specifically we have to make responsible choices about who we have sex with.

Hedonism is not a moral philosophy upon which to build a free nation. We are not just biological sacks seeking as much pleasure as possible, there are more important principles in life and those inform my views on morality and government. Abortion is still an issue I'm not sure about, by which I mean I'm not sure whether it is moral to terminate the obligation. But I'm certainly not going to defend abortion on the grounds of property rights, to me that seems sort of perverse.

[Southerner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_s-Qk07KxA&list=LPWVd-iGuaCbU&index=1&feature=plcp

[The Free Hornet]

It's well established. A recent poll taken showed that 67% of all Hispanics support Obamacare.
And Pew recently compiled the voting trends of Hispanics in recent presidential elections. Note in 1986, Reagan actually granted amnesty and 2 years later the Republican nominee actually lost support!:

Healthcare was socialized long before Obamacare. The state already owned the means of production: doctors, patents, FDA approvals and procedures. All that is left is to bicker over the bill. I - for one - do not want to pay for any of it and will offload any state-run medical costs that I can.

Doctors used government to go from lower-middle/middle class to upper-middle/upper class. Hmmmmm... well they are smart.