77% of Latino voters favor tax hikes= Rand's amnesty plan

[Agorism]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/latinos-favor-tax-increases-wealthy-solve-fiscal-cliff/story?id=17925835#.UMaJULb2G4W

A friendly reminder of how "comprehensive immigration" reform will work out for the GOP



According to a new impreMedia/Latino Decisions survey of more than 5,600 Latino voters, a whopping 77 percent favor increasing taxes on the wealthy. While the vast majority of Democratic Latino voters -- 86 percent -- fall into that category, so do 51 percent of Republican Latino voters.

Only 12 percent say they favor a spending cuts-only approach, according to the survey.

[Brett85]

You should really get a temporary ban since you just come here and bash Rand constantly over the exact same issue with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

[PatriotOne]

You should really get a temporary ban since you just come here and bash Rand constantly over the exact same issue with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

That and having a Lady Gaga avatar.

[Adrock]

What is Rand's plan?

[Agorism]

You should really get a temporary ban since you just come here and bash Rand constantly over the exact same issue with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Some people just can't take legitimate criticism.

[BlackTerrel]

Most people with less money favor taxing those with more money. Not very surprising.

[supermario21]

Only 31% even say they'd CONSIDER voting Republican if they took friendly positions on immigration. To be honest, is it worth going after them? I'd rather rally the base.

[Agorism]

Only 31% even say they'd CONSIDER voting Republican if they took friendly positions on immigration. To be honest, is it worth going after them? I'd rather rally the base.

Yep, might as well criticize him now before he runs his presidential aspirations into the ditch.

He deserves fair warning.

[Brett85]

Only 31% even say they'd CONSIDER voting Republican if they took friendly positions on immigration. To be honest, is it worth going after them? I'd rather rally the base.

Well, the word "Republican" is connected to the policies of George W. Bush. When people think of "Republican policies" they think of people who want to cut funding for children's health care programs in order to spend more money on a war against some country that never posed any threat to us. A lot of these people don't support libertarian or limited government principles, because they've never seen an example of those principles being implemented and succeeding.

[Brett85]

Some people just can't take legitimate criticism.

It's not necessary for you to keep calling it an "amnesty plan." That's not what it is. "Rand's immigration plan" would've been appropriate.

[Agorism]

It's not necessary for you to keep calling it an "amnesty plan." That's not what it is. "Rand's immigration plan" would've been appropriate.

Why does it bother you?

Democrats like tax hikes to be called "increased revenue" in D.C. and "fees" in California. They like to rename things.

[Brett85]

Why does it bother you?

Democrats like tax hikes to be called "increased revenue" in D.C. and "fees" in California. They like to rename things.

"Amnesty" would be if the government just decided to make all of the illegal immigrants citizens tomorrow. I'm still not sold on Rand's immigration plan, but a long path to citizenship with severe penalties is not "amnesty."

[Agorism]

"Amnesty" would be if the government just decided to make all of the illegal immigrants citizens tomorrow. I'm still not sold on Rand's immigration plan, but a long path to citizenship with severe penalties is not "amnesty."



So by your definition Reagan didn't amnesty. And the Ted Kennedy-McCain bill wasn't an amnesty bill either.

Smoke and mirrors.

[supermario21]

Trad. con, even if we cut the war spending so we don't look like we're prioritizing war, will they still like us cutting their entitlements? I just think that we're going to have to look at other places besides Hispanics for votes. They seem to like government, of all forms.

[Brett85]

Trad. con, even if we cut the war spending so we don't look like we're prioritizing war, will they still like us cutting their entitlements? I just think that we're going to have to look at other places besides Hispanics for votes. They seem to like government, of all forms.

I'm just saying that Bush tarnished the Republican brand, which is the main problem that any Republican has. It's just going to take time until people begin to forget about Bush. I think that Latinos would be open to Rand's platform that the kind of Republicanism we had with Bush, although I know that he wouldn't actually get a majority of Hispanics. I heard somewhere where Hispanics are huge fans of gold, and were fascinated by Ron's support of the gold standard.

[Brett85]

So by your definition Reagan didn't amnesty. And the Ted Kennedy-McCain bill wasn't an amnesty bill either.

Smoke and mirrors.

Reagan offered amnesty without adding any border security first. Rand's plan doesn't consider a path to citizenship until the borders have actually been secured. He wants to secure the borders first and foremost.

[Agorism]

Reagan offered amnesty without adding any border security first. Rand's plan doesn't consider a path to citizenship until the borders have actually been secured. He wants to secure the borders first and foremost.

Why is border security a penalty causing it to not be "amnesty?"

btw- I don't favor border security or enforcement.

[Brett85]

Why is border security a penalty causing it to not be "amnesty?"

btw- I don't favor border security or enforcement.

If you don't favor border security, then why do you even care about giving amnesty to the illegals here?

[erowe1]

Rand's immigration plan is either right or wrong.

If it's right, then shouldn't he support it regardless of whether or not it helps him win?

If it's wrong, then shouldn't he reject it regardless of whether or not it helps him lose?

[Agorism]

If you don't favor border security, then why do you even care about giving amnesty to the illegals here?


I don't see anything wrong with people working here illegally.

I also like the idea of commerce moving between the borders without any government regulation and Capital moving out and in without restrictions.

[Brett85]

I don't see anything wrong with people working here illegally.

But yet you see something wrong with these people working here as citizens of the United States. That makes a lot of sense.

[Agorism]

But yet you see something wrong with these people working here as citizens of the United States. That makes a lot of sense.

No I just don't believe in knocking down doors and deporting people for nonviolent crimes. It's like smoking weed.

They're not bothering anyone by doing so, but they don't deserve a reward either especially when it involves signing them up for the Democrat voting roles so the Democrats can steal more stuff.

[erowe1]

But yet you see something wrong with these people working here as citizens of the United States. That makes a lot of sense.

It makes sense to me. Engaging in commerce with other people is the right of the parties involved. The government has no business interfering in that. But voting is another story.

[Brett85]

No I just don't believe in knocking down doors and deporting people for nonviolent crimes. It's like smoking weed.

They're not bothering anyone by doing so, but they don't deserve a reward either especially when it involves signing them up for the Democrat voting roles so the Democrats can steal more stuff.

Are you in favor of making all immigration legal? If so, wouldn't that sign up millions of hispanics to the Democrat voter roles?

[Agorism]

Are you in favor of making all immigration legal? If so, wouldn't that sign up millions of hispanics to the Democrat voter roles?

No we can't go that far, but I don't favor a particularly vigorous enforcement (which btw is the current system as is.) As long as people aren't committing felony level crimes, we essentially do nothing.

[Brett85]

No we can't go that far, but I don't favor a particularly vigorous enforcement (which btw is the current system as is.) As long as people aren't committing felony level crimes, we essentially do nothing.

I'll just say that I like Rand's position on immigration a lot better than yours.

[Rudeman]

If we had a more lax immigration policy they would likely already be citizens. I don't get the criticizing of Rand's plan when he hasn't designed one yet, all you have are generalities (which can always change). How about waiting to see the actual plan before declaring it's an amnesty plan? Or is that too much to ask for?


I'm not sure why anyone would prefer them to be illegal, it would be like saying you prefer drugs/prostitution etc. to be illegal even though you don't see anything wrong with it. Because? I have no idea. :confused:

[supermario21]

The problem is Bush tarnished the Republican brand by winning 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004! Maybe it's better to have no immigration reform happen in the next 2 congresses, so it remains an issue and then Rand can run on "fixing immigration" or something like that. Even though the gifts comments Romney made were labeled offensive by most, Hispanic voting patterns might actually show a reception to phony promises more than other demographic groups.

[Brett85]

Maybe it's better to have no immigration reform happen in the next 2 congresses, so it remains an issue and then Rand can run on "fixing immigration" or something like that.

I agree. I hope that they don't even touch the issue in the next four years, and then Rand can run on his immigration plan in 2016.

[Agorism]

Why can't you understand that neither Rand nor the GOP at large nor the Democrats will ever enforce immigration laws.

It's just a matter of who's going to pander (like Rand Paul)

[John F Kennedy III]

Some people just can't take legitimate criticism.

Legitimate? Lol. Tell me all about Rand's plan Ms. Gaga.

[Qdog]

Is it correct to deport illegals then? Who is going to pay for it?
I say go ahead with amnesty... even open borders. But we need to end the welfare state.
Maybe if we had open borders, and no welfare state, we would have enough cheap labor to be able to compete with China on manufacturing?

[carclinic]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/latinos-favor-tax-increases-wealthy-solve-fiscal-cliff/story?id=17925835#.UMaJULb2G4W

A friendly reminder of how "comprehensive immigration" reform will work out for the GOP
A majority of whites favor tax increases on just the wealthy. Only rich people and libertarians suppose class-based tax hikes. I don't view it as a race thing.

[carclinic]

You should really get a temporary ban since you just come here and bash Rand constantly over the exact same issue with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
The mods are already way to ban happy here, it can hurt consistent liberty supporters to have Hitler going through the boards and banning active members to Siberia.

[carclinic]

No I just don't believe in knocking down doors and deporting people for nonviolent crimes. It's like smoking weed.

They're not bothering anyone by doing so, but they don't deserve a reward either especially when it involves signing them up for the Democrat voting roles so the Democrats can steal more stuff.

DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNA!

"Decriminalization" of illegal immigration, in many ways the status quo, is preferable to just making it possible to swell the food stamp roles 80% and registered democrats by 15% or so. Amnesty will create a solid democrat voting block that will last generations. It's the very definition of party suicide.

But what's the difference? Cultural suicide was committed back in the 1960s when we changed our immigration laws to allow an exponential eligibility to come here merely on family relation. In Canada, you actually have to have money, degrees...you know, stuff that helps the country. In America, we merely have a race to the bottom so people can pay less for auto repair, roofing, and house cleaning. BS.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Why does it bother you?

Democrats like tax hikes to be called "increased revenue" in D.C. and "fees" in California. They like to rename things.

im still mad at the "fees"... all i know is that asians voted against the sales tax increase in california. all my relatives and asian friends voted against it.

[carclinic]

im still mad at the "fees"... all i know is that asians voted against the sales tax increase in california. all my relatives and asian friends voted against it.
Yet Asians will overwhelmingly vote Democrat for some reason.

My wife was an Obama supporter until we watched For Liberty together. It was the first time she heard a politician that didn't come across like complete scum, which is typical of politicians worldwide apparently.

[Tod]

with our current economy, is there still a net influx of people?

[jmdrake]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/latinos-favor-tax-increases-wealthy-solve-fiscal-cliff/story?id=17925835#.UMaJULb2G4W

A friendly reminder of how "comprehensive immigration" reform will work out for the GOP

Right. Rand should embrace abortion and gay marriage because that's how to win over conservative republicans. :rolleyes:

[July]

Is it correct to deport illegals then? Who is going to pay for it?

Yes, how it is it going to be done logistically and who is going to pay for it? And how are the feds going to go about rounding up and identifying all these millions of people to deport? I don't think people are thinking this one through, from a civil liberties perspective. Like with the TSA, they are not going to be allowed to profile, so whatever spying and police state measures they implement to track and catch illegals, will likely apply to everyone equally. I'm not jazzed about that possibility.

[Confederate]

Does anyone have a link to Rand's actual immigration plan proposal?

[July]

Does anyone have a link to Rand's actual immigration plan proposal?

No, because I don't believe he has actually released one yet. He's just spoken about it a little here and there in interviews.

[AuH20]

Well, the word "Republican" is connected to the policies of George W. Bush. When people think of "Republican policies" they think of people who want to cut funding for children's health care programs in order to spend more money on a war against some country that never posed any threat to us. A lot of these people don't support libertarian or limited government principles, because they've never seen an example of those principles being implemented and succeeding.

George W. Bush never cut anything. Lol

[brushfire]

Open boarder fantasy cannot work in a welfare state.

Get rid of the welfare (free education, heathcare, foodstamps, anchor baby citizenship,etc) and the illegal immigration crisis will subside.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Open boarder fantasy cannot work in a welfare state.

Get rid of the welfare (free education, heathcare, foodstamps, anchor baby citizenship,etc) and the illegal immigration crisis will subside.

I agree. The issue is though, that even if we were able to wave a magic wand and have a "Ron Paul" in every state legislature seat, governorship, House, Senate and the White House tomorrow - it would take many, many years to unravel the welfare state. We are a faced with a welfare state that has taken 50 years to get to where it is at, in order to get rid of it we have to make provisions to protect those who are dependent on it currently and transition them to work and/or a charity based system to care for their needs.

Also at issue, and this pisses off some of the left libertarians I am sure, is that we do need a restoration of the family in our society. While I am not a social conservative in the sense that I want the gov't to legislate morality, I am socially conservative in the sense that we need to repair the foundation that made this country great in the first place. When I was a kid it was very common for family members to support those who were in need within their family. There was little divorce, the family structure was sound, and because of that people had a safety net if they should need it. When that safety net was not able to provide, then charity took up the slack. But today, with the family in shambles, people don't turn to their parents, aunts & uncles, siblings, or cousins when they are in need - they turn to the government instead.

[July]

Also at issue, and this pisses off some of the left libertarians I am sure, is that we do need a restoration of the family in our society. While I am not a social conservative in the sense that I want the gov't to legislate morality, I am socially conservative in the sense that we need to repair the foundation that made this country great in the first place. When I was a kid it was very common for family members to support those who were in need within their family. There was little divorce, the family structure was sound, and because of that people had a safety net if they should need it. When that safety net was not able to provide, then charity took up the slack. But today, with the family in shambles, people don't turn to their parents, aunts & uncles, siblings, or cousins when they are in need - they turn to the government instead.

This is what social cons need to figure out. I don't think this idea can be sold by force or reactionsim, because it places it in an anti-freedom context, while the state is offering liberation. That's a losing battle. People actually do want freedom, I don't buy the idea that they don't...they are just convinced the state is delivering it. When social conservatives can show how the family offers both freedom and security, they will get somewhere. Right now they are mostly just reacting to Democrats, and asking the state to define what a family is....which makes it easy for Democrats to sell the idea that they just hate women, gays, etc....

And by the way..both Latinos and Asian immigrants come from cultures where there is still a sense of family value, that we have otherwise lost...they should be welcomed by so-cons.

[CaptLouAlbano]

This is what social cons need to figure out. I don't think this idea can be sold by force or reactionsim, because it places it in an anti-freedom context, while the state is offering liberation. That's a losing battle. People actually do want freedom, I don't buy the idea that they don't...they are just convinced the state is delivering it. When social conservatives can show how the family offers both freedom and security, they will get somewhere. Right now they are mostly just reacting to Democrats, and asking the state to define what a family is....which makes it easy for Democrats to sell the idea that they just hate women, gays, etc....

Agreed. The social-conservative wing rose as a reaction to the social-liberal wing of the Dems. Engel v Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp gave rise to the school prayer movement, Roe v Wade gave rise to the pro-life cause, and so on. The left has used the gov't to legislate their version of morality, and in that sense the social cons react trying to use the govt to turn things back to the way they used to be.

Paleo-cons like myself have a different tactic, as we seek to advance the issue through education rather than legislation.

[Brett85]

George W. Bush never cut anything. Lol

I think his second veto was SCHIP, the children's health insurance program. I don't support a program like that, but I was just pointing out that it makes no sense to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health insurance but then just throw trillions of dollars into completely unnecessary wars. I think part of the problem that the Republican Party has not only with Latinio voters but with the American people as a whole is that they aren't seen as consistently supporting limited government. They're seen as hypocritical.

[AuH20]

I think his second veto was SCHIP, the children's health insurance program. I don't support a program like that, but I was just pointing out that it makes no sense to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health insurance but then just throw trillions of dollars into completely unnecessary wars. I think part of the problem that the Republican Party has not only with Latinio voters but with the American people as a whole is that they aren't seen as consistently supporting limited government. They're seen as hypocritical.

But the newly proposed SCHIP requirements far exceeded the deemed level of poverty. That's what was so outrageous about that particular proposal.

[July]

Agreed. The social-conservative wing rose as a reaction to the social-liberal wing of the Dems. Engel v Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp gave rise to the school prayer movement, Roe v Wade gave rise to the pro-life cause, and so on. The left has used the gov't to legislate their version of morality, and in that sense the social cons react trying to use the govt to turn things back to the way they used to be.

Yep. I think this system of back and forth is what is shrinking the conservative movement. The progressives have positioned themselves as the visionaries and forward thinkers, and people associate the future with more freedom and the past with less... Not enough people want to vote to go "backwards" as they see it.

Conservatives are going to have to turn the tables, or there will be no conservative movement left in America eventually. I think paleocons get it, that's why they are more and more aligning with libertarians.

[Brett85]

But the newly proposed SCHIP requirements far exceeded the deemed level of poverty. That's what was so outrageous about that particular proposal.

Right, and I don't support any government involvement in healthcare whatsoever. I was just pointing out that when you support spending trillions of dollars on pre-emptive wars overseas and then decide to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health care, it just makes you look like some hypocritical person who doesn't actually believe in fiscal responsibility, but just opposes programs for the poor.

[supermario21]

Right, and I don't support any government involvement in healthcare whatsoever. I was just pointing out that when you support spending trillions of dollars on pre-emptive wars overseas and then decide to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health care, it just makes you look like some hypocritical person who doesn't actually believe in fiscal responsibility, but just opposes programs for the poor.

As much as I agree with you and would like to believe you that this is how Hispanics vote Democratic, I just think you're giving them too much credit. Anything we do to reduce the welfare state, even immigration reform in exchange for slashing the welfare state, will be used against us and Hispanics will not vote for us. It's either "compassionate conservatism" or bust to them.

[AuH20]

I don't understand this fevered pitch to turn the U.S. more like the outside world which is a festering pit of corruption, out-of-control central planning and all around chaos. The republic of the U.S. was intentionally created as a sanctuary as opposed to a democratized hotel of stratified ethnic blocs and state-mandated social justice. In other words, our constitutional guidelines dictate to the newcomers not the other way around. To think any other way is madness. Just imagine Americans going to another locale and demanding certain privileges from the native born citizens. I can't.

[itshappening]

it's true that changes in the US demography through immigration will make it into a more of a European/socialist/south American state.

You can see it's already happening with Obamacare and the fact that the Judge's are going along with it means the direction of America is set and it's going to get even worse.

These people always want more government. They elect people like Chavez, outright communists.

The only saving grace is the amount of Cubans who have lived under Castro and reject socialism in the US but even they're now voting Democrat.

[AuH20]

it's true that changes in the US demography through immigration will make it into a more of a European/socialist/south American state.

You can see it's already happening with Obamacare and the fact that the Judge's are going along with it means the direction of America is set and it's going to get even worse.

These people always want more government. They elect people like Chavez, outright communists.

The only saving grace is the amount of Cubans who have lived under Castro and reject socialism in the US but even they're now voting Democrat.

Our only hope is a worldwide crash in which the central governments become so emaciated and weak, that regional control reappears. Seriously. A dose of anarchy will sort this out. Give me a cataclysmic crash anyday over this George Orwell inspired nightmare that is sweeping the land.

[AuH20]

As much as I agree with you and would like to believe you that this is how Hispanics vote Democratic, I just think you're giving them too much credit. Anything we do to reduce the welfare state, even immigration reform in exchange for slashing the welfare state, will be used against us and Hispanics will not vote for us. It's either "compassionate conservatism" or bust to them.

Compassionate conseervatism is basically a reimagined twist of progressive policies. That's why the RINOs were so adamant in cloaking their intentions as such.

[Brett85]

it's true that changes in the US demography through immigration will make it into a more of a European/socialist/south American state.

You can see it's already happening with Obamacare and the fact that the Judge's are going along with it means the direction of America is set and it's going to get even worse.

So we should just give up?

[KingNothing]

Some people just can't take legitimate criticism.

Some people can't take criticism when it is thrown from someone living in a different reality.

Your Rand Derangement Syndrome is making you insane.

[Rudeman]

Personally the anti-Rand trolling just makes me want to support him even more. You don't have to agree with him but stop with the trolling.

If you don't know what trolling means:
Trolling is an Internet slang term used to describe any Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else. It is often associated with online discussions where users are subjected to offensive or superfluous posts and messages in order to provoke a response.

[supermario21]

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-the-gops-hispanic-nightmare-84974.html?hp=l1

Another disastrous poll for those liking small-government...hello United Socialist States of American when these guys are the majority.

[CaptainAmerica]

breaking news:
amerika loves taxes,and its loved tax hikes since before all those "latinos"