PDA

View Full Version : Tea Partiers On Immigration




Brian4Liberty
07-02-2013, 01:50 PM
There was a time when even the most hard-core libertarian would mention the need for welfare reform as part of any comprehensive immigration reform. It's hard to see how current high unemployment and expanding welfare and food stamp participation can be ignored as part of a "comprehensive" immigration package.


Senator Paul,

We write to offer you our support, encouragement and assistance as we work together to identify the principles that must guide our nation’s thinking on immigration reform.

You noted Tuesday in your remarks to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that "somewhere along the line, Republicans have failed to understand and articulate that immigrants are an asset to America, not a liability," and that the Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration. We wholeheartedly agree -- and stand alongside you in your efforts. We believe you put it best when you said, "Immigration reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans ... become part of the solution."

While we recognize that many details and specific proposals will need to be worked out, we want you to know that we support what we see as the three-legged stool of systemic immigration reform:

1) Ensuring the security of our borders, including both our physical borders and the “virtual” border of visa overstays (which account for almost half of our current illegal immigrant population) with such security acting as a pre-requisite or "trigger" for other reforms;

2) Expanding legal immigration, with a special eye toward encouraging highly-skilled workers educated here to remain here, expanding opportunities for entrepreneurs who want to come here, and providing an adequate legal migrant worker system to help serve our agricultural and tourism industries; and

3) Finding a way to reasonably address the reportedly 11 million people who came here knowingly and illegally -- in a way that is best for all Americans. This means protecting the rights of those who are seeking and continue to seek to come here legally. But it also may mean providing a legal status, upon certain conditions and that may not include full rights of citizenship, to people who are currently here.

We believe such an approach would put the broader health of our economy – not entrenched special interests -- at the forefront of this debate. Indeed, it would go great lengths to reinforce the principles we share as Americans, and as sons and daughters of immigrants ourselves.

Immigration has been essential to the advancement of our nation’s well-being -- and we believe you are on the right track both in acknowledging this elemental contribution and safeguarding it in a fair and consistent manner for all of our nation's workers.

Sincerely, Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
Justin Amash (R-MI)
Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Trey Radel (R-FL)
Mark Meadows (R-NC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/tea-party-rand-paul-immigration_n_2927777.html

Christian Liberty
07-02-2013, 01:55 PM
In my view... this shouldn't be complicated.

Let every immigrant sign a legally binding contract not to try to pull from any welfare program as a condition for entering the US. If they agree to that, let them in, then hold them to their contract.

Its not that hard, IMO...

Christian Liberty
07-02-2013, 01:56 PM
(Of course, my ideal is to abolish welfare, I'm just stating the above as a starting point.

Brian4Liberty
07-02-2013, 02:22 PM
The "three-legged" platform outlined in the letter is really two-legged. Two of the legs are just about expanding immigration.

My personal opinion is that border security is a side show issue and a diversion. I don't want more checkpoints inside the US. I don't want people stopped on the street or in their cars to have their papers checked. I don't really care about people coming here to visit. Let them all come to visit. But nothing in this new "comprehensive" immigration bill addresses what happens when people over-stay their visit. Even that is not the biggest problem, it's what they do once they over-stay that is the relevant issue.

Can they sign-up for welfare and food stamps? Yes, they can. Is it legal? Sometimes it is, but often the actual law is ignored. Can they take a job? Yes, they can. Is it legal? Often not. Therefore there are calls for "enforcing the law".

It's amazing how many things can be left out of a "comprehensive" bill that is over a 1000 pages long, and how much pork and handouts to special interests can be slipped in.

AuH20
07-02-2013, 02:38 PM
The "three-legged" platform outlined in the letter is really two-legged. Two of the legs are just about expanding immigration.

My personal opinion is that border security is a side show issue and a diversion. I don't want more checkpoints inside the US. I don't want people stopped on the street or in their cars to have their papers checked. I don't really care about people coming here to visit. Let them all come to visit. But nothing in this new "comprehensive" immigration bill addresses what happens when people over-stay their visit. Even that is not the biggest problem, it's what they do once they over-stay that is the relevant issue.

Can they sign-up for welfare and food stamps? Yes, they can. Is it legal? Sometimes it is, but often the actual law is ignored. Can they take a job? Yes, they can. Is it legal? Often not. Therefore there are calls for "enforcing the law".

It amazing how many things can be left out of a "comprehensive" bill that is over a 1000 pages long, and how much pork and handouts to special interests can be slipped in.

All enforcement should be passive as opposed to a dedicated round-up, in that if you break the law for another infraction and your naturalization status is cross-referenced, then you are subject to deportation depending on the infraction and the violations compiled up to that point. Such a policy would filter out the criminals from the law abiding undocumented over time.

Carlybee
07-02-2013, 02:45 PM
Um they are already here.

Brian4Liberty
07-02-2013, 03:09 PM
Um they are already here.

Well, maybe John McCain's new Berlin Wall will keep them in, especially if they decide to flee the surveillance State and the full taxation and regulation and other cool benefits of becoming legal. Isn't that what this all about? We must tattoo the "unscannables"...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD8aZV-Y8bE

Carlybee
07-02-2013, 03:39 PM
Pretty much Brian...and give them a voter card.

Brian4Liberty
07-02-2013, 07:13 PM
All enforcement should be passive as opposed to a dedicated round-up, in that if you break the law for another infraction and your naturalization status is cross-referenced, then you are subject to deportation depending on the infraction and the violations compiled up to that point. Such a policy would filter out the criminals from the law abiding undocumented over time.

Agree.

And although it is roundly mocked by the media, self-deportation does occur, especially during a recession. Many immigrants from China and India have gone back to their countries of origin due to better economics at home. Supposedly it has also occurred with immigrants from south of the border. No doubt this promise of amnesty has actually kept people here who would have gone home otherwise.