Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

Care to explain?

 

Progress is going to be incremental. If you cannot accept that, then we might as well just withdraw from the political process entirely.

 

So if someone was willing to secure the borders and end welfare to illegal aliens you would not support them because they won't deport millions of people?

 

Progress is one thing, if it's actually progress, that is. We might as well throw our support behind Obama, it's just as illogical. Romney supports NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, might be slightly worse on FP than Obama, and although he might be slightly better economically, he's still pretty horrible.

If he was better than Obama by even a decent margin, Ron probably would have endorsed him. But he didn't.

 

Well (*)(*)(*)(*), looks like ontheissues.com and Rand's own website need to update his position. From a story that came out just a few days ago.

http://www.therightscoop.com/rand-paul-wants-eventual-path-to-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants/

This certainly gives me cause for pause... and kind of makes me feel like an ass for starting a thread in his support. I'll wait until more details come out... but he might have just lost my support. (record for quickest PF support reversal? )

 

I agree with you here. Amnesty for non violent illegals, cutting benefits, and securing the borders is the only logical way to handle this problem.

 

RE: Social Conservative / Tea Party

And that's the problem. Social conservatives advocate authoritarian government based upon Christian theocratic dogma and that is a serious problem as it violates the liberty and rights of the American People. The tea party never presented any valid fiscal propositions IMO. Rand Paul reflected this when he stated that Obama's re-election didn't mandate tax increase but failed to acknowledge that its the deficits and debt that mandate tax increases (or the elimination of the largest special tax loophole that exists which is the Capital Gains Tax which doesn't treat all income equally).

The reason there are "illegal" immigrants is because our immigration laws are so bad. Everyone on both sides of the isle agree with that. Why should we blame or punish those that simply evaded bad laws. If we would have had good immigration laws there wouldn't be 12 million illegal immigrants.

The opposition to the inalienable Right of Citizenship based upon Jus Soli that the 14th Amendment protects really goes against the very foundation of our government's primary role of protecting our inalienable Rights. I have never found any logical reason for denying an inalienable Right and even infringements upon inalienable Rights require pragmatic justification. A child born in the United States, regardless of who their parents are, is not infringing upon anyone's Rights nor have they broken any laws. There is no rational reason for denying their inalienable Right of Citizenship.

Without repeal we have the same problem that we have under Obama who said he wouldn't bust medicial marijuana distributors but he's doing exactly that in California. The repeal of the federal laws is the only answer, not non-enforcement.

Who else is coming across our borders illegally? If they can come across legally then they certainly aren't going to go to the trouble or expense to do it illegally. That would be stupid.

 

The sad truth is that I would live in perpetual sorrow had I not detached my emotions from that which I have fervently loved for most of my life. Can you detect the fatalism in my posts? They verge on political nihilism.

I believe that the term "American" has lost much of its meaning. There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus any more on what the term means. I have witnessed the Byzantines call themselves "Roman" and I know that a tulip is not a rose.

 

On the net, Romney was closer to libertarian philosophy than Obama; at least, that is my opinion; if that makes me a fake or a sellout, then so be it.

 

So what is the alternative to Rand's proposal? Have the Federal government deport millions of people?

 

I did not see any libertarian leanings from Romney. Is there any website or something that drew you to this conclusion? If so, I'd like to take a look.

 

I did not say he had "libertarian leanings" (whatever that means).

 

Well, then you're likely not going to be satisfied with many candidates in this regard, regardless of where they lie on the spectrum (libertarians being the biggest exception obviously). Both parties, and people along both ends of the spectrum advocate authoritarian government to some extent, whether they justify it through religion or by ideology.

And amnesty is bad policy (which btw, just found out Rand is indeed advocating some form of amnesty). It didn't work in '86, and there is no reason to think it's going to work now.

This is an outdated piece of the constitution which needs to be amended to deal with our current time. It makes no sense for us to allow citizenship to those who'd not be on our soil, if it were not for someone else violating our immigration laws. It makes zero sense.

I have no proof to offer, but I think Rand's Libertarian leanings are true enough that his admin would turn a blind eye. And again, I don't think it's realistic for us to expect Federal level repeal overnight. Baby steps Besides, I like the idea that only a few states would experience 'decriminalized' marijuana to the greatest extent possible, just so that the rest of the nation can observe the affects before diving in head first.

If we're having this much trouble controlling the inflow of illegal immigrants, what makes you think it'll be any easier to control 'legal' immigrants. I guess I'm kinda confused about what you're advocating... what is it exactly?

 

I'll phrase it another way, then.

What makes him closer to libertarian philosophy than Obama?

 

Well, the details are pretty nebulous in the article I posted, that's why I say that he might have lost my support over this.

And yes, I'd like to see as many illegal immigrants deported as possible. But I don't suggest that we try to 'round 'em all up' in one go.

 

He is more open to reforming major entitlement programs like Medicare; he is more open to state's rights than Obama; he does not want to raise taxes; he does not relentlessly demonize capitalism; it is a relatively small difference, but it is there, and incremental change is the only change that libertarians can hope for in a giant democracy.

 

Wait a second. I didn't think you voted for Romney...?

 

Reforming is not cutting, and what made him appear to be more open to state's rights?

 

Then what do you suggest? A slow, methodical deportation process?

 

No, I did not.

 

Yes, he is slightly better economically. He does want to cut welfare, and is a little better on taxes, but he's still a major crony capitalist. But Obama is also probably slightly closer to a libertarian on foreign policy. Doesn't mean libertarians should vote Obama. But they're still utter crap everywhere, regardless. Slightly better here and there isn't going to lead to progress, in my opinion.

 

Here's my proposal for fixing the illegal immigration problem:

-No education, employment, healthcare, etc. for illegal immigrants.

- Mandatory E-Verify

- Harsh and consistent penalties/fines for those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, or assist them in obtaining fraudulent documents, etc.

- Secure border with far more boots on the ground, prhysical fence where it makes sense to have one, and a technological fence using any and all relevant technologies.

- Deport them as we find them.

- Do away with birthright citizenship.

 

Nothing I guess. Long live Ron Paul.

 

Here's my proposal,

let us have 1 more year of (*)(*)(*)(*) economy and they'll self-deport.

 

Awwww, viva la Paul!

I know you're not a neocon lover.