Tag Archives: Obama amnesty

Rand Paul supports amnesty, bilingualism, and open borders, opposes employment verification

In recent weeks, Rand Paul has made a meteoric rise in Republican politics, dramatically raising his name recognition, winning (albeit by a slim margin) a CPAC straw poll, and successfully duping many conservatives (including some of my friends) into believing that he’s more sane and more practical than his nutty father, whom Republican voters rejected overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2012.

Sadly, these people are wrong. Rand Paul, like his father, is a leftist libertarian. His leftist brand of libertarianism is evident on many issues: deep defense cuts, supporting the cretinous “Balanced Budget Amendment”, supporting violations of states’ rights Paul’s pet issues, opposing action against Iran.

But on no issue is it more visible than on illegal immigration. Rand Paul supports a full-throated amnesty for illegal aliens (without calling it that way; he deceptively calls it “a pathway to citizenship”), bilingualism, and open borders, and opposes employment verification, including the very effective E-Verify Program.

Employers, including Big Business, are lobbying hard for amnesty and against E-Verify, because they love to hire illegal aliens; they can pay them much less than Americans and avoid federal and state employment laws.

But doesn’t Rand Paul realise that amnesty and bilingualism will only lead to bigger, more costly government? Don’t his supporters realize that?

Don’t they and their idol Rand Paul realize that amnesty (or “pathway to citizenship”, or whatever you want to call it) is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with limited Constitutional government (not to mention that it rewards lawbreaking, and a limited government – Constitutional or otherwise – cannot exist if the law is not obeyed)?

Don’t they and Rand Paul understand that amnesty will create 12-20 million new Democratic voters who will send the political Right (not just the GOP) and all conservatives to the political graveyard and give the Democrats a permanent, unbeatable majority?

As Ann Coulter rightly says, as soon as the nation starts to resemble California demographically, it will also resemble California politically.

To see what amnesty would mean politically, just look at California, where whites are now only 40% of the population – a “majority minority” state. Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has transformed California into such a liberal state that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Taxes are going in only one direction, the state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and there’s no one left to pay the bill anymore, because businesses are fleeing Commiefornia en masse.

Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is permanently lost to the GOP. The Dems control the governorship and have 2/3 majorities in the state legislature.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty is passed. The two major parties, as Ann Coulter rightly says, will be the Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.

Contrary to the popular canard that “Hispanics are natural conservatives/Republicans” and that “the Hispanic vote is winnable for the GOP”, they’re not and it’s not. The converse is the truth: Hispanics are natural liberals.

They are less likely than anyone but Jews to attend religious services and to oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock themselves, be poor, be dependent on the federal government for survival, commit crime, and go to prison. They depend on an entire cornucopia of federal programs to survive – from cradle to grave.

As Pat Buchanan points out, most Hispanic households are led by single mothers who, if they work, have no tax liability (due to the high tax-free treshold and the EITC), and if they don’t work, they receive welfare rolls and 99 weeks of unemployment checks. For food, she gets foodstamps and her children receive 2-3 “free” meals at school.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

Her children are educated for “free” K-12 and can apply for Pell Grants and student loans.

Why would these people vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but pledges to cut government dependency programs they do “benefit” from and use? Doesn’t self-interest dictate voting for the party that pledges to let them keep using these programs and, if anything, promises them more “free” giveaways?

The vast majority of Hispanics are government dependents (i.e. ideal Democratic voters). Republicans will never beat the Democrats at the giveaway offering game.

Have you ever wondered, Dear Readers, why most Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.) have socialist governments? Answer: Because most of their citizens are socialists.

Most Americans don’t know that decades ago, the Democrats began implementing their plan to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing millions of immigrants from the Third World while making it harder (nigh impossible) for well-educated, highly-skilled Europeans to immigrate to the US. This plan is close to being completed. Amnesty #2 would be the final step – and the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.

The Democrats did not, and do not, want to change their ideology or their policies; instead, they’ve decided to change the voters, and they’ve done so and continue to do so.

Someone will say, “But in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote!” Yes, he did, but that’s not a great result. If repeated at future elections and if amnesty is passed, the GOP will still be doomed. Let’s do simple math.

Assuming that there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US, let’s say 44% of these people vote Republican once naturalized, and “only” 56% vote Democratic. That is, let’s assume they’ll vote Republican in George W. Bush numbers.

OK, here’s the math:

44%*12 million = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56%*12 million = 6.72 mn new Dem voters

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

 

So on net, the Dems would gain 1.44 mn new voters.

Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a GOP that were not suicidally inclined support such a policy?

Those who support amnesty, including Rand Paul, need to ask themselves only this question:

If there was ANY chance – even the slightest chance – that amnesty could help Republicans in ANY way whatsoever, do you think the Democrats would’ve supported it?

The answer is obvious. It’s a resounding “no”.

Rand Paul must not be allowed to win a GOP presidential or vice presidential nomination under any circumstances whatsoever. Nominating Rand Paul for President or Vice President would be an electoral suicide for the GOP and would be an utter rejection of all conservative principles the GOP has ever stood for.

You Don’t Have to Be President to Impose Amnesty

Where I live we’ve already had extensive experience with small scale unilateral amnesty for illegal aliens without actual legal authority. Ours came courtesy of a “morally sensitive” police chief who knew much more about illegal aliens than the elected officials who hired him.

Fortunately for us Chief Charlie Deane — Virginia’s foremost practitioner of “ignoring while Hispanic” law enforcement — is voluntarily saying, “Adios, amigos” and retiring. I wish I could say the same for Barack Obama and his unilaterally declared amnesty for almost 2 million illegals.

Deane received quite the sendoff from his fellow travelers at the Washington Post. Members of the morally superior caucus find it newsworthy when someone they assume is conservative and therefore morally backward, say a police officer, turns out to share their enlightened views.

The WaPo editorial proclaimed: “When county officials wanted police to check the immigration status of residents and arrest those who were in the country illegally, he wasn’t afraid to push back at a policy he saw as bigoted and sure to cause problems for law enforcement.”

The Metro section concurred, “When the Prince William Board of County Supervisors jumped into the national immigration debate in 2007 and became one of the first places in the country to require the police department to question residents about their immigration status, Chief Charlie T. Deane thought otherwise.

“He feared cries of racial profiling and losing the trust of the county’s growing immigrant community. His stance angered his bosses on the county board and many residents who thought he was flouting the law…’When this was forced on us, we had no experience with it, and there were legal and moral implications,’ Deane said.”

The policy Deane refers to as being “forced on us” was in truth a law passed by an overwhelming majority of the county board of supervisors and a concept recently ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What’s more, Deane didn’t simply express his opinion as a law enforcement official. He used his power as chief to actively sabotage the implementation of a law supported by the vast majority of citizens here legally.

Since Deane couldn’t persuade the board not to pass the law, he decided to obstruct enforcement until the 2008 election, hoping voters would elect Democrats who prefer coddling illegals. (Note to readers, don’t try this at home, obstruction of justice is a crime if you’re not the chief of police.)

Deane accomplished this by waiting until the entire police department went through training before allowing officers to enforce the law. This took months and is in direct opposition to the procedure in departments where the chief obeys his elected bosses.

Deane was forced to implement Plan B when stubborn voters re–elected Republicans who believe in the rule of law. Chief Sanctimony announced, “…we were going to focus on individuals who had committed crimes, and that we were going to protect crime victims and witnesses regardless of their status, and we were not going to do racial profiling, roadblocks, sweeps or employment investigations.”

This made it crystal clear to patrol officers and supervisors that they would be wise to avoid enthusiastic enforcement of the new law.

Simultaneously Deane began his viaje de apología. The Patron was concerned about the “climate of fear” in the Hispanic community, along with “bigotry and profiling.” He met with “immigrant rights groups” (think aiding and abetting associations) and even has an audiencia with the Mexican consul, who represents a government that actively encourages illegal aliens and works to undermine border enforcement.

But in spite of Deane’s best efforts some illegals were initially captured. The first report on the law’s effectiveness found, “In the majority of cases, [the arrest] was made during a call for service, second to that was traffic for stops (sic).”

So Deane works to dilute the law and restrict enforcement inquiries to individuals placed under arrest, which means illegals caught previously during “a call for service” or traffic stop, would go free in the future.

Progressives were fine with Deane’s unilateral decision that the intensity of law enforcement should vary depending on the individual’s national origin, because all the right people were in agreement.

But I wonder what progressive response would have been if Deane had decided to de–emphasize enforcement of domestic violence and homosexual bullying in the Moslem community because Islam has a different view of women’s roles and the Koran prohibits homosexual conduct?

Do you think worries about “Islamophobia” and encouraging cooperation with anti–terrorism efforts would have persuaded elite opinion to accept this type of arbitrary lack of enforcement? We all know the answer to that.

Charlie has his “Bridge Builder” award from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and his gold watch from the WaPo. Now maybe my county will get a chief who believes his role is to enforce the law, rather than interpret it. Maybe it will set a precedent for the nation.