Bu-...but what about the trickle down effect? (Insert billionaire laughing evilly on a pile of cash emoticon here)
How can someone be against borders when it comes to trade, yet at the same time want to strengthen borders when it comes to people? It's OK for companies to come to the US, exploit our resources, and then send the profit back overseas or to some offshore account. But if a person wants to come here and work for minimum wage (or less, sometimes MUCH less), keeping our food prices low. No way! Go home Pedro! We don't want your kind here! Come back when you are Pedro Ortiz Inc. We'll give you taxpayer money to make doing business in our country even easier. Rand Paul could have made his first priority in Congress proposing ending subsidies for big business. How much money would that save the Federal Government? But no. One of his first priorities is a bill proposing amending the constitution to oppress a certain group of people by taking their birth rights away. Nice.
No, he means we amend the Constitution when we want to change it... instead of just ignoring it. Wouldn't you prefer that? Checks and balances are GOOD. I agree, but does the bill actually say they would deport every existing illegal, or just end the existing policy? Doesn't work when the economy's rigged. Because of the entitlements these people receive. The local state governments by the border are going bankrupt because of this... do you not think that's a problem? He's already proposed a $500 billion cut of spending and an audit of the Federal Reserve... so what are you talking about?
This is just another issue that is throwing the baby (No pun intended!) out with the bathwater. The way to 'fix' the illegal immigration problem isn't to redefine what makes you a citizen, it's to make our immigration system less bureaucratic, so more people can come here. We should also start phasing out the safety nets that illegals abuse in the first place. There's no greater hypocrisy than social conservatives complaining about the social safety nets beinf inefficient, and then when all of a sudden illegals come here and abuse these inefficient systems, it's cause to deport illegals or restrict their entry. No. The solution is to get rid of these inefficient programs because they don't work. I'm not really opposed to this idea (I think it's dumb), but it's being sold as a way to 'fix' a problem, but in reality, it's not going to fix anything. The solution to fixing the illegal immigration problem is a very easy fix, and it's cheap (free). Enforcing yet another immigration law will cost untold billions in bureaucracy, administration, enforcement, etc. Maybe if we let more immigrants into the country, we could stop demolishing houses and apartments like they're doing in Detroit and actually start employing people in construction again. There would be demand for more and more housing, and it would help spur some economic growth again. ...wait, what? Brown people? KEEP THEM OUT!
Right. He wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution as he would write it. There's nothing noble about that. Everyone would like to rewrite the Constitution to their liking. I'm sure there a lot of people who would like to amend it to protect entitlement programs. Doesn't make it right. He professes to embrace and compels his supporters to embrace what he says the Founders meant. And he wants to change the parts that he disagrees with. What he likes about it is sacred gospel. What he doesn't like is flawed and needs to be changed. Just like every other politician. So he's for state's rights. Except when it comes to their individual immigration problems. Then it's got to be the iron hand of the Federal Government and a Constitutional Amendment that comes to the rescue. He COULD have introduced a regular old bill that just makes it harder for illegals to get on those entitlement programs, reduces fraud, punishes the actual individuals that commit entitlement fraud (and ALL people who commit entitlement fraud, not just a tiny percentage of them). That might have actually had a chance of passing. And passing quickly. And actually making a difference in the short term. Instead, it's this grandiose platitude of a Constitutional Amendment that rallies his jingoist, natavist, racist base, but has only the slightest chance of ever passing and would take years to get enacted and enforced. [/quote] Great. Now where is the amendment to the Constitution keeping multinational companies from receiving subsidies? Be sure to post up when he does that. Because a Republican that wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, wants to reduce the power of Government to help to poor people, wants to deport all the brown people, even getting back to the gold standard is nothing new. It's plain old Republicanism. People make it out like he's a different kind of Republican because he talks differently than other Republicans. But his actions so far are 98% Mitch McConnell. I'm not shocked that he decided to make it a Constitutional Amendment. Because that makes it harder to pass, means that it won't really do anything. He gets to rally up the racist, natavist parts of his base with racism and natavism draped in rationality and fiscal conservatism. And he gets to do that without doing something that will actually hurt his Big Agro financial supporters who rely on the people those racist voters would like to deport. Because as an Amendment, it's never going to pass. As a law it might. But not an Amendment. Another empty platitude. I'm all for tightening requirements for entitlement programs. I'm all for deporting immigrants who just came here to get on the dole. But I am completely opposed to doing away with the birthright of citizenship. The newborn baby didn't sneak into the country to get on the dole. His parents did. The child had no say in the matter. And by a strict interpetation of the Constitution as it was written (not the way Rand Paul would have written it) being born here makes those children citizens. Would you automatically incarcerate children born to two recidivist felons? I grew up in one of those border states. I know a TON of people who would not be eligibile for citizenship if this law passed before they were born. Most of them are actually very conservative, hard working, embrace American culture and the American dream, and have virtually disowned their Mexican roots. Why would you want to deport those people? They probably agree politically more with YOU than they do with ME... except for that birthright citizenship thing...
Do you not know how an amendment works? It would require 2/3rds majority of the house, as opposed to simple majority. It wouldn't be "his" writing. You're nuts if you don't think the Constitution is meant to be improved upon. I would much rather the people fight to amend the Constitution to add entitlements than for them to simply ignore the Constitution. In that regard he is not like every politician because he is actually going through the legal steps to change the roles of the Federal government. Well, ya, naturalization is a role of Congress. I'm not sure why he wouldn't do that instead. There parents wouldn't have come here and given birth to them if they knew they wouldn't get citizenship, that's the whole argument. I don't even support this amendment, lol. I think we should open the borders and let everybody pay taxes for the programs they want to use.
Let us return to the America the Founding Fathers wanted, the America based on the self-evident truthiness of the Constitution by...changing..it..? Can we admit that this renegade, think-for-yourself, alpha-individualism, forerunner-wannabe political campaign is empty and foolish now?
Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You guys are embarassing, quit "liking" these foolish comments.
uhhh. the founders placed a method of changing the constitution within the text of the thing. it is actually every federal law that hasn't involved an amendment that is bunk
The point was a politician is politician, no matter how heavily they drape themselves in star-spangled vestments. That and I can't think of anything more flagrantly hypocritical to the notion of 'protecting America via the Founding Father's priciples' than not granting an individual citizenship when they're fucking born here. Pathetic. Reminds me of colonial Massachusetts.
I think there's a little bit of merit to immigration quotas, over-population wasn't something the founders considered. A lot of the countries you love have quotas and immigration restrictions... but they are bordered by mostly white countries so the race card doesn't work there.