Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sorry, Officer, I Left the Visa in My Other Pants — Mark Krikorian
As I wrote over at The Corner, Rand Paul made a fool of himself earlier today in a speech on immigration by claiming that the 5 million or so illegal aliens who overstayed visas (as opposed to infiltrating across the border) “somehow lost their documentation.” (Yes, that’s what he really said, and it doesn’t appear to have been an April Fool’s joke.)
As hilarious (or dumbfounding) as that is, my question for Ricochet is about the overall topic of his speech: How the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement can reach out to American voters with roots in Latin America. For all his supposed iconoclasm, Paul’s approach seems to be the same as the rest of the GOP political/donor class: Amnesty, loose enforcement, and ever-higher levels of immigration.
But those moves are bad for the country and wouldn’t win any larger share of Hispanic voters anyway. (For a tsunami of evidence on the big-government preferences of Hispanics and immigrants, see this exhaustive report from Eagle Forum.) My question is this: What would you do to try to make the GOP more appealing to Hispanics and/or immigrants?
One proposal I made was for the party, or a conservative group, to open American Opportunity Centers in immigrant neighborhoods, where grassroots volunteers could teach citizenship courses, English language, etc. There must be other ideas, however, and Lord knows the GOP establishment is desperately in need of them. What are yours?
Published in General
Mark Krikorian, a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues, has served as Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) since 1995. The Center, an independent, non-partisan research organization in Washington, D.C., examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. Animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted, the Center was established in 1985 to respond to the need for reliable, fact-based research in the immigration area.
How’s this been working out for our country?
Yet another blast Rand Paul article here. I’m curious what scares you people so much. By you people I mean you nanny state loving, nurturing leviathan folks. I’ll let the man’s website speak for him.
I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.
Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.
I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.
Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.
Decaf, Doc. Decaf.
“I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment.”
Something Rand Paul gets on a number of issues, and something most other Republicans don’t. It’s why he would make a great president. It’s why Jeb Bush wouldn’t.
I got sidetracked by the “made a fool out of himself”, and the multiple other insults before asking a serious question.
Serious question, Doc – I am not a Rand Paul fan, and I consider Ron Paul to be one of the most odious men in contemporary politics, so let’s get that out of the way to start. What I find interesting is I recall you and I made a bit of common cause several months back on the “party of closed minds and closed borders” kerfuffle in defense of a more restrictive immigration policy than what Senator Paul seems to advocate here. Maybe I misunderstood you then or I misunderstand you now, but the only difference I see between then and now is Rand Paul. Thus, my question: am I wrong that Paul’s supporters take a very uncritical view of anything he happens to say?
D.C. – What if that “local solution” involves turning, say, Charlotte into a sanctuary city?
I am not one of those people, I pray for smaller government and an end to the nanny state, and yet I do not trust Rand Paul. The POTUS is supposed to be mostly a foreign policy position and I see him continuing on Obamas path toward a weaker USA in the international arena. He is only been a senator for 4 years and yet people are already talking about him becoming President, doesn’t that sound familiar to you. How has it worked out for us so far. No, the Paul’s are a cult of personality and as such should never be trusted outside of arms reach or with any real power.
Matthew–has Paul suggested that as a local solution in the context of the 10th amendment? In any context?
No, he hasn’t. But what would he say to those who do?
I think it’s common for libertarian leaning people to blindly forgive their heroes at times. Ron Paul would say amazing things ( IMO) one moment and then something nearly insane later on. The problem that non Paul fans face is that nearly none of the other candidates discuss those amazing things ( stopping corruption, securing privacy, freedom)with any passion whatsoever and I find it jading as do a very large number of our youth.
I’m not sure about the immigration issue we discussed (I am pretty plain spoken so I doubt we misunderstood each other). I like what generality Rand has on his website.
A governor who isn’t a crony corrupt pseudo-capitalist will do a much a fine job running our country.
I share concerns about both foolish isolationists and war mongers.
No wonder you didn’t take a shine to Kenneth.
Matthew–securing the borders and immigration is a legitimate role of the federal government. Nullifying a legitimate law of the federal government is not a proper local solution according to the 10th amendment.
ConnorDadoo, I have no problems with anyone mistrusting the abilities or experience of a junior senator. I wish I heard more people discussing federalism, small government, fighting corruption, privacy and general liberty issues. Failure to address such issues may well lose the presidency but more critically our country. As far as comparing Obama to Paul, eh, one is a libertarian physician with isolationist tendencies and the other a narcissistic America hating progressive surrounded by Marxists and criminals. I really doubt Paul could win the nomination but he will be a force for decades to come and with good reason, he speaks to the hearts of many people.
D.C. – Agreed that immigration is a legitimate role of the federal government; in fact, it’s one of Congress’s enumerated powers. Hence my question: whither local solutions to immigration and the Tenth Amendment?
Stop me if any of this sounds familiar to you. Federalism equals states rights equals racism. Small government equals pulling the plug on grandma or letting the children starve. Fighting corruption – TEH OMG HYPOCRIT. Privacy – we will believe you when you get out of our wombs. Liberty – SSM, drugs and any other libertine cause.
Should Rand Paul ever actually get any real steam under him then we will see about his ability to speak for these issues against the liberal onslaught. For now libs accurately see him as a non-threat, perhaps even as a plus since he is a wedge figure in the republican party like his father. Would I love someone to talk about these issues, yes. Just not this guy.
Matthew–isn’t it obvious? If the federal government doesn’t do its job then the states must do it (eg Arizona) without the federal government saying they can’t while at the same time not enforcing its own laws. This is a local solution to a problem created by an incompetent and lawless federal government.
ConnerDadoo—the core of the Constitution is federalism. So are you saying that because there are naysayers who are going to–omg they’re calling us racists because were standing for the constitution…ahhhh everyone hide–that we just chuck the constitution, the very thing that gives us our liberty? Really? It’s thinking like this that will eventually put us in chains.
No, I’m saying Rand Paul has not had to defend it yet directly. “Mr. Paul, you speak of Federalism, what do you have to say about the history of its abuses such as slavery and Jim Crow.” What is his answer? Can he really defend it, or is he just like his dad and another bomb thrower and crackpot fundraiser. That is my question.
ConnerDadoo–the libs see him very much as a threat and so the the establishment republicans. As for the federalism issue, Rand Paul better communicates distrust of the federal government to voters than anyone. And that’s what we need. For people to stop trusting in the federal government to do things it should not be doing. Rand can also better communicate than many the benefits of local governance, that we aren’t going to let people starve but that these things can and should be handled by the states. The argument must be made. People need to be educated about the benefits of local government over an out of control federal government, and I don’t hear many politicians speaking about it outside tea party candidates like Rand Paul.
I would think, as a thoughtful Constitutionalist and a student of history, that Rand would say what he needs to say to such obvious and manipulative objections. He would say that while states advocated slavery, states are the ones who ended it. Freedom-loving states. Imagine if we had had a centralized government more like we have today that supported slavery. What recourse would there have been? It was because of state sovereignty that we ended slavery.
By 1850, half of the states in America were free states. A number of the free states offered protection for blacks, such as establishing due-process rights for runaway slaves. There were northern states that operated the Underground railroad. This could not have happened if the states were controlled by a centralized government. There would have been no path to freedom.
Southern states didn’t want to give up slavery so they persuaded the federal government to pass the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This compelled the northern states to act against their conscience and help return the escapes slaves to their chains. And then the Supreme Court got involved. It struck down states’ personal liberty laws and ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford that federal territories could not be free and that free states couldn’t offer citizenship to former slaves. So, while the southern states seceded in the name of “states rights,” in many ways it was the northern states whose sovereignty was violated prior to the Civil War.
I think Mark Levin puts this situation into perspective when he writes, “For the Conservative, the lesson comes back to man’s imperfection. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition—as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. They can be used for good or bad, and they have been used for both. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men—by enumerating federal power, separating power within the federal government, and sharing power with the states—isolates and limits tyranny. Had slavery been affirmed in the Constitution and urged on all states, who knows when and how it would have been abolished.
DC – are you a Ron Paul fan? Because what you have said, you are preaching to the choir. Of course more people should be talking about these truths. Of course there should be a more coherent conversation about the flawed nature of Man and why he should never be trusted with power. But should Rand Paul be the poster boy?
Real question, besides being Ron Paul’s son, what has he done to be elected to national office? To President? Made some nice speeches, made some more nice speeches. Sounds like a libertarian version of Obama, and since the primary job of the President (according to the Constitution) is foreign policy I have no idea what he would do. I am afraid he is too much like his father because he has not given me reason to believe otherwise, and so I can not and will not trust him until he changes my mind.
DC, we are not arguing the principles, we are arguing the person. Like his father a cult of personality is growing around him, where he has become not a person but the manifestation of an ideal. If you question him, Rand Paul, you are questioning the Ideal. In the course of human history such thinking has never turned out well. I, and the many like me, do not trust Rand Paul. I wish more would and could speak to the ideals you and I believe in, and I am willing to give Mr. Paul the chance to win me over, but he has many hoops to jump through first. Perhaps if he were to be governor of Kentucky first.
ConnorDadoo—maybe Rick Perry would be your choice. He’s a good one. Not perfect and he as that dismal showing in 2012 to overcome. But he’s an advocate of limited government and states rights and he’s a governor.
I was thinking more Scott Walker, but it is still awfully early.
No, I’m not a Ron Paul fan but I don’t identify the son by his father’s weaknesses. For me, Rand stands on his own until he proves otherwise.
Walker is good but I don’t know if he’ll leave Wisconsin.
And forgive me for belaboring a point many have made before me, but governors have records to judge. I want Rand Paul to have a real record of having to make tough calls.
Then we do with him what we should have done with Mitch Daniels, draft him.
I’m not so opposed to senators as you are. There have been governors who were ineffective as president and senators who have been effective. One thing I do know is that I would pick Rand Paul, a senator, over governors Jeb Bush and Chris Christie any day.