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
If this is what Paul meant, then I’d support him. I think that Mark, who pays quite a lot of attention to these things, is right, though, in believing that Paul is talking about sanctuary cities and the like. States enforcing federal law support America. States abrogating properly passed, Constitutional, federal law undermine the rule of law on which we depend.
Connor—another govenor who might be a good choice is Nikki Haley. I like her.
The argument that Obama was a one term Senator and Paul is a one term Senator therefore they are the same shows a real lack of ideological distinction, whiChat is the hallmark of statist Republicans often labeled RINOs crudely. There was not a whisper of this when maverick Republican party saboteur John McCain
In2008. I’m anti amnesty anti big comprehensive solution for our border-crossers and visa overstayers More than anyone, but the continued sniping at Rand Paul is telling. Look at where it comes from and why. They are afraid he will encroach into their pet issues.
McCain was a multi-term Senator with a very sketchy record – one that revealed more personal political calculations than any other thread.
I don’t see where Mark has said that Paul is talking about sanctuary cities (or did you mean to say Matthew). At any rate, please cite for me where Rand Paul supports sanctuary cities. I don’t see it anywhere. I see where his father does, but not Rand. I’m getting a little sick and tired, to be honest, of people imposing Ron’s views on Rand. This is neither fair nor intellectually honest.
I found Krikorian’s post at the Corner unfair. He based his reactions to Rand’s speech on assumptions, not fact. He says Rand wants open borders, for instance. This is simply not true. He has stated time and again that any immigration reform must be predicated by securing the border. That is essential. Second, he has never said there should be “no deportations” at all. He has advocated that we can’t simply round up and deport 12 million immigrants. Most Republicans say that, even Tea Party people.
What Rand does say is that deportation can’t be the only answer. He has clearly said that he is neither for amnesty nor rounding up all 12 million and simply deporting them. He is for a middle of the road approach. Let me repeat, Rand believes the border should be secured first and it would have to be certified by border patrol forces. He calls for a bipartisan Congressional panel to determine how many work visas to hand out.
”The solution doesn’t have to be amnesty or deportation,” Rand said. “A middle ground might be called probation, where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period.”
You might not agree with his approach, but he’s not his father and he’s not for just throwing open the borders. I also do not see—from his own mouth—where he supports sanctuary cities. If he does, I would disagree with him. If he were to support them (again, show me the evidence), I would imagine that it is based on some idea that immigration is not a federal responsibility and should be handled by the states. In this sense, he would support a kind of nullification. (something I support when it comes to laws the feds should not be imposing on the states!). But I don’t know that he thinks that. I really can’t imagine that he thinks that immigration is not a legitimate role of the federal government. All I hear him talking about is securing the border and figuring out what to do with all these illegals who are here. How to put them to work and transition them to eventual citizenship in a legitimate way without deporting everyone. I also have not seen where he has ever said that we should not deport illegals who have committed other crimes while in the US. The accusation that he is for “no deportation” at all seems misplaced.
Can we please let Rand speak for himself and not put his father’s words in his mouth? Can we do that? Please????
Oh, and in answer to Krikorian’s question about how can we appeal to Hispanics. Let’s just stop the pandering for any group. Stand for the Constitution, communicate to people in a clear and simple way why liberty and limited government is best for them whoever they are and in whatever situation they are in. We can communicate that message to specific groups in specific ways that speaks to them, but the message is the same to everyone. Hispanics. Women. Blacks. Men. Purple people. Same message. Spoken simply. Period.
That’s what those words mean when they come from politicians.
These are all things that McCain says, too, and it’s not honest. If you’re not in favor of deporting illegal immigrant x, and you want illlegal immigrant x the ability to stay in the country, you’re in favor of amnesty. Maybe you want border security, then amnesty, but you still want amnesty. It’s not a middle ground position.
I think that Mark agrees with this, and was suggesting and asking for further suggestions about how we might go about it. “Get the plain vanilla message to the groups we do poorly amongst” is the start of the conversation, not its end.
I’ve encountered a certain mindset that I find pernicious.
It’s the idea that “if we vote for people who look like us we will bypass racism (and they will do us favors but that’s okay).”
Countering this mindset seems critical to me, but it’s hard to swallow for people who are casually racist themselves and attribute racism to others because of it.
I’m not sure the best way to counter this mindset, but I’m thinking something like the following points are worth communicating: