-11 votes

Rand Paul F*cked us all on the Immigration bill

Rand Paul f%cked us all on the immigration bill. The original Senate immigration bill is already enough to make anyone concerned about privacy and civil liberties vomit. It would create a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID. It would mandate all employers to look up every new hire in the database and verify that they match their photo. It therefore sets the precedent that you need permission from the government to work, and your activities can be restricted by failing to appear in the database.

As the heir to Ron Paul’s political machine, Rand is supposed to be the staunchest defender of our civil liberties in the U.S. Senate, but as the immigration bill was debated and amended, all we heard from him on the subject was concerning border “SECURITY”

Rand Paul could have, and should have, spoken out against the bill on civil liberties grounds. His father did, and if Rand had stood for liberty just like Ron, he could have peeled off support for the bill from Democrats trying to cover their civil libertarian flank.

Rand Paul could have, and should have, spoken out against the bill on fiscal grounds. The bill spends $46 billion dollars on border security and is packed with special interest giveaways like a youth jobs program and a waiver for Alaska fishing workers. And if he opposed the spending in the bill, the entire Tea Party wing of the GOP, which he now basically leads, would have stood right beside him.

Establishment Republicans would have opposed the bill anyway for lack of border security and the immigration bill would have died long ago.

But since Rand Paul decided to focus on SECURITY, trying to appeal to xenophobic, old, white conservatives as he campaigns for 2016, there was NOBODY in the conversation calling for LIBERTY. And with the one person in the Senate who was supposed to be the voice of liberty, calling instead for security, what we got was a loss of our liberty in the name of security.

We got the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the immigration bill that calls for 20,000 more border patrol agents, 700 miles of border fencing, surveillance drones, and infrared sensors. Lindsey Graham praised it for creating “an almost militarized border”. This amendment bought off 15 senate Republicans with a giveaway to the Military-Industrial complex. Democrats are still marching in lockstep behind it because they don’t give a shit about civil liberties. Police statists in the GOP get everything they wanted, and it now has enough votes to pass the Senate, with a good chance in the House as well.

On immigration, Rand Paul committed the cardinal sin that Ben Franklin warned us about. He surrendered liberty for security.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Obama did the same

he told the people what they wanted to hear! once elected he screwed us with a nice juicy 12 inch veiny dildo. Paul needs to win... get it? if you want me to elaborate? let me know.

Rand Paul 2016!

an old troll surfaces.

an old troll surfaces.

I've Come To Realize

That the majority of people, the highest percentage being Westerners, secretly and/or unconsciously enjoy getting f*cked up the butt really hard. They also enjoy crying and listening to each other cry about it. Some of them enjoy it so very very much that they have convinced themselves that they can't stop it from happening in an attempt to ensure that it will always continue without a doubt. Without it they would do little more than exist--too boring, huh? The sadists vs the masochists.

END WELFARE TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!!!

END WELFARE TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!!!

The REAL Issue!

What is really sad is that nobody is speaking up about the real issue!
It's not about immigration or about border security - or at least it shouldn't be. IT ABOUT AN ENTITLEMENT (WELFARE) SOCIETY!!!!
Most of us have parents/grandparents who came to this country for an opportunity to create a life based on hard work in a free society, where we could freely exchange our talents for the fruits of others labor.

Today, our problem comes from those people who come for free stuff at the expense of my (our)labor. The political class have changed the reason or motivation for people to come here. Sure we still have some that wish to work for a better life, to avoid repression. We should welcome them. If you come for a handout, and came illegally, and get more handouts than those who work for it - Start over, Go home, and come back legally when you are ready to contribute!!

Oh, and while I'm at it - perhaps we wouldn't need a fence to stop terrorists either if we stopped bombing their countries.........

mvs

I'm 50 and white

and I am tired of twits like you insulting me.

I am for securing the border, and I have no respect for any so called "libertarian" who is quite willing to sieze what little hard earned wealth I have and deliver to to illegals through the welfare state.

So you are insulted by the arguement Sen. Paul employed?

WHO CARES!

Your insulting me for going

Your insulting me for going along with and now defending a program that is designed to fail and designed to force me to pay for your "wealth" you earned while allocating mine before i was born. Im tired of you old people not wanting to take any blame for how today looks.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

If you are inferring that my property is not really mine, then you are more a thief than a libertarian.

I think a position that advocates open border would be acceptable were we actually a free society. But we are not. My thinking on this issue would change greatly if we were still attracting immigrants who yearned for freedom and the opportunity to make it, unencumbered by oppressive government. But we do not.

And the estimate I trust is that Amnesty for these 11 million will cost 6.3 Trillion over the next 50 years:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-...

As for me taking blame, you apparently are a member of the generation that elected Obama twice. Were in not for those under 35, he would have never been president. So don't blame me for your pathetic circumstance. Blame your generation's lack of critical thinking skills and susceptibility to idiotic sentimentalism over some obscure notion of "change".

The OP seems offended that Paul attacks this Amnesty Bill on the basis of cost to society, as though that is somehow a tangential, unworthy argument. Let me tell you something, without property rights, the Bill of Rights that most of this board constantly harps on, is nothing but window dressing.

Ive got 5 years to blame on

Ive got 5 years to blame on me you've got 35 years of blame you dont take credit for any. Then you complain that illegals are coming here for your S.S. and benefits and what not...uhhh no shit thats why half of them come here, how bout getting rid of the incentive like getting rid of your S.S. and all that other crap they come to "steal" and then there would be no problem

Very well then. Good retort.

and have a nice day.

Ok so lets build a wall around Washington D.C.

So we can keep the Federal Government at bay, and not worry about Jose and Maria who come here to trim your lawn and clean your hotel room.

I don't understand how you can argue property rights and free market and not recognize the market influence on immigration, not to mention the fact that California and a few other states were Mexican property.

And to be consistent, are you going to go through the American population and put all those sponging off the system on the other side of your new wall?

What about the immigrants who come here and sign up for military service, because thats another dark little secret, the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are fighting our many wars.

These are not simple issues, you can't pin it all on one group of people.

Know your history - This was amnesty version 1

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, officially Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic.

Is the peace treaty signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo between the U.S. and Mexico that ended the Mexican–American War (1846–48). With the defeat of its army and the fall of the capital, Mexico entered into negotiations to end the war. The treaty called for the United States to pay $15 million to Mexico and pay off the claims of American citizens against Mexico up to $3.25 million. It gave the United States the Rio Grande boundary for Texas, and gave the U.S. ownership of California, and a large area comprising New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of relocating to Mexico or receiving American citizenship with full civil rights; over 90% remained.

And WE DONT FIGHT WARS FOR FREEDOM. We fight wars for OIL, so what have your poor people accomplished ? Helping tyranny in other countries since WW II ?

You cant solve poverty by importing it, you can only solve it by treating the cause not the symptoms.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

I would rather give California back to Mexico then.

And I am completely serious. Rather than having you or anyone force me to pay for unlimited illegal immigration as payment for past transgressions, I say give it the hell back.

I swear to God, everyone has a gripe and everyone wants a check.

I live in California and unfortunately

they have already taken it back.

Thats funny

I have been to Temecula twice and stayed there at one of the winery's. Enjoyed Old Town Temecula too. They had a very nice smooth jazz radio program.

Money talks and dogs bark

I'm not insulted, and I'm not trying to insult you...

No true libertarian would want to see your money taken from you and given to anyone else. I feel like there are way too many emotions at play here and the real common ground is being lost.

I don't hate Rand or think that he's a Judas or whatever... I'm just concerned with losing intellectual ground in these silly national "debates".

I often see great performances by Rand, and I am happy he's on the national stage. But the idea I keep hearing in posts: that you lose when you stand on principle, and political maneuvering is the way to get things done

-This really bothers me, and it is how I see our little movement imploding.

You lose when you don't fight. Rand is fighting his way, and no one can instruct another adult human being how to behave morally, so I am not in the "camp" that wants a Rand puppet with libertarian hands at the strings. But what's wrong with some intellectual challenge from time to time?

You are wrong. He did speak

You are wrong. He did speak out on this bill for most of what it is. A simple Internet search would verify this.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/why-im-voting-no-on-im...

Did I miss it?

I didn't see any mention of the loss of civil liberties.

Did you bother to read

Did you bother to read it?

Earlier this month, I introduced an amendment to the current legislation. Known as the “Trust But Verify Act,” it would make immigration reform contingent upon Congress writing a strong border security plan, congressional votes on border security every year for five years, completion of a double-layered border fence, two new national security visa screening programs, and protection against any Obama administration attempts to force American citizens to carry around a biometric national identification card. My amendment ensured that Congress, and not the usual unaccountable government agencies, would verify that the border was secure.

"protection against any Obama administration attempts to force American citizens to carry around a biometric national identification card."

Feel dumb yet?

Ok he was against the national ID

Is you intent here to have a discussion or to put other people down who may not see eye to eye with you?

Most of the article stresses safety and even this one mention of a national ID card was in the context of congress vs the executive branch. The point I was making I am concerned the issues are not trickling down to the average voter when we frame the argument the way the establishment wants it to be framed...

You could try to come to an understanding with me, since we seem to be after the same things, or you could tell me I'm stupid. Its your choice.

The national ID card is the

The national ID card is the issue of the loss of civil rights. Rand introduces an amendment that would toss the ID card out...and you're still mad? I don't get it.

I'm not mad

I didn't write the initial post I just understand the point of view.

The ID card is just one civil liberties issue, there is also the issue of a wall and a militarized boarder, which Rand doesn't have as big of an issue with as I do. Walls and armed guards does not a free society make.

So Thanks Rand for the effort and amendment. I only wish we could debate the need for a militarized boarder (to fight crime and violence of our own making - our federal war on drugs, and Obama's arming of gangs).

http://youtu.be/esp-ruhkZqQ

Ron's argument

against a wall as I remember was that down the line it might be used to keep us in.

That's what I recall, as

That's what I recall, as well.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

I wish those who feel differently about Rand

Would actually attempt to go point by point and refute each part of your argument, because someone really needs to address them. To me this is a valid point of view and it concerns me.

I wish people would remember that the government has no power apart from the obedience of the public. If we stop complying and recognizing this "authority" then the whole thing would fall to pieces. When you go along to get along, you lose.

I think we need more activists and less politicians...

2016

And when Ron comes around and endorses Rand 2016, will you support him then?

Why are we not talking about substance?

A Ron Paul endorsement will not make the issues raised here go away. Why is it that no one wants to debate these ideas intellectually? Why is the poster wrong?

It seems to me the issue of security over liberty is the very core issue which started this whole movement in the first place.

it is

but you wouldn't know it as much around here any more, and the issue seems to go hand in hand with the pro war talk. next i expect to hear we should be the policemen of the world.

Actually

My suspicion is that a Ron Paul endorsement WOULD in fact make this issue go away for people who have the same mindset as the poster. Because it is proof positive that Honest Ron endorses his son's beliefs AND methodology, which requires Rand to be a politician, not a philosopher. That's how winning is done. Ron already converted everyone with the intellect and capacity to believe. Now is a good time for a politician with the same beliefs to coax the ignorant voting masses. Is this not obvious to everyone here?

here's the facts

Immigration bill has two forces in play in the party. Neocons and teaparty. Teaparty against neocons for.

They both don't give a SHIT about civil liberties.

He proposes an amendment appealing to.neocons knowing it will get shut down and He is now able to vote against the bill on that reason. A pleasing outcome for tea party and a reasonable excuse to neocons.

Otherwise he gets shut down as looking to far left and loses general party support and gains nothing in the process.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record