I doubt that will happen in the US. In Europe they stuck their heads in the sand and refused to admit it might become a problem. For all our PC nonsense in this country, you can believe that many a mosque is monitored by the Feds. We did learn something from 9/11.

Ah yes, but it IS California. That state is in such terrible shape. You could not pay me to live in that crazytown.

If he was referring to the guest worker program, why didn’t he say he was referring to the guest worker program? From mid November, 2012 (Politico) – ““If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make
it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but
we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if
they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to
normalize those who are here.”

I also called Senator Paul’s office after this AP report came out, but must say that whether or not he currently supports a pathway to citizenship is irrelevant. The larger issue is that his ostensible support for legalization (i.e. amnesty) is a complete and utter betrayal of the conservative and Tea Party principles that he claims to support.

First, this legalization is going to lead to a massive increase in the welfare state – an increase that will rival and possibly exceed the cost of Obamacare. Don’t believe me? Then read Robert Rector’s report for the Heritage Foundation which estimates the cost of such amnesty at several trillion dollars over time. It’s absolutely galling that Senator Paul likes to decry the welfare state and crow about his efforts to cut a few programs here and there, but then eagerly signs on to an unprecedented expansion of that very welfare state.

We can either have a generous social welfare system or we can have unlimited unskilled immigration, but we can’t have both. And since I don’t see any evidence that we’re about to eliminate our burgeoning welfare state, can we at the very least agree not to expand it? Is that really asking too much of professed Tea Party libertarians like Senator Paul?

Second, why on earth do Senator Paul and Eric think that we need an “unskilled worker” program? The problems with such “guest worker” programs are manifest. First, these so-called guests have a rather annoying habit of never leaving. Rather, once admitted they often jump ship to find more lucrative employment away from the agricultural fields. Second, we have 20 million unemployed and underemployed Americans (based on the U3 and U6 unemployment rates) and about 50 million high-school drop-outs or persons with marginal skills. Do we really need more unskilled labor in this country and legions of new liberal Democrat voters? If unskilled labor were the key to national success than I guess Mexico should be a super power. Australia and Canada, among others, seem to thrive quite nicely without massive importation of low-skilled labor.

More importantly from a philosophical perspective, it amazes me that persons who otherwise purport to embrace capitalism and free markets have no problem intervening in those markets to drive down the price of labor. There are no jobs that Americans won’t do. There are simply jobs that Americans won’t do for the price currently being paid. A funny thing happened at my local Chipotle, by the way, after they were busted by the Feds for hiring illegal aliens. I suddenly started noticing a lot more previously unemployed white and black American kids behind the counter.

If farmers can’t find sufficient field hands, then they can either raise wages or invest in mechanization. In fact, isn’t mechanization a far better method of dealing with such so-called labor shortages? We no longer harvest grain by hand, but no one seems to have suffered from the advance of tractors and combines. If all else fails, we can simply stop growing tomatoes here and buy them from Mexico or Peru or wherever they can be grown efficiently.

I have no sympathy for farmers or other businesses that want the benefit of cheap labor while demanding that the rest of us absorb the concomitant social costs. If Exxon and Shell decided that they couldn’t remain in business without ignoring antitrust laws, would we give them a free pass too?

Finally, can we please drop the tired refrain that we can’t possibly deport 12 million illegal aliens? John McCain and certain other commentators love to trot this out. I don’t know anyone who is suggesting that we physically deport all 12 million, but we can certainly deport those with whom the authorities come in contact and as for the rest we can make life unpleasant enough that they leave of their own accord. People are rationale and do respond to incentives. The notion of “self-deportation” actually does work (just ask Arizona and Alabama) and is not a dirty word even though the left wing media and the RNC would have us believe so. And if “self-deportation” is a dirty word, then I guess “deportation” is even dirtier, and if so, then are we to discard control of our borders entirely?

I donated to Senator Paul’s campaign and eagerly supported him, but frankly this is fast becoming a litmus test issue, as Ann Coulter rightfully noted at CPAC. Sadly, I’m afraid that Senator Paul and Marco Rubio are failing that test. I sure hope that Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson and Mike Lee don’t join them.

From John Hayward’s post on the front page.

“How in the world could we then keep them from voting, or plugging into the rest of Big Government, for any period of time? Isn’t taxation without representation wrong?”

Mr. Hayward is exactly right.

As soon as any illegal aliens pay one cent in back taxes they all become de-facto citizens, and the only issue will be how long Democrats will get to pound Republicans with the “Taxation without Representation” line before the GOP caves and declare the border is safe and secure.

Whether or not Senator Paul used the term citizenship is besides the point, he said “taxpaying members of society”. Are you honestly saying his position is for illegals to pay taxes and never gain the vote. That is worse, both morally and politically, than doing nothing at all.

My point is… if illegal immigrants start paying back taxes, as the Senator and others suggest, then they are going to get the vote. To pretend otherwise is silly.

A recent survey of Hispanics in the US found 70% of them believe government is the source of financial well being. It is going to take a long, long, long time to convert them to Conservatism. They might be socially conservative, but if they believe their financial bread is buttered by the government they will vote Democrat. And 70% of 12 to 20 million will finish the Republic.

GW won the Hispanic vote because he didn’t pander but treated them as Americans: one for all and all for one. That’s what conservativces need to do but it’s hard against O’s mantra and policy of dividing and pandering to one micro group after another.

Mr Katz
You hit the proverbial nail right on the head Paul believes that Hispanic votes can put him in the Whitehouse it was a severe mistake Amnesty is pushed by GOP leadership in the 2006 election is what cost them both houses. Amnesty will finish the destruction of this nation Obama has started. I have to add that GW Bush failed to secure that border. Everyone should look to the example of Ike Eisenhower and use a lot of his examples to find a remedy only close that border tight.

My biggest fear is unless we have voter ID laws in place in all 50 states, it won’t matter if they are citizens or not.