Cpac 2013 - Page 2

n david · #11 03-14-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't know why the "Red Card" is a terrible plan. Most don't want to be permanent residents here. Our current system has hurt the circular migration system we have had. The "Red Card" offers a solution to separating the two groups of people - ones that want to become permanent citizens and the group that just wants to work and go home.

The Red Card plan language states when a person has completed their work - they MAY go home. IE...meh, they could go home or they could stick around here as long as they'd like. It would create more fraud and problems than we currently have.

She tried pushing the Red Card plan several years ago IIRC.

Pressing-On · #12 03-14-2013, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

The Red Card plan language states when a person has completed their work - they MAY go home. IE...meh, they could go home or they could stick around here as long as they'd like. It would create more fraud and problems than we currently have.

She tried pushing the Red Card plan several years ago IIRC.

That isn't really true, from what I have studied. For one thing, the "Red Card" doesn't provide a path to citizenship nor does it provide a permanent resident status.

With the "Red Card" a worker would have to be reported as missing if he/she didn't stay on the job that was appointed or showing there was a granted job change.

No immigrant would be allowed a Red Card if their country didn't cooperate with our rules and laws concerning the card.

And, of course, I agree that it is not a flawless plan, but it looks better than anything I have seen.

When we talk about border enforcement, we can get into a whole myriad of issues - money under the table with dishonest border agents, etc.

All of our lives are impacted my honesty/moral/ethical v. dishonesty,immoral/unethical people. Such is life. We do the best we can with what we have to work with.

I like the plan. It's a step in a good direction, IMO. We would have a lot less "unidentified" people coming here, committing crimes and going home scott free.

deacon blues · #13 03-14-2013, 09:28 PM

Glad Rand is shaking up the establishment

odooley6985 · #14 03-15-2013, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Glad Rand is shaking up the establishment

How?

Pressing-On · #15 03-15-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Glad Rand is shaking up the establishment

Yes, they are already trying to paint him into a corner. Yesterday Pollack from Breitbart tried to say, at CPAC, that Rand was right to stand up for the Constitution, but wrong in that we can't always identify between a combatant and non-combantant.

This is what he said:

"The filibuster was a brave and heroic gesture of opposition. It proved that at least one leader, a Tea Part leader, was prepared to stand up for the Constitution and for the principle that individual liberty precedes government power. But, Senator Paul was wrong about one thing. It is not as easy to distinguish between a combatants and non-combatants, as he suggested. A foreign terrorist on foreign soil does not stop being a terrorist simply because he or she is far from the battlefield. If we accept the hypothetical example that he used, that a terrorist at a cafe is never a legitimate target, then we cannot protect ourselves from terror. In our zeal to roll back government power, we would have placed our liberty in danger."

I finally was able to speak with him last night and told him that Rand has already clarified that he is speaking of Americans in this country.

These are Rand's exact words from the 1st hour of the Filibuster:

Quote:

"Now, some might come to this floor and they might say, "Well, what if we're being attacked on 9/11? What if there are planes flying at the Twin Towers?" Obviously, we repel them. We repel any attack on our country.

If there's a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don't get due process if you're involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government. You don't get due process if you're overseas in a battle shooting at our soldiers."

He seems to believe that if that is their "one" shot, they have to take it. The thing is, our intelligence is very good and we hardly ever miss the bad guys, So, if Due Process is thrown out, we lose our country. He being Jewish should get that.

Anyway, at the end of the conversation, I told him that we were watching how this plays out and that if they tried to push Rand under a bus, we won't be cooperating with it. He got very conciliatory at that point saying that he likes Rand and that he gets the media and Constitution. lol

But, we will be watching this. I'm seeing, like on The Five, where Gutfeld says that Rubio speaking was like the "movie before the trailer". I am not an enemy of Rubio, but I am watching to see what the GOP and Fox News are colluding on this go round.

For the record:

Quote:

"When (John) Brennan ... was asked directly … ‘Is there any geographic limitation to your drone strike program?’ Brennan responded and said, ‘no, there is no limitation.’"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nan-claimed-n/

Pressing-On · #16 03-15-2013, 10:44 AM

Deacon, I don't know if you listened to Caddell, but this was pretty awesome:

When an audience member asked Caddell why he, a Democrat, was offering Republicans advice that would help them beat his own party, his response was met with huge applause. "I'm not a fan of Barack Obama," Caddell said. "My first allegiance is to my country. I have paid a huge price, and when I watch you people screwing up I'm offended."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...an-Consultants

Pressing-On · #17 03-15-2013, 11:09 AM

When a liberal site like Salon is praising someone in the GOP, I listen and see why they're doing it. They seem to have it right on this issue.

It seems that we could, IMO, see a major paradigm shift soon, with a lot of war apologist liberals (for example, Joe Lieberman) coming over to the GOP and a lot of anti-war, pro-civil liberties moderates and conservatives becoming Democrats.

Quote:

"Stacking Rubio and Paul back-to-back, whether intentional or not, begs for comparison, especially in a media environment keen to find any hints of 2016 ambitions or bold visions for reinvention of the party. And while Rubio was busy making corny jokes about his water gaffe, Paul looked like the leader of a nascent and growing “stand with Rand” movement that has big ambitions to remake a party reluctant to be dragged into 2013."

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/rand...t_day_of_cpac/