In response to:

Et Tu, Rand Paul?

InsightingTruth Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 12:55 PM
What no one wants to address my questions like an adult?
Dean284 Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 2:18 PM
Stuart95 Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 1:18 PM
I want:

1) A Constitutional method for accepting people from other countries that will make positive economic contributions to society, or are legitimate refugees from some international horror.

2) A Constitutional method for rejecting people from other countries that will make negative economic contributions to society or are criminals.

3) No.s 1 and 2 that encourage worthy candidates for citizenry, and discourage would-be illegal immigrants.

Although I don't see it as a Constitutional legal requirement, it would be nice if the people we invited to be citizens would act like Americans. The melting-pot concept used to work really well.
Ryan_M Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 1:29 PM
That' s because the overwhelming number of immigrants came from Europe, not the third world.
InsightingTruth Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 1:34 PM
For any immigration policy to be lawful it must comply with the Constitution, but more than that it cannot violate the natural rights of those who apply for entrance. Can you be more specific? What criteria would you use to decide who is acceptable and who is not?

Assimilation can only be voluntary. All humans have the right to accept or reject things which are quintessentially American..
Stuart95 Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 1:55 PM
1) Ireland and a lot of Easter Europe were considered highly inferior societies in the 1800's, but they still were allowed to immigrate in certain numbers (as were the Chinese).

2) The Third World, including India, China, and Brazil, has much to offer the US, and so does Latin America. A reasonable immigration policy would accommodate.
Stuart95 Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 2:01 PM
Not to completely dodge your question, but I consider the Constitution to be a relatively good statement of natural rights. It is the extra-Constitutional activities by our aggressive politicians and bureaucrats that threaten our right to self-determination, and freedom from involuntary responsibility for others.

Yes, one can choose to adopt an American lifestyle, or not. But history shows that the faster an immigrant and his/her family disappear into the American culture, the more successful they are (see history of Irish and Italians, for instance). I think that clinging to a foreign culture, and insisting that others honor that foreign culture, is what causes much of the ill will directed at immigrants, legal or not.
Ryan_M Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 7:49 PM
If more Irish had emigrated to the South instead of the North they wouldn't have had problems. My ancestors didn't.

Likely fellow 2016 GOP presidential rival Marco Rubio has taken some heat from the conservative grassroots for being the face of "comprehensive immigration reform" (or what many conservatives call amnesty). Now it appears Rand Paul is going to the left of Rubio on this issue if you read his column in The Washington Times.

Rand refers to illegal aliens as "undocumented citizens" in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, which is overly gracious wording not even the liberal media uses. Rand says Rubio's plan for fines and penalties for those who came here illegally as a means of making...