In this paper, I assume the voice of KY Senator Rand Paul and give two speeches, one concerning Health Care and the other concerning Immigration. Following both speeches, an analysis of the speech (in the 3rd person perspective) is given and certain points are reflected upon and discussed at length.
Rand Paul on Immigration
As a United States Senator from Kentucky, I, Rand Paul, might be asked how immigration affects my constituents. The fact is that immigration affects us all. But it is important to remember that there are two types of immigration: legal immigration and illegal immigration. While I support legal immigration, which welcomes citizens of other countries into the United States provided they follow and adhere to our laws, I do not support illegal immigration. In this paper, I will discuss why I do not support illegal immigration and what I think we can do to help stop it.
In the past, I have been criticized for attacking immigration in any form. The fact is that these criticisms are unfair. In an article for the New York Times from June of 2011, for instance, Enmarie Huetteman made it seem as though I were against immigrants of all shapes and sizes because they could be "would-be attackers" (Huetteman). This, of course, is a total misrepresentation of my position. The speech to which Huetteman was referring was one I gave at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing. The point of the speech was to show that the DHS is completely out of control with its scrutiny of American citizens. The point was that if we would only do our job of having tighter immigration policies, we could get rid of a lot of the departments (like the TSA) that most ordinary Americans find to be intrusive. The point was that stricter policies of immigration could help ensure America's safety a lot better than the Orwellian policies that our government currently prefers to employ.
Huetteman misrepresents my speech to make it seem as if I were a xenophobic right-winger. That is not the case. I am a conservative, who believes in securing this nation's borders, and that by doing so this nation is better protected against enemy attacks. Instead of spending billions and billions of dollars to build foreign bases overseas in countries that are hostile to our presence there, we should be spending money to protect our borders and tighten our immigration policy. One thing that I would like to have done is an underground electric fence between Mexico and the border states. As I have said before, "I would include satellite and increased aerial surveillance, and a boost of funds and training to the border agents" (Paul). The idea that illegal immigrants can pour across our borders and have children here who are thereby automatically made citizens and that both are able to receive the benefits of our system that our taxpayers pay into is preposterous. It is exploitative, expensive, and unsafe and it does nothing to instill a sense of fairness and respect for the rule of law.
I have said before that I support local solutions to the problem of illegal immigration and that is why I support the recent Arizona law. Arizona is a border state that has to deal with illegal immigration in a more direct way than my own state of Kentucky. Should I or any other U.S. Senator be allowed to dictate policy to Arizona? Why? Let Arizona look after itself. But let the Federal government do its part in patrolling the borders as well.
As a U.S. Senator I am willing to vote for "any bill that strengthens border security, including the construction of a physical or electronic fence," (Paul) and I am also in favor of tightening our immigration policy in the sense that rather than have the lives of American citizens disrupted by the prying eyes of Big Brother, those men and women who want to come to our country should be the ones who are scrutinized.
Rand Paul's position on illegal immigration is consistent with his overall conservative position. His beliefs have obviously been misconstrued in the mainstream media, and it is not hard to find his exact position on issues like this. He is adamantly opposed to the bills like the recently passed NDA Act, which strips American citizens of their rights. He wants to stop treating American citizens like suspected terrorists and start looking with more scrutiny at the foreign immigrants trying to get into this country. This makes sense, in a way, since those who are said to have attacked America on 9/11 were all foreigners. Meanwhile, departments like the TSA have done nothing to make America safer -- only more of a police state.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.