Constitution Party Publishes Letter From Naturalized Cuban Immigrant To Rand Paul About His Position On Amnesty

This was published today on the Constitution Party’s official Facebook page:

Note: the author of this letter gave permission for it to be used.


Dear Sen. Rand Paul,


Thank you for schooling the Senate for 13 hours on the venerable Constitution and the limitations it imposes on government in order to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens.

I am a Hispanic immigrant born in Cuba (naturalized) and my wife is also foreign born.  I am a Constitutionalist patriot and would strongly campaign for you . . .  EXCEPT, that your support of Amnesty for illegal aliens is not Constitutional (the executive branch must “faithfully execute the laws” and protect our borders).  Amnesty is not fair to immigrants and would-be-immigrants that are law-abiding and respectful of the United States, its sovereignty, its laws and its 23 million unemployed citizens.

You can still reverse your position and support what is Constitutional, lawful and fair.  Do not consider “forgiving” the crimes of illegal aliens; and instead reward law abiding immigrants and would-be immigrants who aspire to be free and to contribute to America’s enduring experiment in self-government, the rule-of-law and prosperity.

Note that for any prolong stay, illegal aliens (who legally cannot obtain a Social Security number) must commit document and tax fraud, both felonies in order to survive in the United States.

Amnesty is an abomination and a very bad legal and moral precedent.  Amnesty teaches future would-be-citizens that disrespect of our country and its laws is “no big thing” and in fact that it is rewarded by the self-benefit-seeking political ruling class; and by cheap labor and cheap voters profiteers.  What is American citizenship worth?  Could it be worth so little that we hand it out to those that break our immigration laws and commit felonies, so that their support constituencies are appeased?

REVERSE POSITION ON AMNESTY and you shall be our next PRESIDENT and you will secure a place in history by playing a key role in returning our country to a small limited government Constitutional republic of minimal intrusion on individual freedom.

If you support Amnesty you will divide and bring defeat to the patriot community; and like Obama, you will contribute to  fundamentally transforming America, for the worse, into a country that does not revere and live up to the rule of law.

Note that following the Reagan 1986 “amnesty to end all amnesties”, the best that Republican presidential candidates have received at the voting booth from Hispanics is 40% of the vote.  Considering that American born Hispanics and Hispanic immigrants that have followed the law are more likely to be diverse on their candidate preferences, the 1986 amnestied (mostly) Hispanics are voting for big intrusive government Democrat in overwhelming numbers.  If 12 million illegal aliens are given the vote, through a path to citizenship, as many at 10 million will quickly register Democrat and will sustain the Progressive march toward bigger government for the foreseeable future.

The best president George W. Bush (an open border’s pro cheap illegal alien labor Progressive) could garner from Hispanics was 39% of the vote.  John McCain, one of the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty gang(ters) got even fewer votes from Hispanics than W. Bush did when he ran for president.

REVERSE COURSE ON AMNESTY and you will have my untiring support and the product of my leadership ability at your service.

I have a compelling personal history for justice for immigrants in the context of fighting for individual freedom and for obeying and defending the Constitution.  Like Sen. Ted Cruz, I have a Cuban background, only that in my case I was born in Cuba and together with my parents had to flee tyranny and persecution in my own life-time.  I bear in my heart the scars of tyranny and in my soul the hope of freedom for my children and future generations of Americans.

I would be honored to serve as your adviser.  Do not hesitate to call on me.  I believe that God has picked you for a special purpose in this critical time in our history.  I pray that you see that my experience as a Hispanic, an immigrant, a constitutionalist and a patriot will add depth to your advisory board on reaching out for truth and justice in this matter.


Your supporter,


Tony Dolz

30 thoughts on “Constitution Party Publishes Letter From Naturalized Cuban Immigrant To Rand Paul About His Position On Amnesty

  1. Oranje Mike

    I’m not so sure I believe the hype. The folks that come here illegally are often hard workers, probably more so than many Americans. I don’t think their goal is to live off of the government tit. Culturally speaking, Hispanics are quite conservative. They’ve been buying into the b.s. from Democrats because they are softer on the immigration issue (at least in rhetoric).

    I think someone like Rand Paul could turn the corner.

  2. Gene Berkman

    Glad to see The Constitution Party has some ethnic diversity, but I have to take issue with this writer’s view on the immigration issue.

    For one thing, it is disengenous for a Cuban to talk about immigrating legally. Since the seizure of power by Castro and his alignment with international Communism, Cubans have had a really easy time getting legal status in the United States.

    The so-called Reagan amnesty did nothing more than extend to Mexican immigrants the ease in gaining legal status that Cubans already have. At the time, Mexico was ruled by the socialistic PRI, so giving Mexicans the same refugee rights as Cubans seemed only right.

  3. Oranje Mike

    #2, Excellent points. Cubans have, or had, a favorable immigration status. Virtually no one would want to turn a Cuban away. Anti-commie hysteria helped them greatly. All of those sad stories of building dodgy rafts and traveling thru shark infested waters. I guess traveling the desert with little food or water is not dangerous enough.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    The Constitution unambiguously forbids any federal regulation of immigration whatsoever, although it does allow a small head tax.

    There’s no such thing in American law as an “illegal alien,” and “amnesty” is the only constitutional course with respect to violations of the unconstitutional laws.

    Rand Paul didn’t go that far, of course, but I was actually pretty impressed with how far he went.

  5. Matt Cholko

    I’m pretty much an open borders supporter. But, lets put that aside for now.

    As a practical matter (constitutionality, morality, and anything else aside) “amnesty” is the only reasonable course of action. Deportation is simply impossible. Continuing with the current system is just stupid. Giving all of the “illegals” legal permanent resident status, or something similar, is the only thing that makes sense. Of course, that will have to be accompanied by greatly reduced restrictions on future immigration. Basically, if someone wants to come in, they should be allowed to do so, PERIOD.

    If we’re going to continue with the current tax and social welfare systems, anyone who wants to come in and work should be issued a SSN and allowed to work just like any American. Then they can pay their tribute just like the rest of us suckers.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    I really hate to hear people called illegal “aliens”. It might be technically correct but, my goodness, these are PEOPLE. I believe most of them are here to better their lives and their families’ lives, and not to live off of our entitlement programs. How about entitlement reform, and then we can take on immigration issues?

    It’s a very complicated issue, but we need to all remember that many of these people risked their lives to get here.

  7. Starchild

    The author of this article also sent it to me as an email (presumably in my capacity as a member of the Libertarian National Committee). I was not aware of his affiliation(?) with the Constitution Party when I penned my response, which was as follows:


    Thank you for writing. I was also heartened by Rand Paul’s filibuster of president Obama’s drone-loving nominee to head the CIA. However I must disagree with your support for restrictions on peaceful freedom of movement, which are fundamentally at odds with the “limited government constitutional republic of minimal intrusion on individual freedom” that you desire.

    Senator Paul may not have pointed this out in his speech, but the Constitution only allows the federal government to regulate *naturalization* (the process of becoming a U.S. citizen), not *migration* (who can physically enter or leave the country). The Feds have no authority to control migration. This is why there were virtually no controls on immigration to the United States for about the first century of the country’s existence.

    Unfortunately, over time the government began to engage in more and more constitutional violations, culminating in the out-of-control situation that exists today, with the U.S. president claiming (and Congress approving) the power to arbitrarily murder anyone in the world at any time, including U.S. citizens, that he claims is involved with terrorism. Militarized borders, walls and fences are definitely part of this picture, as are the unconstitutional Social Security and tax laws that you complain about undocumented migrants violating. It is *good* that these illegal and anti-freedom statutes are being violated.

    As a refugee from communist Cuba, you should understand the importance to freedom of not allowing the authorities to exercise this kind of control over who comes and goes, this kind of ability to keep tabs on everyone, rob them of money they have earned, etc. It is anti-libertarian, and a recipe for a police state like the Castro regime, which America is in danger of becoming.

    On a practical level, is it any wonder that most immigrants in the United States disdain the Republican Party, when that party so blatantly disdains their rights and freedoms? Polls show that immigration reform is the top issue for Hispanics in this country, and that they will vote accordingly:

    “Latino voters selected their presidential candidates largely based on immigration rhetoric and policy, according to the report. Specifically, 43% of Latinos who voted for Obama said they would back a GOP candidate if the Republicans lead immigration reform.

    “If President Barack Obama and the Democrats take the lead on immigration reform, however, Latino voters reported that they would be more likely to vote for them.

    “A total of 44% said they would be more likely to vote Republican if this party led on immigration reform. Yet, when asked how Republicans blocking immigration reform would affect their vote, 42% said they would be less likely to vote Republican (including 33% of Latino Republicans).

    “Currently 58% of Latino voters polled rate immigration reform as the most important issue for the government to address, up from 35% in a November 2012 Latino Decisions poll.”

    (From ).

    George W. Bush was not an “open borders” president by any stretch of the imagination. Peaceful immigrants continued to be deported under his administration, border walls and fences were expanded, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created, and more money and personnel were added to border control. Nevertheless the 39% of the Hispanic vote that you report him receiving was significantly greater than the 27% that the more anti-immigrant Romney received.

    Abridging the freedom of peaceful people who want to come to the United States for more rights and economic opportunity as you and your family did is a losing political proposition. If the Republican Party gets this issue wrong, not just the Democrats but the Libertarian Party of which I am an elected leader will be there to offer voters who might otherwise vote GOP a better alternative.

    I don’t mind encouraging the Republicans to adopt policies that will reduce the appeal of the LP because my first loyalty is to the cause of freedom, not to any particular party or organization, and seeing the right thing happen is more important to me than getting credit. I urge you to likewise support freedom by standing for the important principle that all people deserve equal rights under the law regardless of where they are born, and governments should not discriminate against people on the basis of their nationality.

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
    (415) 625-FREE

  8. Oranje Mike

    #11, from

    3.4 Free Trade and Migration

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

  9. Brian Holtz

    On the 2014 PlatCom I’ll be proposing a clarification that migrants pay their way and not trespass:

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a Freedom of movement should therefore be without constraints as long as migrants pay for any costs they impose on others, do not trespass, and pose no credible threat to security, health or property.

  10. paulie

    @1-12 Agreed, and Starchild’s is good enough to be its own article, which I might post if I hear no objections and if I remember to do it when I get in article posting mode.

    @13 Does this come with an affirmative burden of proof? When I cross city, county or state lines should I also be held up and have the burden of proof that I will “pay for any costs I impose on others, do not trespass, and pose no credible threat to security, health or property”? Or only national lines? Since proving a negative is impossible, would it be acceptable to say that it should be presumed that I won’t unless there is clear and present evidence that I will?

    Also, what if someone else wants to voluntarily pay the costs for me…would that be the same as me paying it?

  11. Brian Holtz

    @14 I’ve clarified to “freedom of movement across national boundaries“.

    In this context, if someone voluntarily pays for your costs, that’s the same as you paying for it.

    For implementing @13, think in terms of contract rather than proof. Entry could require agreeing that specified forms of trespass or cost-imposition would have specified consequences.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 16,

    I don’t know if a belief in the magical powers of imaginary lines drawn on the ground by politicians is necessarily a sole possession of the Cult of the Omnipotent State. There may be other denominations of the general belief system that use it as well.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @20,

    The one that immediately comes to mind is The Cult of the State What’s Just Big Enough to Keep Out the Riff-Raff I Don’t Want, with All Their Spicy Foods and Mariachi Songs and Furrin Talk.

    But I could be wrong, it might just be a lay order of some kind, like the Sovereign Military Order of Making Things I Want People to Buy Whether They Want Them or Not Into “Public Goods.”

  14. Pingback: Starchild Answers Constitutionalist Immigrant’s Letter to Rand Paul Re: Immigration | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  15. Brian Holtz


    “Costs imposed on others” is about negative externalities (i.e. aggression), not about free-riding (i.e. public goods).

    The primary “magical power” of lines drawn by statists is the attractive force created when the line represents a steep gradient in the level of protection of individual rights. Note that where the line corresponds to no steep gradient, the attractive magic is absent, and there is no resistance to open borders.

    But hey, it requires less thinking to accuse opponents of xenophobia/paternalism than to recognize a disequilibrium caused by a policy gradient…

  16. Waylon T. Freebird

    Well, many US downtowns have such steep gradients between the very rich and the very poor. Should they have barbed wire fences running down the streets to keep them apart?

  17. Brian Holtz

    I wrote “steep gradient in the level of protection of individual rights”. That’s not the same thing as “steep gradients between the very rich and the very poor”.

    The absence of the fences you hypothesize underscores my point: where there’s no policy gradient, there’s no migration disequilibrium.

  18. Waylon T. Freebird

    Try spending a few weeks living as a homeless person in a large US city, especially in the immediate vicinity of very wealthy people. You may notice a steep gradient in the level of protection of individual rights, at least compared to what you’re used to.

  19. Brian Holtz

    @28 My hypothesis is that when migrating across a political boundary will increase one’s level of protection of individual rights, then that gradient will cause migration. Your observations about wealthy/homeless people are not evidence against my hypothesis.

  20. Ray Beez

    Well, that would make border enforcement pretty impractical, if it was block by block….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *