Audio: Rand Paul on his disagreements with Rubio’s immigration plan

posted at 11:04 am on January 31, 2013 by Allahpundit

Skip to 3:25 for the key bit. There are two early sticking points in the Senate proposal: (1) illegals get probationary legal status on day one and (2) a path to citizenship will be created for them sometime later if and only if there are measurable improvements in border security first. That’s what Rubio insists upon, at least; Obama’s preference, for obvious reasons, is that Congress should be allowed to create a citizenship mechanism before anything happens with security. Here’s what Rubio said about the legalization process yesterday at Red State:

First, those who have violated our immigration laws must come forward and undergo a background check. If they have committed a serious crime, they will be deported. If they have not, they will have two choices. They can avail themselves of the current law which requires them to return to their native country, wait ten years and then apply for a green card. Or if they decide to remain in the United States, they will do so under the equivalent of a non-immigrant work permit by paying a substantial fine and back taxes. If they choose the non-immigrant work visa, they will not qualify for any federal benefits, including ObamaCare.

Those who choose the non-immigrant work permit will not be allowed to apply for a green card for a substantial period of time. And they will not be allowed to apply until the enforcement mechanisms outlined above are in place. Thereafter, once these conditions are met, and if they have not violated any laws while holding the work permit, the only thing they will be allowed to do is apply for a green card using the same process everyone else uses. That is, they apply, they wait in line behind everyone who has applied before them and when their turn comes up, they have to qualify for one of the existing green card programs.

If I understand this correctly, illegals can get the work visa immediately, as a matter of right if they pay the fine and taxes. There’s no line for that, as it’s part of their probationary legal status. The only line they’ll have to get on, once that mysterious “substantial period of time” has expired, is for the green card. (“Substantial period of time” presumably means more than 10 years. Otherwise what incentive is there to choose Rubio’s first option, leaving the country and waiting a decade for a chance at a GC?) In other words, there seems to be only one line under this plan: You have to wait for a green card but you get the work visa right away. Paul, by contrast, wants them to have to wait on two lines, first for the visa just like everyone else and then for the green card just like everyone else. That would, in theory, make the citizenship process much longer and would avoid creating a “special” path to citizenship for illegals who are already here.

The second key disagreement comes at 6:30 when Fischer gets Paul to agree that not even probationary legal status should be granted until the border has improved. Rubio’s been cagey about that, emphasizing repeatedly that there’ll be no green card process down the line if border security doesn’t improve while side-stepping the fact that illegals don’t have to wait for security upgrades to gain a basic right to be here immediately upon passage of the legislation. As Rich Lowry said yesterday, “If I were an advocate of amnesty, all I would want is that initial legalization on the assumption that everything else can be litigated — sometimes literally — later.” Democrats might give a little on the citizenship process in the expectation that it can be truncated substantially later via litigation but I don’t think they’ll yield on instant probationary legal status, which, as Lowry notes, is the whole ballgame. It’s the Republicans’ core concession to them. And since they won’t yield, I think Paul — and eventually Rubio — will end up walking away.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Paul=Fail.

Mr. Arrogant on January 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM

It’s the Republicans’ core concession to them. And since they won’t yield, I think Paul — and eventually Rubio — will end up walking away.

We can only hope.

MelonCollie on January 31, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Rubio has been very consistent everywhere, Red State, Rush, Levin toady on Bill Bennett–no deal if we don’t have border security.He won’t be played.

rodguy911 on January 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM

It’s the Republicans’ core concession to them. And since they won’t yield, I think Paul — and eventually Rubio — will end up walking away.

I agree. If either have any designs whatsoever on ’16, they’d be fools to stick with a watered-down version of already imperfect “reform” that removes enforcement/security mechanisms.

changer1701 on January 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM

…and furthermore, if I hear any Repug use the term “evolve” again, I’m going to vomit.

Mr. Arrogant on January 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM

You would think negative GDP and unemployment in double digits for Blacks and Hispanics would give them enough cover to walk away.

monalisa on January 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM

The problem is we are treating this as a work issue. It is a resource issue…medical etc. No matter how much we supposedly care our resources are finite.

This shouldn’t be a right to work bill as it is being formed.

tomas on January 31, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Paul, by contrast, wants them to have to wait on two lines, first for the visa just like everyone else and then for the green card just like everyone else. That would, in theory, make the citizenship process much longer and would avoid creating a “special” path to citizenship for illegals who are already here.

…Where are they waiting?

Dongemaharu on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Dongemaharu on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

It the Home Dept or Loew’s parking lots.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 11:21 AM

“Depot”

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 11:21 AM

There is no point in discussing immigration reform until the Border is secure.

workingclass artist on January 31, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Like I mentioned in the Headlines Paul thread, I got to hand it to Senator Paul. His nuanced positioning enables him to upset his followers, without it being a deal breaker for most of them. Thats a wee bit Presidential, methinks.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM

RINO SCUM OF THE EARTH!

Flapjackmaka on January 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM

You would think negative GDP and unemployment in double digits for Blacks and Hispanics would give them enough cover to walk away.

monalisa on January 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I know, right? In a sane world GOP facts would trump Democrat name-calling and we’d walk away with the pot while they had to hitchhike home!

MelonCollie on January 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Blue Buddha!!!

Bmore on January 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Dongemaharu on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

It the Home Dept or Loew’s parking lots.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Heh!

Vince on January 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Hmmm! Is this another one of those HotAir pimping Rubio in reverse kinda way? They should just remain this site HotRubio

journeymike on January 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM

1) illegals get probationary legal status on day one and (2) a path to citizenship will be created for them sometime later if and only if there are measurable improvements in border security first.

Rubio has been very consistent everywhere, Red State, Rush, Levin toady on Bill Bennett–no deal if we don’t have border security.He won’t be played.

rodguy911 on January 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM

There is no requirement for securing the border BEFORE they get legalized. What will happen is everyone will become legal, nothing will change at border, and democrats will claim repubs want these now legal residents to remain second class citizens.

I’d say within 2 to 3 years, no matter what happens at the border, they will be voting in elections for Dems.

The illegals only care about being legal, they don’t care about being able to vote — the dems care about them being able to vote.

Once they’re legal, it’s game over for us. And Rubio has to understand that.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM

It the Home Dept or Loew’s parking lots.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Yeesh. Mexico must really suck.

Dongemaharu on January 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM

…and furthermore, if I hear any Repug use the term “evolve” again, I’m going to vomit.

Mr. Arrogant on January 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM

That and “undocumented.” Republicans shouldn’t be in the business of enabling liberal propaganda.

Dongemaharu on January 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM

what about birthright citizenship? remove ALL incentives and argue the legality of status for all the current anchor babies later (the supreme has never weighed on this btw)

Start putting out benchmarks that dems cannot defend.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM

How about including a mandatory impeachment of those who fail to properly and aggressively implement both the spirit and the letter of such law? And, no voting for 25 years….
Oh, and reform means fairness and fairness requires a balance. Folks from Mexico have had a extremely large disproportionate share of legal immigration even long before Teddy Kennedy brought about the first major failed amnesty. See how that “fairness” floats politically.

Don L on January 31, 2013 at 11:33 AM

This will never be settled when the people in office are trying to figure out how to be popular first, give away American security second and then talk about closing the borders.

Hening on January 31, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Like I mentioned in the Headlines Paul thread, I got to hand it to Senator Paul. His nuanced positioning enables him to upset his followers, without it being a deal breaker for most of them. Thats a wee bit Presidential, methinks.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM

His positions aren’t nuanced, they’re libertarian. I could tell you what his positions are on any issue before he says it, which is why I like him. He’s actually a principled person. I find it funny that people are hemming and hawing about why he says what he does — how about because he believes it? It’s easier to keep your stories straight and not flip flop if you base your positions on your beliefs and not on whatever is focus grouped to sound the best at the moment.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:34 AM

That and “undocumented.” Republicans shouldn’t be in the business of enabling liberal propaganda.

Dongemaharu on January 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM

I would prefer the term Illegal invaders.

Mr. Arrogant on January 31, 2013 at 11:34 AM

what about birthright citizenship? remove ALL incentives and argue the legality of status for all the current anchor babies later (the supreme has never weighed on this btw)

Start putting out benchmarks that dems cannot defend.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM

That would require a constitutional amendment. I can think of better ways to spend the political capital necessary to make THAT happen

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

“Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, expects the bipartisan immigration reform proposal, which includes a path to citizenship, will end up costing taxpayers more overtime than the trillion-dollar calculations he testified to during debate over the 2007 immigration reform bill.

“[The proposal] seems to be virtually identical to the 2007 bill and would be extremely costly to the U.S. taxpayers,” Rector told The Daily Caller in a Wednesday interview. “Granting amnesty or legal status to illegals will generate costs in Medicare and Social Security alone of 2.5 trillion above any taxes paid in.”

According to Rector, the majority of the undocumented immigrants who would eventually be legalized by the legislation are largely uneducated, and therefore more likely to be dependent on government assistance. Fifty to 60 percent of the new immigrants are high school dropouts, and 75-80 percent have no more than a high school degree…”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/expert-bipartisan-immigration-reform-bill-will-cost-trillions/#ixzz2JZVnq128

workingclass artist on January 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Screwit, let them be here, they can’t vote. Or get benefits.

JeffWeimer on January 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Yes Timin, but are you claiming that Paul is just a libertarian, and isn’t pandering to the conservative base? He is. Hes just walking a fine line here.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM

“It is also interesting to note, that Senator Rand Paul has come out in support of the two primary considerations in Senator Rubio’s plan – border security and an exhaustive path to citizenship. Senator Paul insists Republican immigration hardliners must “evolve” on the immigration debate.”

Both are great ideas, however, will probably be watered down
in the future by the dems with the approval of the rinos.
I would bet on it.

I am torn on this issue. Although I want them ALL to be marched
across the border back to Mexico, the reality of the issue is
that we citizens didn’t utter one word in protest when they
came across the border by the millions over the last few decades.
Our priests and clergy set up sanctuary cities, the lefties saw
only “voters” for their progressive laws and the rinos just did
what they normally do; nothing of significance.

I am leaning toward a path towards citizenship for those who
have a regular job and are paying taxes and contributing to their
health insurance, etc. Those whose children are not on the school
lunch program or receive any other govt. benefits currently. They can stay and go through the process.

The others should go. Yes, even those with children. If they want to come to this country they
can stand in line. Anyone who enters this country after this law
is passed is automatically deported, no questions asked.

Amjean on January 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Screwit, let them be here, they can’t vote. Or get benefits.

JeffWeimer on January 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

They do vote and they do get benefits (through their american citizen children and with their forged /stolen documents that they use for everything else).

And it will all be legalized within a few years of them getting a “legal” status in the US. There is NO WAY they will remain “second class citizens,” I already see how the dems will spin that, and how the repubs will cave.

AND, it has the added benefit of making the repubs look like racist bad guys, so any good will they think they will get from this deal will not materialize.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM

All it will take is for Democrats to put one hand behind their backs (making a familiar finger gesture) and promise this time they’ll seriously go with border enforcement. Then Rubio’s on board again (if, indeed, he ever seriously was off).

Jeddite on January 31, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Yes Timin, but are you claiming that Paul is just a libertarian, and isn’t pandering to the conservative base? He is. Hes just walking a fine line here.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I don’t think he’s pandering at all. Could be wrong. But the libertarian position on illegal immigration would be we should allow for the free flow of labor just like we do for anything else. Supply and demand will take care of the rest.

However, that position is untenable in our current situation where the government has to spend a ton of money on this uneducated, uninsured, unemployed illegals. If we got rid of all forms of welfare & instituted a fair, flat tax rate that was deducted from your paycheck (and enforced), I’d be for a more or less open border (we still should document who is here and who isn’t) and I’m sure Rand Paul would be too.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:42 AM

That would require a constitutional amendment. I can think of better ways to spend the political capital necessary to make THAT happen

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

it would not, it is merely being interpreted without challenge. The onslought across the borders began when a judge at the end of Carter’s term granted education rights to any child in the US. They recognized in 1986, made a few accomodations to enforce existing laws and never looked back.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 11:43 AM

There’s no line for that, as it’s part of their probationary legal status.

There is no probationary period. To argue that we will make anyone leave after giving them permission to be here while at the same time saying it is harrassment to make them leave for being here without permission is absurd.

Rubio has been very consistent everywhere, Red State, Rush, Levin toady on Bill Bennett–no deal if we don’t have border security. He won’t be played.

rodguy911

He’s offering solutions based on a bogus premise right out of the gate. He has already been played.

Scratch that…he’s playing us, just like the rest of them. Putting border security options in the bill isn’t border security. He has already admitted that we will legalize them first, and then the security comes later. What’s he going to do if they never follow through on the security part, revoke all those work visas and make those folks illegal again?

xblade on January 31, 2013 at 11:43 AM

@Jeddite Hmm….. the topic here is Paul and his statements. Not Rubio.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM

The others should go. Yes, even those with children. If they want to come to this country they
can stand in line. Anyone who enters this country after this law
is passed is automatically deported, no questions asked.

Amjean on January 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM

A think a big point that a lot of people are missing is that their kids are almost without exception US citizens.

So what would you do, deport the parents to Mexico and put the kids in foster care? We can’t kick the kids out, they’re citizens.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM

it would not, it is merely being interpreted without challenge. The onslought across the borders began when a judge at the end of Carter’s term granted education rights to any child in the US. They recognized in 1986, made a few accomodations to enforce existing laws and never looked back.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 11:43 AM

14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

So unless you want to start ignoring parts of the constitution you don’t like, like the dems do, I’d say that language fairly clearly states that ALL persons BORN in the US are citizens.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Border security FIRST and then we talk.

GardenGnome on January 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM

why are we dealing with this charade…pass amnesty and get it over with…its a sham

cmarceron on January 31, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Rand Paul on the Senate Floor now speaking about his Amendment to prohibit F-16 Fighter jets to Egypt. Great Speech!! On C-Span.
Speech is over. McCain up now.

bluefox on January 31, 2013 at 11:57 AM

@Jeddite Hmm….. the topic here is Paul and his statements. Not Rubio.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Fantastic. Thanks. Really.

Jeddite on January 31, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Well Timin, if you really don’t think that Paul is pandering to the conservative base, my first comment on this thread still holds true. Lol. And for the Randians, FYI, he ain’t gonna win in ’16. You need all 3 legs of the stool of conservatism to win. You enable one leg, weaken the other, and isolate the third, and you’re gonna fall.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 12:00 PM

That and “undocumented.” Republicans shouldn’t be in the business of enabling liberal propaganda.

Dongemaharu

It’s funny, even Obama called them illegals several times yesterday, lol. I guess democrats will lose the Hispanic vote now because of his blatant racism.

That would require a constitutional amendment. I can think of better ways to spend the political capital necessary to make THAT happen

Timin203

No it wouldn’t. What it would take is someone willing to uphold the Constitution. Conferring birthright citizenship to the children of illegals was never American policy until some time in the 1980s when a judge decided it should be.

xblade on January 31, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Conferring birthright citizenship to the children of illegals was never American policy until some time in the 1980s when a judge decided it should be.

xblade on January 31, 2013 at 12:03 PM

pretty sure the only case that remotely addressed this dates back to before 1900 regarding a Chinese laborer, that is the case dems always cite

Anybody that interprets the laws as Timin does has to disregard that part of the constitiution about defending our borders.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 12:08 PM

14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

So unless you want to start ignoring parts of the constitution you don’t like, like the dems do, I’d say that language fairly clearly states that ALL persons BORN in the US are citizens.

Timin203

He’s not ignoring anything, he’s interpreting it the same way it was interpreted until the 1980s when a judge decided he didn’t like that interpretation. And for the record, we don’t give citizenship to all people born here now, so I guess it’s not so clear after all.

xblade on January 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Why is no one interested in real Americans and the problems we are facing? This is beyond the pale, to me. For the past month, the major topic has been foreigners, and illegal ones, at that. Rubio is nothing but a snake who’s looking out for himself; his pandering has always been sickening. Any talk of enforcement is a joke – we can’t, or won’t even enforce the laws already on the books. Not sure what to make of Rand Paul’s evolution.

MustLoveBlogs on January 31, 2013 at 12:24 PM

14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

So unless you want to start ignoring parts of the constitution you don’t like, like the dems do, I’d say that language fairly clearly states that ALL persons BORN in the US are citizens.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Not so fast. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I believe there’s dispute over the word “jurisdiction”. It is argued that children born of illegals are under the jurisdiction of the nation-state their parents are from. My understanding was that the 14th Amendment attempted to ensure that all newly freed slaves became citizens.

Anyone else want to set me straight as I’m unsure.

freedomfirst on January 31, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Oh, I neglected to point out that the wording requires at least two conditions be met 1) born or naturalized in the US and 2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are illegals subject to US jurisdiction or their homeland jurisdiction?

freedomfirst on January 31, 2013 at 12:31 PM

pretty sure the only case that remotely addressed this dates back to before 1900 regarding a Chinese laborer, that is the case dems always cite

Anybody that interprets the laws as Timin does has to disregard that part of the constitiution about defending our borders.

DanMan

You’re probably right. I must have gotten my dates confused with something else I read recently.

xblade on January 31, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Both Rubio and Paul hav jumped the shark. There is already an enforcement mechanism in place and it is not being used. What both are surrenndering up on is rule of law.

Both Rubio and Paul are dead to me.

The GOP can, and should, suddenly disappear. The Whigs didn’t but they did go away because it was full of temporizers and surrender monkeys, just as the GOP is now.

Quartermaster on January 31, 2013 at 12:36 PM

I don’t care if it’s coming from Rand Paul or from Marco Rubio… it’s still STUPID. This isn’t about immigration. It’s about which party will provide the most “free stuff”. How could anybody think there’s going to be some magical latino shift to the GOP unless we’re willing to open up the candy store? Once you’ve issued those work permits, the argument then will be that these people are being victimized as a kind of “second-class” citizen. And they’ll be right too.

All the GOP is doing here is digging a deeper hole. If we sacrifice the Rule of Law and Limited Government under the Constitution, we’re just a less attractive version of socialist Democrats. We either have to win on the Principles set forth by our Founders, or drown slowly, drop by drop, in a sea of hypocrisy. It’s simply not possible to beat statists at their own game unless we’re willing to be statists.

Either our laws mean something or they don’t. And if they don’t, why should WE, law-abiding citizens, obey any law or dictate coming from government when CLEARLY these edicts are arbitrary?

The key here is NOT capitulation to the whims of Mob Rule and the voting of largesse from the Public Treasury. It’s EDUCATING the population as to why our founding principles are still timely and meaningful. We’ve allowed DECADES of indoctrination from the left to go unanswered. And in so doing, the public decides its vote on such issues as Gay Marriage and Abortion, moved not by the firmness of philosophy, but by populist rhetoric.

Where we make our mistake is in supporting politicians who ALSO lack true understanding of such concepts as Unalienable Rights and Individual Liberty. You know, polluting a stream isn’t against our philosophy because it will injure other people. It’s because if one went to the trouble to get their names, those “other people” are specific individuals. Our sphere of freedom should be guaranteed as perfect, right up to the point where fist meets chin.

They don’t truly understand that. They believe that there IS a role for Social Engineering in government… and there’s just isn’t.

We need leadership which can CLEARLY articulate the principles of freedom and REPUBLICAN governance based on LAW. That’s what saves the GOP. Anything less simply continues to erode it. Populist schemes to get the vote-count up can’t help but fail unless one is willing to outspend the opposition from the public coffers. And when we do that, we are Them and not Us.

Murf76 on January 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM

xblade on January 31, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I was in home construction when the invasion occured. I ended up going to college in the early 80′s when we were swamped with Mexicans taking our work for half the money. I quit when our builders were only hiring us for “punch-outs”, basically remodelling brand new houses so cabinet makers could build to square angles and level surfaces.

For years I blamed Reagan for opening the border until I found between the time Carter lost and Reagan came in that decision on education was made by some LBJ appointed judge. That little bit of status started the whole deal I believe.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 12:49 PM

DHS revamping immigrant welcome materials, set to include Obamacare
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/dhs-giving-new-immigrant-welcome-materials-a-makeover/

Just great. Let’s all evolve along with Rand and Rubio…

Mr. Arrogant on January 31, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Murf76 on January 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM

+1000 Murf. Seeing we are badly losing the education effort, some of us do have room to consider collapsing the system may the fastest route to re-education. Well said on your part.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM

They should just remain this site HotRubio

journeymike on January 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Rubio Caliente.

steebo77 on January 31, 2013 at 1:16 PM

The attempts to play up conservative disagreement with Rubio is getting annoying. Take this title being about his “disagreements” as an example. Paul essentially endorsed all of Rubios principles on the issue and said the party needs to evolve – maybe that should have been the lead here.

Some on the right, like Coulter, will remain ideologues and stick to the status quo throw them all out approach. It’s illegal!

Others will be realists, as Rubio is. You cannot tell me you are a fiscal conservative if you want to throw all 11 million illegals out of this country. On the same note, you cannot tell me you are a fiscal conservative if you wish to have these immigrants remain off the rolls working jobs without paying taxes while cashing in on free health care in our emergency rooms. You can sit back and keep things as they are now while trying to make the base blindly love you, or grow a pair and offer ideas to fix the problem as Rubio is certainly doing.

Also, to those people saying that legalizing these immigrants would give the Democrats a ton of new votes: that is bs. If the GOP can’t find a way to sell its ideas – ideas that actually work – to voters outside of the current base, the party isn’t going to be much of a party in the future anyways. So please, stop with the racial we need to keep hispanics from becoming more Democratic voters line and instead think of ways to make all Americans buy into the ideas that actually make a country stronger.

eski502 on January 31, 2013 at 1:29 PM

A think a big point that a lot of people are missing is that their kids are almost without exception US citizens.

So what would you do, deport the parents to Mexico and put the kids in foster care? We can’t kick the kids out, they’re citizens.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM

They could take their kids with them?

cptacek on January 31, 2013 at 1:38 PM

14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

So unless you want to start ignoring parts of the constitution you don’t like, like the dems do, I’d say that language fairly clearly states that ALL persons BORN in the US are citizens.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM

If “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” is enough to confer citizenship, why the extra clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

cptacek on January 31, 2013 at 1:40 PM

A think a big point that a lot of people are missing is that their kids are almost without exception US citizens.

So what would you do, deport the parents to Mexico and put the kids in foster care? We can’t kick the kids out, they’re citizens.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM

we’ve come full circle. In all that Rubio is discussing he is leaving this out. Along with the next step. Once these folks have status will they be able to fast track relatives via family reunification considerations we give now?

Will these new citizens then also be granted minority status and the cornicopia of benefits due them via affirmative action?

This is how libs use our laws and largesse to strangle us.

DanMan on January 31, 2013 at 1:54 PM

If “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” is enough to confer citizenship, why the extra clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

cptacek on January 31, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Thank you.
And I don’t consider it “extra”. I think it carries equal weight to the first condition.

freedomfirst on January 31, 2013 at 1:56 PM

It’s earn-esty though.

anotherJoe on January 31, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Thank you.
And I don’t consider it “extra”. I think it carries equal weight to the first condition.

freedomfirst on January 31, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Of course I agree with you. It was apparent that Timin203 thinks it is extra, so that is why I worded it that way.

cptacek on January 31, 2013 at 2:13 PM

First, those who have violated our immigration laws must come forward and undergo a background check. If they have committed a serious crime, they will be deported.

Uh, whaaa? Criminals are going to come forward?

John the Libertarian on January 31, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Not as bad as Rubio but still disappointing. Rand Paul’s stock falls while Ted Cruz’s rises.

FloatingRock on January 31, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Cruz is only in the first inning of his seate career, but he’s batting 1.000.

bw222 on January 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Or if they decide to remain in the United States, they will do so under the equivalent of a non-immigrant work permit by paying a substantial fine and back taxes. If they choose the non-immigrant work visa, they will not qualify for any federal benefits, including ObamaCare

Who are they and us trying to kid? The majority of the illegal immigrants people have trouble with are unskilled, families with lots of children and few ties to this country – people who came from some hell hole to earn money to send back to that pit to either support those left behind or help them sneak here.

Libs whine about how “they’re just like us and want their families to have a good life.” That may be true but IMO they don’t really want to become Americans – they just want the bennies of being here.

When you’re talking about people who are already at the bottom of the economic food chain it’s hard to see how they’re going to find money to pay a sizable fine and the back taxes on income that has been under the radar. Are we supposed to believe someone who has been here illegally for years when he tells us how much he earned in the past? /s

katiejane on January 31, 2013 at 2:32 PM

And since they won’t yield, I think Paul — and eventually Rubio — will end up walking away.

But not before they start a legislative train rolling that can’t be stopped? No thanks.

jnelchef on January 31, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Pretty much bottom line here is we are in a “heads the rats win tails we lose” situation with the amnesty/immigration debacle.
Open borders/amnesty immigration is key to their domination of us.They need open borders so ultimately the country is Cloward/Pivened to death. They will also get an endless number of voters whether legal or not,allowing them to virtually win most elections from here on out legal or otherwise.
Even when people find out what they are up to and leave their pathetic party they will have enough illegals in the pipeline to overcome our best efforts. That’s why open borders are more important to them than anything else.Also why they try never to talk about it just like the economy.
No matter how it shakes out we will not come out on the winning side of this issue.We have allowed the left to demagogue the issue for years and are now trying to make the best we can out of a really tough issue.
Unless we counter all the lefts lies it won’t get much better.
I think Rubio is really trying to let people know who we are, what we belive in, which is what mainstream America believes and what we would like the see as far as immigration reform goes.
We all know here that zero will EO us to death on this and he will just keep creating Executive Orders until he gets what Valerie and the rest want.
Its really a no win for us. All we can do is say what we believe and let the voters know who we are not what the left has painted us to be.And no one can do that any better than Marco, IMHO.

rodguy911 on January 31, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Rubio has been very consistent everywhere, Red State, Rush, Levin toady on Bill Bennett–no deal if we don’t have border security.He won’t be played.

rodguy911 on January 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I am willing to bet that people said the same things about Republicans in 1986.

bw222 on January 31, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Amazing how quick we are to throw our own under the bus!

The only way the GOP should play ball on immigration reform is to do it the way the Democrats would: get your opponent to cave, totally, to your demands. Pass the legislation in exchange for “promises” to agree to their “in the future.”

In other words, get a border enforcement bill passed, get the illegal felons out of the country, strengthen & promote legal immigration from 1st-World nations. Then commit to a “framework” for a “dicussion” about a “pathway to citizenship” for 11 million new Democrats from Mexico “down the road.”

This, of course, requires the R’s to be the Not-Stupid Party, which is why it won’t happen.

SAMinVA on January 31, 2013 at 2:37 PM

The problem that both are missing lies in “by paying a substantial fine and back taxes”.

When you shake hands with an employee, agreeing on $10/hour, you will end up paying $13 and the employee will take home $7, under a “best case” scenario. The $6 spread is taxes, mandatory insurance, and the like. Most illegal immigrants have been working “off the books” for cash, sending remittances back to Mexico, and living as cheaply as possible. Where on earth are they going to dig up 30% of all the pay they’ve earned since they came to this country as a lump sum? And then a fine, besides?

And then, let’s look at the other side of things — a chunk of those taxes are social security, which is already going insolvent. How will you keep the fund solvent if you’re letting people join the program after half their working lives haven’t paid the tax?

The “back taxes” thing is a massive rock in the middle of the road to amnesty for long-term illegal immigrants.

cthulhu on January 31, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Has anyone else considered that Rand Paul claims to be a budget hawk, yet he is supporting a concept that will add hundreds of billions to the federal debt?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

bw222 on January 31, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/expert-bipartisan-immigration-reform-bill-will-cost-trillions/#ixzz2JZVnq128

workingclass artist on January 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Isn’t this another manifestation of Obamacare? This needs to be sent to the Boomtown 8 and the rest of the Congress members.

The welcome materials the federal government directs new immigrants to read — which detail, among other facets of American life, how and where to get government benefits — are in the process of getting a bit of a makeover to increase accessibility for newcomers.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/dhs-giving-new-immigrant-welcome-materials-a-makeover/#ixzz2JaNuAEP3

Looking at that article will cause your blood pressure to rise!!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/dhs-giving-new-immigrant-welcome-materials-a-makeover/

bluefox on January 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM

I called some select Senators this morning about Rand Paul’s Senate AMDT to prohibit F-16′s to Egypt. Also have been watching
the Senate Debt Limit issue. S. Portman, S. Toomney and S. Rand Paul all have AMDTS. They all have been Blocked, i.e. Tabled.

They can’t even get their AMDT’s a vote on the Senate Floor.

Everytime I see the Congress in action, I’ve always wanted to remove all of their wealth/benefits etc and have them each live on minimum wage for a year.

bluefox on January 31, 2013 at 3:18 PM

The others should go. Yes, even those with children. If they want to come to this country they
can stand in line. Anyone who enters this country after this law
is passed is automatically deported, no questions asked.

Amjean on January 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM

A think a big point that a lot of people are missing is that their kids are almost without exception US citizens.

So what would you do, deport the parents to Mexico and put the kids in foster care? We can’t kick the kids out, they’re citizens.

Timin203 on January 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Has any group sued over this law which gives illegals a reward for having babies by giving the children US citizenship? That should be the first step. Also, is this “citizenship” resulting in
welfare payments? An honest question; I do not know the answer.

I still say let them go home and take their babies with them.
They broke our laws. If we broke Mexico’s laws, we would be in
a Mexican jail. They should be relieved that we are letting them
all go home.

We can all do our little part, too. I recently put a new roof,
gutters, skylights, windows on my home along with a new fence.
With each contractor I told them that I would not allow any illegals to work at my home; my other requirement was that all
the workers speak English. They all honored my wishes and I
felt good about it. Also, I have a lawn service company that
cuts my lawn, spreads mulch, etc. They have worked for me for
over three years. I told them not to send any illegals or I would
fire the company on the spot. Now if I could just do something
about the buspeople in all the restaurants I frequent. LOL!

I bet I ended up paying a little more, however, if my efforts
helped save an American a job it was worth it.

Amjean on January 31, 2013 at 3:34 PM

…I don’t care!…he voted for Kerry!

KOOLAID2 on January 31, 2013 at 11:46 PM