Rand Paul’s immigration plan: Border security before probationary legal status

posted at 12:01 pm on March 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

The AP claimed this morning that Paul was set to endorse a path to citizenship in his speech today. Not so, countered conservatives on Twitter: Read his prepared remarks and you’ll see that citizenship is never mentioned. Which is true, and also irrelevant. The whole point of Paul’s speech is GOP rapprochement with Latino voters; he spends nearly two-thirds of it extolling Latinos’ work ethic, reminiscing about his friendships with Latinos growing up in Texas, name-checking Jaime Escalante and Pablo Neruda, and of course citing the ancient canard that Latinos are really just Republicans who don’t know it yet. (He mentions abortion and gay marriage as particular areas of overlap. In fact, younger Latinos support legal abortion in all or most cases and nearly 60 percent of Latinos overall support state recognition of gay marriage.) There’s no earthly way that Paul, having made a conciliatory pitch that florid, would ultimately turn around and insist that illegals be forever barred from seeking citizenship. In his op-ed on immigration today at the Washington Times, he actually refers to them at one point as “undocumented citizens.”(!) When pressed on the issue in the Q&A after his speech, he said this:

So no, he won’t create a special path to citizenship to help move illegals quickly through the green-card process but there’s a path to citizenship through normal channels in the end. Then again, with the singular exception of Jeb Bush, whom no one believes is serious anyway, every prominent Republican politician I can think of supports a path to citizenship eventually. That’s my whole point: If you’re trying to build goodwill with Latinos, there has to be. But what about the rest of Paul’s plan? Quote:

The first part of my plan – border security – must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished…

With this in place, I believe conservatives will accept what needs to come next, an issue that must be addressed: what becomes of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States?

My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work…

After an Inspector General has verified that the border is secure after year one, the report must come back and be approved by Congress.

In year two, we could begin expanding probationary work visas to immigrants who are willing to work. I would have Congress vote each year for five years whether to approve or not approve a report on whether or not we are securing the border.

Byron York’s right that that’s a key difference with the Schumer/Rubio bill. The Senate bill would grant probationary legal status to illegals on the day the bill is signed into law; the path to a green card and eventual citizenship would, however, be contingent upon improvements in border security. Immigration hawks argue that that’s not good enough. Realistically, once someone has probationary legal status, there’ll be no political will to revoke it or to postpone the citizenship process indefinitely until border security has been tightened. Paul’s solution is to make that initial probationary legal status also contingent upon better border security. Illegals here get nothing until there’s real evidence that the border’s being enforced more comprehensively. (Paul has been talking about that for weeks, in fact, as a contrast to Rubio’s plan; I wrote about it on January 31.)

There’s just one hitch. Democrats will never agree to let Congress decide whether the border’s been sufficiently secured yet, especially with the GOP poised to gain seats in the Senate next year. The left wants llegals on the track to citizenship as quickly as possible, but if you make that track contingent upon border security, you risk letting a Republican Congress block it every year by voting that the border hasn’t been tightened quite enough yet. Although actually, I think the left’s fear there is overblown: As we get closer to 2016, the specter of alienating Latinos anew by consistently voting to delay citizenship for illegals would convince enough Republicans in Congress to join with Democrats in rubber-stamping border security to get the citizenship process moving. Paul’s bill is actually better politics for the GOP, arguably, because it lets them sound tougher on the border now, when conservatives are paying attention, while letting them go soft later when right-wing voters will be more forgiving of GOP caves that are aimed at winning the election.

One other footnote: He wants to modernize the visa system so that we can better track illegals who are here, but he opposes E-Verify because it “forc[es] businesses to become policemen.” That’s a concession to his libertarian base, many of whom support open borders and won’t like seeing him acting like a border hawk today. The least he can do for them is make sure that private enterprise isn’t being deputized by the state to carry out its regime of policing labor. Why a libertarian would necessarily favor more robust federal visa-tracking over E-Verify, though, I don’t know. Granted, without E-Verify illegals who lack probationary status have a better chance of finding employment, but on the other hand Paul’s scheme would likely require a bigger, more intrusive government agency to check up on illegal workers in lieu of letting employers do it. But then, let’s not get bogged down in the details. This isn’t meant as a viable plan for the Senate, as Rubio’s is, but as a political document aimed at showing grassroots conservatives that he’s tougher on the legalization process than Rubio and at showing independents and Latino voters that he’s compassionate enough towards immigrants to want them to stay and work here as long as they want. I’ll leave you with this:


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

i would just keep it simple.

the border must be secure first. then talk about all the other crap.

renalin on March 19, 2013 at 6:44 PM

I agree, the border should be secured first. Many illegals come here and freeload off of everyone else. What we should do is make it as hard as possible for someone that at one point immigrated here illegally instead of bending over backwards for them. If their willing to be productive members of society and assimilate into American culture then good for them. I think many would leave without the promise of government assistance.

As you said though, nothing should be done until we secure the border.

midgeorgian on March 19, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Still waiting on someone to explain to me WHAT TAXES LOW INCOME LABORERS ARE GOING TO SUDDENLY START PAYING WHEN THEY ARE GIVEN TEMP WORK PERMITS…

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 7:00 PM

midgeorgian on March 19, 2013 at 6:41 PM

There is a good possibility that if we take these steps, many illegals will self deport. I never understood the “we can’t deport them all so we have to do something with them” argument. We don’t have to do anything. Take away the motivators to come here and they will leave and others won’t come. Your plan sounds logical, which of course means, that our politicians will do the exact opposite.

hopeful on March 19, 2013 at 7:01 PM

And another one bites,and another one bites, and another one bites the dust..If these illegal aliens are not deported it is amnesty.Rand Paul-you are in support of amnesty.You too,Rubio,and you too Jeb Bush.Round em up, ship em out!

We are NEVER, EVER, EVER going to “round em up and ship em out!” NEVER. Operation W3tback is NEVER, EVER, EVER going to be repeated.

Rand Paul wants to find a way to get illegals to become legal workers and pay taxes. They would not have voting rights. They would have to go comply with the exact same requirements that I did when I came here legally. Am I happy about that? No, but I am realistic.

They will then have to wait in line, pay back taxes, pass a background check, and learn to speak English before they can apply for citizenship. They, then, have to pass the citizenship test. It will be years before any illegal is allowed to vote under the scenario that Paul is proposing.

At the same time, there must be border enforcement and I would add employer penalties. I would enthusiastically endorse a $100,000 fine for the first offence of hiring an illegal and $1,000,000 fine PLUS 5 years in Federal prison PER ILLEGAL for a subsequent conviction.

Felons should be deported, as should repeat misdemeanants. Period.

This idea of sending 12-20 million people home must be abandoned. It is not only unrealistic from a political and legal standpoint, but is also logistically improbable. A vast number of illegal immigrants that are in the United States have American children and we are not, as a country, going to send their parents back nor will the Supreme Court likely ever reverse its erroneous reading of the Fourteenth Amendment and the reliance on the footnote in Phyler v Doe that has occurred since. It is NEVER going to happen and, if you continue to make it the litmus test, you will nominate candidates that can NEVER get elected. There is a reason that Tom Tancredo is no longer in office.

Some sort of immigration reform is almost assuredly going to happen. What is important is that it be done in a fair way to American citizens and taxpayers.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM

As much as you listing some numbers that make sense, as well as logic behind them, one issue that you and others don’t seem to mention is that all of this serves as encouragement to others to come here illegally in the future. Reagan’s misstep in that regard led to even greater numbers of illegals crossing boarders.

This must stop, once and for all. You and I came here via legal means, under existing USA laws, that somehow are always mentioned as “non-existent”. Immigration laws do exist and have worked just fine until recent times when people started pissing on the Constitution with impunity.

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 7:28 PM

More Hispandering!!

Nutstuyu on March 19, 2013 at 7:33 PM

This idea of sending 12-20 million people home must be abandoned. It is not only unrealistic from a political and legal standpoint, but is also logistically improbable. …

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM

What is it with you lately spouting lefty lines?

Nutstuyu on March 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM

What would be different from what we have now?

tomas on March 19, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Pro-immigration reform group claims ‘sea change’ in favor of legalization among evangelical voters

Representatives from the Evangelical Immigration Table, an immigration advocacy coalition, are claiming there has been a “sea change” in favor of immigration reform within the evangelical community.

“I think this issue is unlike issues I’ve sometimes seen before,” Jim Wallis, the president of Christian social justice group Sojourners, said during a Monday conference call with reporters. Sojourners is part of the Evangelical Immigration Table.

JIM WALLIS………….THE KARL MARX & VANN JONES of the Progressive “Christian” front groups.

Yahoo to run this as “NEWS” in 5….4…..3…

PappyD61 on March 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM

What taxes are they going to pay?
You say it is to bring them out so they start paying taxes.
So what taxes are they going to pay?

I can tell you right now.
They will pay no income taxes, they earn too little to do so, and in fact will be getting refundable tax credits for money they did not pay in.
As temporary workers and agricultural workers they will be exempted from Social Security and Medicare.
They already pay what ever sales and property taxes they are going to pay.

So, what taxes are you imagining they will pay?

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 7:54 PM

What is it with you lately spouting lefty lines?

Nutstuyu on March 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM

I am not “spouting lefty lines” lately. I have said this on numerous occasions. It’s the reality of the situation.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Most aren’t temporary and agricultural workers.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Most aren’t temporary and agricultural workers.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Under the Rand Paul plan they will all be temporary visa holders they are EXEMPT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES and MEDICARE TAXES.

You avoided the question…
What taxes will they pay?

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 8:05 PM

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 7:28 PM

In addition to the failure to secure the border after Reagan, there has also been a failure to prosecute employers. As I indicated, I would be very harsh on employers and require E-Verify for ALL employment in the United States – private and public sector, permanent and temporary employment, union and non-union, full-time and part-time, white collar and farm labour.

It is not only a crime to cross the border illegally or to overstay a visa, it is a crime to employ a illegal and fail to pay taxes on him or her. As a country, we have failed to enforce BOTH sides of immigration law. Start fining and/or incarcerating employers for employing illegals and we will see the level of illegal immigrants coming to the US fall dramatically. How many business owners or even individuals looking for nannies, gardeners, and poolboys are going to want to risk the type of high fines and/or prison time that I suggested?

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Start fining and/or incarcerating employers for employing illegals and we will see the level of illegal immigrants coming to the US fall dramatically.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Wow. Separating illegal aliens from their families is logistically impossible, but AMERICAN employers — lock those bastards up! That’s warped, man.

Ronnie on March 19, 2013 at 8:09 PM

I didn’t hear it, so I’m hesitant to respond. However, I believe you’re a credible commenter.

Something about that statement sounds incomplete by Rush’s standards.

Saltysam on March 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Agreed, and I have only heard it paraphrased, but it’s imcomplete. He (allegedly) said “for 25 years”. Citizenship now…voting rights in 25 years.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:19 PM

And here it is:

RUSH: Well, I myself suggested a similar proposal about six months ago, and I have repeated it over the course of the past six months. Very simply it’s this. I’ve told everybody in this audience. I’ve told the Democrats. I’ve told the media. I’ve told the Republicans. I, too, will support amnesty if the newly made citizens cannot vote for 25 years.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Rather than this, we get Hispandering from Rand. Disappointing.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:21 PM

…secure the border first…THEN have the conversation…they’ve wasted our time with that promise before!

KOOLAID2 on March 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Under the Rand Paul plan they will all be temporary visa holders they are EXEMPT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES and MEDICARE TAXES.

You avoided the question…
What taxes will they pay?

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Not all visas are the same, include “temporary visas.” Paul referred to “probationary visas.” He said that he wanted to expand the worker visa programme. Not all would be, necessarily, on the same type of visa.

Foreign employees, who work under a temporary visa are also “tax residents” if they pass the IRS’s substantial-presence test. If the worker spent 183 days in the United States in a three-year period, with at least 31 days in the third year, an employer has to withhold taxes. The IRS spells out multiple exceptions and special cases for nonresident workers, all listed in publication 519.

Those that are exempt from paying payroll taxes are: 1) a nonresident alien; 2) F-1 (student), J-1 (cultural and educational exchange), M-1 (vocational and technical school student) or Q-1 (adult training and cultural exchange programme) visa holders; and those performing services in accordance with the primary purpose of the visa’s issuance.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

And here it is:

RUSH: Well, I myself suggested a similar proposal about six months ago, and I have repeated it over the course of the past six months. Very simply it’s this. I’ve told everybody in this audience. I’ve told the Democrats. I’ve told the media. I’ve told the Republicans. I, too, will support amnesty if the newly made citizens cannot vote for 25 years.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:20 PM

That would be struck down by the Supreme Court and very possibly in a 9-0 decision.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Here’s a Modest Proposal: for every illegal alien who has come to the land of milk and honey to find freedom and work, let us make him a citizen and revoke the citizenship of an unemployed registered Democrat and deport them to the south.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Wow. Separating illegal aliens from their families is logistically impossible, but AMERICAN employers — lock those bastards up! That’s warped, man.

Ronnie on March 19, 2013 at 8:09 PM

So, the law only has to be upheld for illegals, eh? Why do you think illegals come here? Because employers will hire them. It is a CRIME to hire an illegal alien. If you want to stop illegal immigration, start enforcing the law in the workplace.

I didn’t say that separating illegal aliens from their families is logistically impossible. I said:

This idea of sending 12-20 million people home must be abandoned. It is not only unrealistic from a political and legal standpoint, but is also logistically improbable.”

The idea of rounding up and sending 12-20 million people “home” is logistically improbable.

And, I’m not a man.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:29 PM

and those performing services in accordance with the primary purpose of the visa’s issuance.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Hence none.
Like I said, it is a joke of an argument to say it is to get them to pay taxes.

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM

That would be struck down by the Supreme Court and very possibly in a 9-0 decision.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I don’t know that it is proposed as a serious legal offering. But if that’s the way you want it, the only logical position is that no one who has occupied this country illegally will be granted citizenship without application abroad from their home country.

Leave and get in line.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM

And to fix the illegal immigration root cause, we only need to amend the Constitution to clear state what the courts have fu**ed all up — the anchor baby interpretation. No anchor babies.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Hence none.
Like I said, it is a joke of an argument to say it is to get them to pay taxes.

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM

No, it refers to specific types of technical visas and they are subject to the same 183 day restriction. Most of these visas are for short periods of time and highly technical or specialised work, say, journalists that come to the US for a few weeks to cover an inauguration or the Olympics or something like that.

The tax argument is not just about future taxes. It is also about paying any taxes due.

Like I said, rounding up and sending 12-20 million illegal immigrants home is NEVER, EVER, EVER going to happen so you might as well start wrapping your brain around that fact.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM

I don’t know that it is proposed as a serious legal offering. But if that’s the way you want it, the only logical position is that no one who has occupied this country illegally will be granted citizenship without application abroad from their home country.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM

It’s my opinion based on my legal education, knowledge, and experience, as well as Supreme Court precedent.

Leave and get in line.

Too late. I’m already a naturalised citizen. You’re stuck with me.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Like I said, it is a joke of an argument to say it is to get them to pay taxes.

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM

I’m sure every illegal that mows yards and gets paid in cash has secretly been keeping records on Quickbooks, in the event he’ll someday have to pay back taxes. It’s beyond a joke, it’s delusional. Someone will sue and they’ll end up with citizenship in no time. Amnesty is the death knell for the GOP and for this country. None of them will ever vote Republican. And Rand Paul can take his wish for a bi-lingual country and go ____ himself along with Rubio and his ilk.

TxAnn56 on March 19, 2013 at 8:53 PM

And here it is:

RUSH: Well, I myself suggested a similar proposal about six months ago, and I have repeated it over the course of the past six months. Very simply it’s this. I’ve told everybody in this audience. I’ve told the Democrats. I’ve told the media. I’ve told the Republicans. I, too, will support amnesty if the newly made citizens cannot vote for 25 years.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Absolutely disagree with the idea. If felons cannot vote, by LAW, why is it that we would want to allow ILLEGALS to EVER VOTE? If shipping them out seems so “strange” to so many, although I have no idea what is strange about shipping someone who broke a law to home country as any nation on this planet does AFTER said law breaker serves time first, the only thing that makes sense is they get eventual legal status WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

Put that out there and see how quickly liberals lose interest. Liberals are only interested in VOTES, they couldn’t give crap about anyone’s well being, as proven by passage of HusseinCare.

Why not let IMMIGRANTS, and I won’t even demean the word by attaching “legal” to it since immigrant implies LEGAL to begin with, be part of this discussion? And actually LEAD it.

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 8:54 PM

That would be struck down by the Supreme Court and very possibly in a 9-0 decision.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM

No problem, just word as TAX of some sort, Roberts will rubber stamp it.

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM

what is strange about shipping someone who broke a law to home country as any nation on this planet does AFTER said law breaker serves time first

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Not in the UK. If an illegal manages to survive 6 weeks without detection, he or she is entitled to all of the same benefits that someone, who served in WWII, gets.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:01 PM

And, riddick, it is not that I find shipping 12-20 million illegal aliens home “strange.” I find it wholly unrealistic in the US in the 21st century. There IS a difference.

Seriously, which leaders that have any national stature and a chance of getting elected to high office espouse a belief in rounding up and shipping 12-20 million illegal aliens?

Which Republicans?

Which Democrats?

Which Libertarians?

Which Tea Partiers?

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Like I said, rounding up and sending 12-20 million illegal immigrants home is NEVER, EVER, EVER going to happen so you might as well start wrapping your brain around that fact.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Anyone serious about the problem of illegal immigration doesn’t even pretend mass deportations is the answer.

The answer is attrition through law enforcement. Take away the jobs, the free education, free healthcare and social services and the illegal aliens will leave at their own expense.

voiceofreason on March 19, 2013 at 9:11 PM

I am not “spouting lefty lines” lately. I have said this on numerous occasions. It’s the reality of the situation.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Yes, you are. You fail to understand the issue.

This is the reality:

1. Not deporting them all these years has caused the problem we have now.

2. It is NOT necessary to “deport all 11 million.” They WILL self-deport if we start cracking down on them.

3. Allowing them to stay via any kind of amnesty, which THIS IS, will increase their numbers, even if we patrol the border better, which is NOT going to happen.

4. We have been through this before, under Reagan, and it led to what we have now.

5. This is a lose-lose issue for conservative Republicans. We will not gain any votes by it and we stand to lose much more.

JannyMae on March 19, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Not in the UK. If an illegal manages to survive 6 weeks without detection, he or she is entitled to all of the same benefits that someone, who served in WWII, gets.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:01 PM

We don’t yet live under Sharia law, either, as do Brits now. And parts of France as well.

Can we round up and ship them out? Yes, for the most part they will leave voluntarily once we go after employers, as you suggested, but moreover when we cut welfare, medical, food stamps and such. Most of them do not work and live off our backs, FOR FREE. Stop all of these programs and watch most of the free loaders leave. Rounding up the rest will be a much easier task at that point and we can figure out how to deal with them at that point.

Telling them, as we do now, its OK to break our laws and LIVE FOR FREE, is the WORST POSSIBLE THING WE CAN DO.

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 9:12 PM

I am not “spouting lefty lines” lately. I have said this on numerous occasions. It’s the reality of the situation.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Yes, you are. You fail to understand the issue.

This is the reality:

1. Not deporting them all these years has caused the problem we have now.

2. It is NOT necessary to “deport all 11 million.” They WILL self-deport if we start cracking down on them.

3. Allowing them to stay via any kind of amnesty, which THIS IS, will increase their numbers, even if we patrol the border better, which is NOT going to happen.

4. We have been through this before, under Reagan, and it led to what we have now.

5. This is a lose-lose issue for conservative Republicans. We will not gain any votes by it and we stand to lose much more.

JannyMae on March 19, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Agreed, and I have only heard it paraphrased, but it’s imcomplete. He (allegedly) said “for 25 years”. Citizenship now…voting rights in 25 years.

Jaibones on March 19, 2013 at 8:19 PM

The context of that was he stated, No dem would vote for the repubs agreeing to amnesty if the couldn’t vote for 25 years…i.e. they don’t care about making them legal, they want their votes.

Mimzey on March 19, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Very good point..No one..:)

Dire Straits on March 19, 2013 at 9:30 PM

While I am adamantly pro immigration I am generally opposed to most attempts at so-called immigration reform especially of the grand bargain variety. A workable immigration system does not require land mines on the border or the creation of new artificially soft categories of legality. Rand Paul is dead wrong to create a “probationary” legality. There should be only one category, a legal permanent resident, i.e. a “green card” as it exists right now. any other system encourages people to jump the line. There are two things that have to done to make people line up for a green card and not cross the border or overstay their visitor’s visa.

1. Stop issuing amnesties or other special treatment

2. Make the lines shorter by increasing the numbers of legal immigrants allowed into the country each year.

Forget about comprehensive immigration reform. It will only make things worse. We cannot promote any reform that punishes those who did it right and welcomes those who didn’t. Make them all do it right but make sure that after the paper work is done and approved a green card will be forthcoming in months not decades as it is now.

oznerola on March 19, 2013 at 9:33 PM

JannyMae on March 19, 2013 at 9:13 PM

No, I’m not. Just because you disagree with what I say doesn’t mean that I am “spouting lefty lines.”

Answer my question:

Which leaders that have any national stature and a chance of getting elected to high office espouse a belief in rounding up and shipping 12-20 million illegal aliens?

None…because they know it is unrealistic, unworkable, and political suicide.

Anyone serious about the problem of illegal immigration doesn’t even pretend mass deportations is the answer.

The answer is attrition through law enforcement. Take away the jobs, the free education, free healthcare and social services and the illegal aliens will leave at their own expense.

voiceofreason on March 19, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Read this or any other thread on immigration. I would love to have all illegals sent home and have to go through the same process that I did because I know people, who are currently on waiting lists. I know the unfairness of the situation. It’s not fair, to use a phrase “spouted by lefties.” Unfortunately, I also understand the reality of the situation. Mass deportation is not going to happen and what really needs to change is the language that some – not all, not even a good minority – on the right use to describe illegal immigrants. It is not helpful. I got into a huge fight on Sunday on a SSM thread for saying that it wasn’t helpful to call gay conservatives “mentally or biologically defective.” Words matter.

I agree that no social services should be extended to illegal aliens, but please note that the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants have a right to attend public schools, if states are going to have them. See Phyler v Doe.

We can do whatever we must to stop future illegal immigration. That must be done on the border and, as I said, in the workplace. The question that we must answer is: What do we do with the millions already here, especially those with minor children, who are American citizens? We will never deport them en masse.

Telling them, as we do now, its OK to break our laws and LIVE FOR FREE, is the WORST POSSIBLE THING WE CAN DO.

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 9:12 PM

No one is telling them that they can live for free.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Very good point..No one..:)

Dire Straits on March 19, 2013 at 9:30 PM

No one. Exactly. Yet, this is continuously overlooked, but the collar keeps getting torn on people like Rubio and Paul. It is almost like people want Jeb Bush or Chris Christie. Oh, I know that they don’t really, but what do people think will happen if they kill off Rubio or Paul? They are more than likely get MORE RINO, NOT LESS.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Like I said, rounding up and sending 12-20 million illegal immigrants home is NEVER, EVER, EVER going to happen so you might as well start wrapping your brain around that fact.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM

No one has argued to ROUND UP 20 million illegal invading aliens.
You keep arguing it, so, answer the question. Name 2 people who have said we should do it that way?

We argue to get rid of the incentive to be here for them.
Make it hard to live here, better to go back home.
Shut down the companies completely if needed who hire them and put their executives in prison, particularly the same prison that violent illegal aliens are kept.
Someone else will buy those companies if they can be run on legal labor.

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I hear you..:)

Dire Straits on March 19, 2013 at 9:46 PM

I agree that no social services should be extended to illegal aliens, but please note that the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants have a right to attend public schools, if states are going to have them. See Phyler v Doe.
Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Plyler vs Doe was a severely flawed decision that needs to be revisited.

For example, Chief Justice Burger writing for the minority pointed out:

The Court’s holding today manifests the justly criticized judicial tendency to attempt speedy and wholesale formulation of “remedies” for the failures — or simply the laggard pace — of the political processes of our system of government. The Court employs, and, in my view, abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver. That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court distorts our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others.

voiceofreason on March 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM

What do we do with the millions already here, especially those with minor children, who are American citizens? We will never deport them en masse.
Resist We Much

You don’t reward them for being here illegally for one. Two, you enforce the laws that are on the books. Not complicated. We don’t excuse other criminals because they have children.

xblade on March 19, 2013 at 9:50 PM

2. Make the lines shorter by increasing the numbers of legal immigrants allowed into the country each year.

oznerola

We already accept a million legal immigrants a year, which is more than any other country, and too many as it is. Unless we get rid of limits altogether, there will always be a long line because so many people want to come here.

xblade on March 19, 2013 at 10:00 PM

No one has argued to ROUND UP 20 million illegal invading aliens.

You keep arguing it, so, answer the question. Name 2 people who have said we should do it that way?

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 9:44 PM

From this thread:

And another one bites,and another one bites, and another one bites the dust..If these illegal aliens are not deported it is amnesty.Rand Paul-you are in support of amnesty.You too,Rubio,and you too Jeb Bush.Round em up, ship em out!

redware on March 19, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Rand Paul is the new John McCain and Lindsay Graham. Where is President Eisenhower when we need him.

Tripwhipper on March 19, 2013 at 12:26 PM

“President Eisenhower,” of course, refers to Operation Wetback where illegals were rounded up and deported.

I have read NUMEROUS people argue that they be rounded up and shipped back home. Go read any immigration thread on TH. Read the threads here and you’ll find them.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:01 PM

What do we do with the millions already here, especially those with minor children, who are American citizens? We will never deport them en masse.
Resist We Much

According to the 14th Amendment and the intentions of it’s framers, children born to illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and thus are not citizens.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

voiceofreason on March 19, 2013 at 10:01 PM

No one has argued to ROUND UP 20 million illegal invading aliens.

You keep arguing it, so, answer the question. Name 2 people who have said we should do it that way?

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 9:44 PM

From this thread:

And another one bites,and another one bites, and another one bites the dust..If these illegal aliens are not deported it is amnesty.Rand Paul-you are in support of amnesty.You too,Rubio,and you too Jeb Bush.Round em up, ship em out!

redware on March 19, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Rand Paul is the new John McCain and Lindsay Graham. Where is President Eisenhower when we need him.

Tripwhipper on March 19, 2013 at 12:26 PM

“President Eisenhower,” of course, refers to Operation Wetb@ck where illegals were rounded up and deported.

I have read NUMEROUS people argue that they be rounded up and shipped back home. Go read any immigration thread on TH. Read the threads here and you’ll find them.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:01 PM

According to the 14th Amendment and the intentions of it’s framers, children born to illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and thus are not citizens.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

voiceofreason on March 19, 2013 at 10:01 PM

I am FULLY aware of what the Fourteenth Amendment says, what its author intended, and how the erroneous footnote in Phyler came to be. I’ve written about it on HA threads and on my blog on numerous occasions.

Here is but one example: Adios, Adios, Miss American Pie? Not Necessarily.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM

You don’t reward them for being here illegally for one. Two, you enforce the laws that are on the books. Not complicated. We don’t excuse other criminals because they have children.

xblade on March 19, 2013 at 9:50 PM

All true, but can you not acknowledge the fact that the reality of the situation is quite different?

I’m not in favour of rewarding illegal immigrants. As I said, I wish that they could be sent home and made to go through the proper channels, if only “for the purposes of fairness,” as Obama likes to say. Unfortunately, that’s not the reality of the situation and any attempt at a forced deportation would be political suicide.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:08 PM

No one is telling them that they can live for free.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 9:36 PM

HUH?!

You’re kidding, right? Have you somehow missed FREE food stamps advertised by our government in FRIGGING MEXICO? Or other free programs advertised there including welfare?

Reality check on aisle A, please…

As already pointed out to you by a number of us, attrition will do the job for the most part, the rest can then be dealt with much easier.

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

I should have been more clear: I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEY CAN LIVE HERE FOR FREE.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM

The idea of rounding up and sending 12-20 million people “home” is logistically improbable.

Resist We Much

But finding them and making them pay taxes is totally doable, lol.

xblade on March 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM

That would be struck down by the Supreme Court and very possibly in a 9-0 decision.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM

… or struck down by JustUs Benedict Roberts in a 1-0 decision just like Obamacare. If our Founders could see what rulers our Supreme Court have anointed themselves to be the Founders would be busy taking an inventory of muskets and volunteers to dethrone our new kings.

viking01 on March 19, 2013 at 10:31 PM

But finding them and making them pay taxes is totally doable, lol.

xblade on March 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Its much worse than that. Most of them claim refunds from IRS without even working.

But, not, they don’t live here for free /

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Do the Dims really need the illegals for votes if they can simply find a shady judge to cancel the election outcome like Judge Walker did to Mexifornia’s Prop. 8?

viking01 on March 19, 2013 at 10:38 PM

But finding them and making them pay taxes is totally doable, lol.

xblade on March 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM

If they are working and their employer doesn’t want to go to prison, yes, it is doable.

Again, what politician of national stature that has any legitimate chance of getting elected to high office is espousing the position of deporting 12-20 million illegal immigrants?

Name one.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Its much worse than that. Most of them claim refunds from IRS without even working.

But, not, they don’t live here for free /

riddick on March 19, 2013 at 10:35 PM

So, illegal immigrants are filing income tax returns and outing themselves while not working?

How does the IRS know that they exist and need to file tax returns?

Why would illegal immigrants alert the Federal government to their immigration status?

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Now if we can just give the Visigoths and Ostrogoths some sorta perqs for invading then the Roman Empire will last forever.

Headinthe Sandius 400 A.D.

viking01 on March 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Rand Paul’s immigration plan: Border security before probationary legal status

Appropriate that this is posted on Hot Air.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 20, 2013 at 12:05 AM

All those socialist Hispanics will then be unfairly denied citizenship 6-13 years after their probation? No! The Democrats will then declare them long-term US taxpayers who need to be given voting rights immediately because they have paid their taxes for 6-13 years.

Conservatives who support this are politically suicidal. Just like the Europeans who have already committed political suicide by admitting all those Muslims. Bye bye, any kind of decent society that you know! Welcome sharia and taqiyah for all.

Ceteris Paribus on March 20, 2013 at 12:52 AM

So, illegal immigrants are filing income tax returns and outing themselves while not working?

How does the IRS know that they exist and need to file tax returns?

Why would illegal immigrants alert the Federal government to their immigration status?

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Wow, what’s with you tonight? Yes, IRS does KNOW they do not work, are illegals, and still send them refunds. Its a well known and documented issue. To the tune of BILLIONS of dollars per year that go to supplement Mexican economy. Just like other free money we simply give them for NOTHING.

Not sure what your point was? Are you saying that a well known and government driven and devised operation such as Fast and Furious is completely unknown to the government and is just a figment of someone’s imagination?

Illegals DO FILE false claims. And yes, IRS DOES SEND them money in full knowledge of the situation. Let me know what else you need to get up to speed on.

riddick on March 20, 2013 at 2:29 AM

Now if we can just give the Visigoths and Ostrogoths some sorta perqs for invading then the Roman Empire will last forever.

Headinthe Sandius RANDius 400 A.D.

viking01 on March 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM

It worked for the Etruscans, too!

In status tuitionus and all.

As the last Roman said:

Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.

profitsbeard on March 20, 2013 at 4:07 AM

Again, what politician of national stature that has any legitimate chance of getting elected to high office is espousing the position of deporting 12-20 million illegal immigrants?

Name one.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

So the fact that they are quisling scum is okay?

Vendidit hic auro patriam (Virgil, Aeneid)

He sold his country for gold.

That’s a political motto to espouse?

profitsbeard on March 20, 2013 at 4:12 AM

Can you buy patriotism and loyalty? My take.

kingsjester on March 20, 2013 at 6:38 AM

ILLEGAL or CITIZEN?!?

It’s as if politicians NEVER HEARD of LEGAL GUEST WORKER STATUS.

Political wh*res.

Czar of Defenestration on March 20, 2013 at 7:25 AM

Of course we could develop a plan to round these people up and deport them.Stop the BS in using this as some excuse fo granting amnesty.Have the courage to come out and admit you just don’t give a crap about the national sovereignty of this nation and the rule of law.

redware on March 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM

Border security?

In our lifetime has there ever been border security?

“Border security” is the “Trust me!” of “comprehensive immigration reform.” And we all know what “Trust me!” means in LA and DC.

“Comprehensive immigration reform” also belongs in quotes, because the only thing that is “comprehensively reformed” is the disenfranchisement of your voting rights as an American citizen.

You want to see what America will look like with “comprehensive immigration reform”? Look at California. It leads the nation in illegal immigration and has already experienced “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Any chance of a conservative Republican getting elected to federal or statewide office in California? How long ago was Reagan governor?

Yeah. It’s not going to happen in our lifetime nor the lifetime of anyone’s children.

I’ve got a better idea.

If we are really serious about opening Emma Lazarus’ “golden door,” why don’t we stop playing games, annex Mexico, and declare it the 51st state?

Stepan on March 20, 2013 at 8:16 AM

So, illegal immigrants are filing income tax returns and outing themselves while not working?

How does the IRS know that they exist and need to file tax returns?

Why would illegal immigrants alert the Federal government to their immigration status?

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Uh, yes, and this is a scam that has been going on for quite some time now.

They file income tax returns using Taxpayer Identification Numbers. The IRS issues these to anyone who asks, in place of Social Security numbers (which is what most U.S. citizens use when they file).

Once the illegal alien has his/her TIN, they file an income tax return in which they claim numerous “tax credits.” These have little to do with taxes, despite the name, but are really just disguised welfare payments from the U.S. Treasury. There are “earned income tax credits” (for low income filers) and “dependent child tax credits” and various other types.

There was a story in the news a few years ago about an illegal who was getting thousands of dollars a year from the U.S. Treasury because he was claiming tax credits for about a dozen children (all of whom lived in Mexico, and several of whom were not even his children).

The IRS has admitted that it pays out billions of dollars every year in tax credits to illegal aliens. Are you really this out of touch?

AZCoyote on March 20, 2013 at 8:54 AM

I bet that all of those advocating 11-12 million illegals marching to Mexico as a solution to our decades old illegal problem have also aided and abetted this crime by either doing business with, hiring, etc. either illegals themselves or a company that employees them. I also bet that they have dined at a restaurant that employed illegals (you know, the busperson who gave you water,
cleared, wiped your table that didn’t speak English).

I don’t have the answer to what is a very complicated issue, however, marching them across the country to Mexico is not a humane thing to do.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Rand Paul’s immigration plan: Border security before probationary legal status

Wow, no Gay thread to start our day??

ToddPA on March 20, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I am not “spouting lefty lines” lately. I have said this on numerous occasions. It’s the reality of the situation.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM

You know I appreciate you, I’ve said so a number of times… but let me say here, that your “never going to happen” comments ring quite like the “admitting defeat” comments regarding the Constitution that you were decrying a few days ago.

We didn’t *import* them; we don’t have to *deport* them. We have to take steps that will make it so painful for them to be here (pain for them and anyone that employs them, gives them residence, etc) that they’ll *want* to leave, and they *will* leave, the same way they came.

Deporting them would be a waste of energy that can be more successfully applied in helping motivate them to leave on their own.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Midas on March 20, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I bet that all of those advocating 11-12 million illegals marching to Mexico as a solution to our decades old illegal problem have also aided and abetted this crime by either doing business with, hiring, etc. either illegals themselves or a company that employees them. I also bet that they have dined at a restaurant that employed illegals (you know, the busperson who gave you water,
cleared, wiped your table that didn’t speak English).

I don’t have the answer to what is a very complicated issue, however, marching them across the country to Mexico is not a humane thing to do.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM

1) yeah, probably have eaten at a restaurant or used a company that’s employed illegals – and? Are citizens supposed to demand the employment records of every restaurant at which they dine before placing their appetizer order? Don’t be ridiculous. I’ll bet everyone’s eaten at a restaurant that participated in other problematic employment, health, and other issues as well – and? Feeble point, friend.

2) not a humane thing to do? Neither is their decision to come here illegally, trying to jump in front of others doing it legally, breaking our laws, and yes, stealing from taxpayers as a result. You could also argue that it’s inhumane to punish criminals for their criminal behavior by sending them to jail and separating them from their families, etc (heard this one before), but… you’d be wrong. There are laws, there are penalties for breaking those laws – tough crap. If you don’t want them walking home, then lobby for arrest and deportation. A graven invitation to stay is an affront to the rule of law, and is not a ‘humane’ option for the rest of us.

Midas on March 20, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Russ in OR’s immigration plan:

Apply for a visa at your country of residence.

No exceptions.

No public assistance for illegal aliens.

Prison sentences for employers who hire them.

Russ in OR on March 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Don’t much know if Rand Paul’s plan is good or not. Don’t much care. At least he has a plan, the rest of Congress doesn’t have a clue.
Seems to me that there is one very large very basic flaw in all of their thinking. The question is , “WHY ARE THEY HERE”.

(1) They want to be US Citizens?
(2) They are here for the jobs?
(3) They are here for the money?
(4) They are here for what they can get for free?

I believe that (4) is out just because they work to hard. Congress is assuming that (1) is valid, but no one has asked. If it were true why has there been a net decrease in illegal immigration in the last two years (NOT LIKELY THAT ICE IS DOING THEIR JOB), and a net decrease in the 20 year illegal immigrant population.

The answer is, to paraphrase that notorious american philosopher Willie Sutton, Their here because that’s were the money is.

All of the Congressional plans cater to that, and a continuing of the supply of cheap labor. For that reason they are all doomed to fail. The over 20 year population is going home to retire, some with SS retirement pensions.

jpcpt03 on March 20, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Provided the border is secured, we stop chain immigration, criminals/miscreants are not eligible and this program is materially limited to the current generation of illegal immigrants- I fail to see the issue.

The problem is a mindset that simply and falsely believes we can deport every single person and that all cases are alike. That’s called foolish and unachievable.

In the end, the best path is a negotiated solution. Otherwise this situation will stay the same ad infinitum. Paul is right to take up and attempt to fix this issue.

Marcus Traianus on March 20, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Weasel faced Rand Paul is even worst than McCain as he actually tried to appear as a non-interventionist but is really just the worst blend of crap from both the NeoCon and Liebertarian fools!
We must go to the mats against all the Cheep Labor Whores and their DRat allies

el Vaquero on March 20, 2013 at 10:40 AM

jpcpt03 on March 20, 2013 at 10:37 AM

They are here because they do not respect us.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM

jpcpt03 on March 20, 2013 at 10:37 AM

They are here because they do not respect us.

And it is not expected of them. The powers that be bend over backwards to encourage all who enter to retain the values, culture and language brought, and require us to adapt to and respect them.

hawkeye54 on March 20, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Interior enforcement of current laws. Draconian levels that makes it clear we will do what it takes.
After that, lock down the border to illegal crossings.
If needed, make visa holders wear tracking devices while here.
Once those things are done, or similar and as effective done, then talk to me about what to do with the few remaining invading aliens.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 11:37 AM

WHO dose not respect us?

The Congress?

Is it that they think we are so many sheep to just follow?

Or is it that they know that we will do nothing?

Or that the MSM will not tell us?

Wake up sheep the wolf is eating us alive.

jpcpt03 on March 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM

midgeorgian on March 19, 2013 at 6:41 PM

i would just keep it simple.

the border must be secure first. then talk about all the other crap.

renalin on March 19, 2013 at 6:44 PM

I would add that the border must proven well secured for a period of no less than ten years – then we can begin to discuss other matters.

DrDeano on March 20, 2013 at 1:19 PM

The context of that was he stated, No dem would vote for the repubs agreeing to amnesty if the couldn’t vote for 25 years…i.e. they don’t care about making them legal, they want their votes.

Mimzey on March 19, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Make them plead guilty to being a felon. No vote, no guns.

cptacek on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Here’s an idea: Let’s require all members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to vacation for a couple of weeks each year at ranches/campsites along the southern border–armed only to the extent that their individual public 2nd Amendment stances allow. Then let’s hear their thoughts on illegals/closing the border–and gun control. (I’m guessing a few might be a tad more concerned about Fast and Furious, too.)

butterflies and puppies on March 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Make them plead guilty to being a felon. No vote, no guns.

cptacek on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

If it gets to that point where it is citizenship or nothing, that is the right way to do it.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3