Rand Paul on immigration proceedings: We really need to spend some time on the security weaknesses exposed by Boston

posted at 2:01 pm on April 22, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

For your latest update on the immigration-bill kerfuffle, Sen. Rand Paul threw his two cents into the debate over the pace at which the Senate’s consideration of the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill should proceed in a letter to the Senate leaders on Monday, urging that they pump the brakes on the process and take the adequate time to address the related security failures that “enabled two individuals to immigrate to the United States from an area known for being hotbed of Islamic extremism”:

Dear Majority Leader Reid…

I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.

We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?

There should be hearings in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that study the national security aspects of this situation, making sure that our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny. …

I respectfully request that the Senate consider the following two conditions as part of the comprehensive immigration reform debate: One, the Senate needs a thorough examination of the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. Two, national security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror.

That was one of the testy issues du jour in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the same today, in which Sen. Grassley took a bit of umbrage at Sen. Schumer’s suggestion that anyone is trying to take advantage of the Boston bombing merely as an “excuse” to deliberately hold up the bill, rather than an honest endeavor to find and fix major problems:

When the bill’s principal sponsor, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., at Monday’s Judiciary Committee hearing accused persons whom he did not identify of trying to use the bombing as “an excuse” to delay or stop the consideration of the bill, ranking Republican member Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa angrily interrupted him by snapping, “I never said that! I never said that!” …

He added, “I think we’re taking advantage of an opportunity – when once in 25 years we deal with immigration – to make sure that every base is covered.”

Grassley had said on Friday that the Boston bombing should prompt Congress to “understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system” and to examine “the weaknesses of our system.”

Schumer said Monday – as he did at Friday’s Judiciary Committee hearing – that “if there are things that come up as a result of what happened in Boston that require improvement” in his bill, “let’s add them to the bill.”

In his opening statements in the hearing, Dem Sen. Leahy insisted that the current bill will definitely improve national security and chided the naysayers: “Late last week opponents of comprehensive immigration reform began to exploit the Boston Marathon bombing. I urge restraint in that regard. … The bill before us would serve to strengthen our national security by allowing us to focus our border security and enforcement efforts against those who would do us harm.” To which Sen. Rubio, one of the bill’s authors, replied:


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

Yes Mr Paul we do…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:02 PM

He and Rubio can go to Hades.

They snookered the TEA party into believing they were them.

They are traitors.

Schadenfreude on April 22, 2013 at 2:02 PM

The Liar can go to Hell.

Schadenfreude on April 22, 2013 at 2:02 PM

…take the adequate time to address the related security failures that “enabled two individuals to immigrate to the United States from an area known for being hotbed of Islamic extremism”:

They sought Asylum… hmmmmmm…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

If we let them become citizens they won’t be terrorists, they’ll just be misunderstood Islamic bomb makers.

myiq2xu on April 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

If Paul of all people is taking this position, it could be a signal that the GOP will stand and fight on immigration, which would be a welcome sight.

LukeinNE on April 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Events have a mind of their own.

Timing is horrific for Obama and the gang of ocho…and their minions. May you all go to Hell, Faux too. They are the arm of immigration. Like Faux made Romney, may immigration go the same way.

The Rs are soooo dumb. They destroy the land more than the idiotid Ds. They enable the Ds.

Schadenfreude on April 22, 2013 at 2:04 PM

The rat-eared coward and his cronies can’t have it both ways.

If the bastard isn’t an enemy combatant then we need to spend time finding out just how it is that somebody can immigrate to this country and go undetected before they decide to blow up an eight-year-old.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I don’t trust our government. Not a new development but an extremely important one.

DanMan on April 22, 2013 at 2:04 PM

If Paul of all people is taking this position, it could be a signal that the GOP will stand and fight on immigration, which would be a welcome sight.

LukeinNE on April 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Don’t be fooled. He was one of the first to call for amnesty.

Schadenfreude on April 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM

We really need to concentrate and on security weaknesses exposed by Boston to eradicate them. Period.

Trouble is, for some, such as Barry’s admin, et al, our security weaknesses is their strength.

hawkeye54 on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

…at Sen. Schumer’s suggestion that anyone is trying to take advantage of the Boston bombing merely as an “excuse” to deliberately hold up the bill, rather than an honest endeavor to find and fix major problems:

What problems? We’ve been negotiating for months, months I tell you! The rest of you peons will have to find out what’s in it after we pass it.

Fenris on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

ANY country on the “HOT List” for any terroristic actions, should NEVER be allowed into this country… EVER!

And I will be more specific and say NO to Muslims and followers of any sect of Islam…Period.

These people are not asylum seekers…

They created the mess they live in, so live in it…

Don’t bring your sordid sick twisted kill or be killed beliefs here, we don’t want it, or you…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

If we let them become citizens they won’t be terrorists, they’ll just be misunderstood Islamic bomb makers.

myiq2xu on April 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Same as with the illegals….. if we give them everything they want then they’ll like us. They’ll really like us.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Rubio lied to Republican voters, but did Paul ever pretend to be something different than a somewhat cautious open borders libertarian?

Valkyriepundit on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I prefer the Rubio solution – convene a committee to look into it and get back to us in 5 years.

/sarc

gwelf on April 22, 2013 at 2:10 PM

The goal of the Leftists is to, as Obama said, “fundamentally transform America”. And they pan to do it by fundamentally transforming the country’s demographics thus finishing off a process started by Ted Kennedy in the 60′s.

The Left can’t get their socialist agenda passed as long as conservative whites remain a relative majority so their goal is to outnumber us.

Where are all the Democrat advocates for the poor and for living wages to challenge the increase of low skilled immigrants to over one million a year in this bill? Where is the CBC? Blacks are being harmed far more than whites from uncontrolled mass immigration. But the CBC shares the Leftist goal of eliminating the white majority so the suffering of the black community is just a necessary casualty of war.

We must demand security first and without compromise. We must also stop listening to everyone except We the People on this issue. It’s our country and we are the ones who get to decide who can and cannot enter. Not Big Business. Not Big Labor. Not the Hispanic lobby. Not immigration lawyers. And not anyone whose function in life is ‘social justice’

Charlemagne on April 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Schadenfreude on April 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Thank you for bringing this to my attention… :-)

He said: “Republicans need to become parents of a new future with Latino voters or we will need to resign ourselves to permanent minority status,” he said. “In our zeal for border control, we have sometimes obscured our respect and admiration for immigrants and their contribution to America.”

Man oh Man, it isn’t JUST about fracking Latinos!

So another one bites the dust…

We are screwed…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

It is a step (small) in the right direction but more importantly is what else did they miss. It is fine and dandy to find the reason the Hat Brothers got in but fixing that won’t answer how many more Hat Brothers are there. That is where this has to be addressed first or fixing what went wrong will be meaningless theater.

Limerick on April 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Schad, from your link:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul is calling for conservatives to embrace the cause of immigration reform, outlining a proposal that would grant some form of legal status to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants after the federal government has certified that the border is secure.

Paul’s proposal, outlined in a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Tuesday, carefully avoided the term citizenship. Instead, the Kentucky senator said he sought a middle ground that would include a multi-year process of granting visas to undocumented workers that would hinge on the annual verification of the security of the U.S.-Mexico border.

That doesn’t sound like “selling out” but more of a careful fence sitting, which is what any smart politician is going to have to do unless they want to go all in.

What he says is meaningless because he must know that there is no way that the feds would go for a “certification process” for border security.

So it’s all just talk. It sounds good, sounds like he thought of it, straddles what everyone wants and is essentially meaningless.

He’s not a sell out for this, but has probably learned the lessons of his father about going too far out on any limb. The only problem is to figure out what he really believes.

We are never going to get that out of any politician, though. Or any politician that wants to get elected.

kim roy on April 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Rubio lied to Republican voters, but did Paul ever pretend to be something different than a somewhat cautious open borders libertarian?

Valkyriepundit on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I don’t think Paul’s ever been a big border hawk, no. The Ron Paul libertarian position on border control is that we must be suspicious of attempts to control immigration or borders as such controls will be used to “keep us in.” http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/26/krauthammer-challenges-ron-paul-on-border-fence-is-the-united-states-a-prison/

The implication is that the USA is a prison.

To be honest, I almost want to just call them anarchists at times. Ability to control one’s territory and provide basic security is a defining quality of a state.

Doomberg on April 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

What drives me nuts about all the worry about Hispanics is that the GOP is just prepared to make their problems worse by legalizing people who won’t vote for them. When you can’t win the Hispanic vote, 7% of the voting public in 2012, why invite in even more and lose an even larger number of the Hispanic vote. Stockholm syndrome.

Charlemagne on April 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Ability to control one’s territory and provide basic security is a defining quality of a state.
Doomberg on April 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM

That it is…everything else is just smoke and mirrors…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:17 PM

If the Obama administration could not properly vet one legal immigrant with a history of assault who the Russians warned them was an Islamic extremist. What makes anyone believe they will properly vet 11 mil illegals? Since no terrorist is going to come “out of the shadows” to submit to a background check. The phoney immigration “reform” bill needs to be withdrawn and a new bill that focuses on enforcement and closing the loopholes that allowed an Islamic terrorist that the FBI was warned about to remain in the country to kill need to be addressed first. Illegals can wait however long it takes.

Hera on April 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Chuck Grassley is a crotchety old man.. I like it. :)

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Marco Rubio @marcorubio

#BostonBombing not excuse 4 inaction on #immigrationreform.But disagree with Sen.Leahy,if it exposed flaws in system we need to know & fix.

Intensive review, deliberation and public debate is not inaction. We’ve had 25 years of inaction on the failures of government enforcement of our laws, and another six months to a year for considering an 850 page bill that was crafted behind closed door and without public scrutiny won’t hurt a good bill.

Dusty on April 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

You know, I could randomly choose 8 critters from the Minnesota Zoo primate pavilion and get a better result than the clowns on the “Gang”.

Jeebus, really, is this what the Founders fought and sacrificed for, so that a bunch of insipid blowhards could lord it over the rest of us?

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Immigration should be addressed via multiple bills and no damn “grand bargain”. That’s just a tool to fool the public.

There are enough moving parts to support individual bills for:

Internal and border security
Guest worker program
Visa system overhaul
Ensuring the immigration bureaucracy can handle their jobs
And then we can worry about those already here.

Charlemagne on April 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Charlemagne on April 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM

We know it, how come they (R’s) don’t?

They are playing games with our nation and think us idiots…

The actions they choose to follow confound me…

We have Prog/dems and dem lite/R’s… with a smattering of Conservatives and Libertarians…

Yet none of them pay us any mind!

Corruption is rife in DC…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM

I think we’re taking advantage of an opportunity – when once in 25 years we deal with immigration – to make sure that every base is covered.

I was promised in the 1980′s if we approved THAT amnesty bill we’d “never have to do this again” because we had lots of border security provisions in that bill and it would truly fix th4e problem.

Now we have to do it one more time, but this bill has lots of border security provisions and will totally fix the problem… again… the same way that failed last time.

gekkobear on April 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Jeebus, really, is this what the Founders fought and sacrificed for, so that a bunch of insipid blowhards could lord it over the rest of us?
Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

In a word….. YES /sarc

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Man oh Man, it isn’t JUST about fracking Latinos!

So another one bites the dust…

We are screwed…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

It is about Latinos since they’re a large chunk of the electorate now. Get used to every GOP contender running in 2016 making statements like that — especially after Romney’s “self-deportation” statement didn’t fly over to well.

The questions you should ask are as follows:

1.) Who benefits most from mass Hispanic immigration? Does Rand Paul or does Rubio and his associates? Note some of those associates of Rubio’s are Bush Dynasty simpletons looking to use identity politics to hand George P. Bush the throne in the near future. They also have consulting firms that increase in power (and $$$) with an increase in the community they represent.

2.) Who is working on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and who is merely on the sidelines.

3.) Who talks the talk and walks a very different walk.

Punchenko on April 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Paul can keep his two cents

KBird on April 22, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Schadenfreude on April 22, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I’m upset with Rubio, but RP hasn’t yet screwed up. You seem to be angry with anyone who says the words “immigration reform”. Some “immigration reform” is good for conservatives; i.e., the parts that don’t grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. there’s more broken in our immigration process than that. You can’t knee-jerk and say anyone who is for “immigration reform” is automatically bad, that’s how our side is being made to look bad and intransigent. Use their own lingo against them.

alwaysfiredup on April 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Jeebus, really, is this what the Founders fought and sacrificed for, so that a bunch of insipid blowhards could lord it over the rest of us?

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

A Republic, if you can keep it.

Don’t know as we can keep it.

Doomberg on April 22, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

You think they understand the difference? Or even care?

antisocial on April 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM

alwaysfiredup on April 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I believe Paul is for open borders, but he’s not aggressive on the issue in the same way the amnesty shill/McCain crowd is. I won’t lie, though, I’m disappointed with his stance.

Doomberg on April 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM

alwaysfiredup on April 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Schadenfreude gives one pause for thought…

I am all over the ‘net looking for this news and that news, I am glad he posts what he does…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM

You can’t be pro-national security, which Rand is, and open borders at the same time. They are diametrically opposed.

I would say they should also take far more input from actual border agents, but that would assume I’m not for scrapping all “comprehensive” reform altogether.

John the Libertarian on April 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I believe Paul is for open borders, but he’s not aggressive on the issue in the same way the amnesty shill/McCain crowd is. I won’t lie, though, I’m disappointed with his stance.

Doomberg on April 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I think the best bet for a policy that both libertarians and conservatives can live with is enforcement + delayed legal residency, not enforcement + delayed citizenship. If Rand is smart that is the way he will go.

alwaysfiredup on April 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM

antisocial on April 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Being honest, I haven’t looked at Asylum rules and regs…in the process tho…

I shall be better informed…

If the FBI et al had done their job, how could two muslims from Chechnya be granted asylum?

How could any muslim for that matter?

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Paul engaged in a filibuster about drone strikes on Americans on American soil, demanding an answer to a hypothetical question about what we would do with a terrorist if we found one.

As they say, actions speak louder than words. We’ve already seen what our police response would be. Now we’ll see how our judicial response will be.

Stoic Patriot on April 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM

http://trap.it/#!traps/id/8350640a-f8ed-4c66-a005-f633e0816eec/articles/6FplzRJUr002q6IUb6R6

To John the Libertarian on April 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Not gonna happen…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

We really need to spend some time on the security weaknesses exposed by Boston

Yeah, but, wouldn’t that slow down the implementation of Rubio’s INSTANT AMNESTY plan?

Pork-Chop on April 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM

bc Chechnya was at war with our enemy Russia for 20+ years. We tend to grant a lot of political asylum to residents from countries opposing our enemies, it’s standard stuff. It was thought Chechens didn’t hate the US, they hated Russia. That seems to be changing, in that political Islam is taking precedence over local politics in Chechnya. That’s probably important to know.

alwaysfiredup on April 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM

A Republic, if you can keep it.

Don’t know as we can keep it.

Doomberg on April 22, 2013 at 2:27 PM

A republic if they don’t give it away which is what they are doing while we’re told to sit down and shut up.

Self correction is coming and none of the aholes in D.C. is lifting a finger to stop it.

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Rubio lied to Republican voters, but did Paul ever pretend to be something different than a somewhat cautious open borders libertarian?

Valkyriepundit on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Not from what I can tell. The libertarian position is (big surprise) not in line with the position of most conservatives, but Rand is getting reamed for not wanting to Akinize himself on border control.

MelonCollie on April 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

A Glimpse:

Origins of Asylum and Refugee Law

The origins of this complex system of international protection stretch back nearly 60 years. In the late 1940s, soon after the end of World War II, the newly-created United Nations approved a convention spelling out specific rights and protections that nations should offer to refugees and asylum seekers. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created to oversee the process.

About the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

The UNHCR, based in Geneva, has a worldwide staff of 6,000. In 2004 it had a program budget of nearly $1.1 billion. It has projected a slightly larger budget for 2006. Monies to run the organization come largely from annual voluntary pledges from nations and private donors with less than 3% of its budget coming from the United Nations. The U.S. is by far the largest donor contributing over $300 million per year. No other country contributes over $100 million. The High Commissioner for Refugees is appointed by the United Nations for five year terms. The current High Commissioner, Antonio Guterres who has served since June 2005, is the former prime minister of Portugal.

Legal Requirements for Asylum

Many Americans believe that the process of being granted asylum is easily abused by persons who seek this status in order to come to and stay in the United States, whether to work, to commit crimes or to endanger national security. In fact, asylum applications are subject to stringent review procedures by adjudicators in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice and to rigorous background and security checks. And in the end, most applications are denied. For example, the Department of Justice has denied over 80% of what are called “defensive asylum applications” in each of the past two years. (see TRAC’s report on the Asylum Process)

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/161/

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

alwaysfiredup on April 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Yes it is…

As global changes occur, isn’t it up to our Security to damn well keep up with it?

That’s our problem, our govt picks and chooses who it will support and not, look what is happening with Syria?

More stupidity at the hands of our oh so ‘smarter than us’ govt.

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Latest tweet from Sen. Ted Cruz…dated yesterday

Ted Cruz ‏@tedcruz 18h

Great day to be a Texan as we celebrate San Jacinto Day! I’m honored to stand w/ you today as we defend the liberty won 177 years ago.

workingclass artist on April 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM

The Boston Marathon bombing should have given Rubio a perfect way OUT of this immigration mess…instead he digs in? Naive, stupid or both. Could Jeff Sessions take him under his wing please?

monalisa on April 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Rywall will call him a racist.

acyl72 on April 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Rubio lied to Republican voters, but did Paul ever pretend to be something different than a somewhat cautious open borders libertarian?

Valkyriepundit on April 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Not from what I can tell. The libertarian position is (big surprise) not in line with the position of most conservatives, but Rand is getting reamed for not wanting to Akinize himself on border control.

MelonCollie on April 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Personally, I have no idea what he stands for on this issue. I do, however, understand his extreme cautiousness in moving away from the fence post.

He has said nothing useful and only words that will make people feel good on each side. The problem is that in the end no one will be happy.

IMHO, it’s better than going full Rubio on something that’s going to be a mess. This was not a good hill with good battle-mates for Rubio.

I’ll hold off on getting my pitchfork and torch ready to go for now on Paul.

kim roy on April 22, 2013 at 2:55 PM

“[UPDATE: 12:53 EDT] Sen. Cruz: Abandon ‘Pathway to Citizenship’

Breitbart News’ Matt Boyle files another dispatch from inside the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration reform. In his opening remarks, TX Sen. Ted Cruz urges his colleagues to set aside the issue of a “pathway to citizenship” until they address border security and legal immigration reform…

““I think all of us would like to see a bill that fixes the broken immigration system,” Cruz added. “I would suggest, in my view, the strategy to pass a bill is to focus where there is wide bipartisan support. That’s how we likely get a bill passed.”

Cruz pointed to border security and fixes to the legal immigration system as points at which members can all agree on. He did not specifically mention the Boston terror attack bombings but hinted at them in his remarks.

“We’ve got to get serious about securing the border,” Cruz said “We need to increase manpower, we need to increase technology, we need to fix the problem. In a post-9/11 world, I think it doesn’t make sense right now that we don’t have a criminal history or background of those coming in. We should fix that, including the problems with visa overstays.”

“I think there is likewise wide bipartisan agreement that we need to improve legal immigration,” Cruz added. “We need to streamline, we need to reduce the bureaucracy, reduce the red tape, reduce the waiting period. One of the reasons we see illegal immigration at the levels we do is because our legal immigration system is not working. I think we should all be champions of legal immigrants and not just welcoming, but celebrating legal immigrants. I think if we are going to see an immigration reform bill pass, that should be the focus of the bill.”…

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/22/Leahy-bashes-those-who-exploit-Boston-terror-attacks-in-immigration-fight

workingclass artist on April 22, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Ted Cruz will not back down.

He is not alone.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Funny how that none of these western european socialist democracies that are so admired by the american left ignore the fact that none of them are bordered by quasi-third world countries and none of them have immigration policies as generous as the ones we already have in place.

If we were to send our illegals over to Sweden and lecture them about multiculturalism, they’d give you the finger and tell them to get lost. And, if we could force them to stay, their socialist societies would collapse.

crrr6 on April 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM

The Immigration Bill will enhance National Security much like Obamacare has enhanced our Health Care System

ashiya on April 22, 2013 at 3:14 PM

“During a March 28, 2010 Fox News debate against then-Gov. Charlie Crist, Rubio said: “He would have voted for the McCain plan. I think that plan is wrong, and the reason I think it’s wrong is that if you grant amnesty, as the governor proposes that we do, in any form, whether it’s back of the line or so forth, you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.”

In a CNN debate on Oct 24, 2010, moderator Candy Crowley asked, “So your plan is that you’re going to close the borders, get the electronic system, fix the legal system, and then do what?” Rubio responded: “And then you’ll have a legal immigration system that works. And you’ll have people in this country that are without documents that will be able to return to the — will be able to leave this country, return to their homeland, and try to re-enter through our system that now functions, a system that makes sense…Earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty….

Sure Rubio changed his mind (or lied depending on how charitable you are feeling) but you can totally trust him when he says it’s not amnesty now and the border security provisions in his bill are strong . Sure you can. – Drew M. AOSHQ

http://minx.cc/?post=339342

workingclass artist on April 22, 2013 at 3:17 PM

If we were to send our illegals over to Sweden and lecture them about multiculturalism, they’d give you the finger and tell them to get lost. And, if we could force them to stay, their socialist societies would collapse.

crrr6 on April 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM

About the only reason (besides the USA babysitting them militarily) that the Euroweenies’ pet socialist projects haven’t fallen to pieces before now is that they’ve been white-bread monocultures.

If any of them had had to deal with a grab bag of criminals, unskilled laborers and welfare leeches crossing the border on a daily basis, none of them would have lasted anywhere NEAR this long.

MelonCollie on April 22, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Cornyn said Monday that the pending legislation would actually undermine border security.

“As I read it, the border security provisions in this bill would necessarily mean that the border patrol will shift resources away, in a preannounced fashion, from most of the border sectors in order to reach the goals for only a few,” he said Monday during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill. “We can only imagine what the transnational criminal organizations that move drugs, people and contraband across our border will do in response.”

Cornyn is the senior Republican on the immigration, refugees and border security subcommittee, which is chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Gang of Eight.

Resurgent Republic, a Republican research firm, has found support among conservatives for immigration reform will depend on the issue of border security.

Its study of focus groups in Iowa and South Carolina reported that conservatives say stronger border enforcement is absolutely necessary before granting a path to legal residency or citizenship to illegal immigrants.

Cornyn on Monday also criticized the bill for failing to address “critical needs” at land-based points of entry.

He said the legislation does not do enough to improve the system for tracking visas exiting the country. At least 40 percent of the illegal immigrants living in the United States have stayed longer than allowed by their visas…

“This is perhaps one of the most concerning areas of the bill, because since 1996, there has been a requirement mandated by Congress for an entry-exit system. Unfortunately, while the entry system works well, the exit system is non-functional,” Cornyn said.

“I want to learn more about the rationale of why the Department of Homeland Security has been unable to comply with this long-standing mandate of the Congress, and why the Department continues to drag its feet in implementing the law already on the books, which requires a biometric exit.

If we want to get serious about preventing another wave of visa overstays, we have to get this exit system right,” he added.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/295319-cornyn-gang-of-eight-immigration-bill-undermines-border-security#ixzz2RDoHSfuq
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

workingclass artist on April 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM

I would say they should also take far more input from actual border agents, but that would assume I’m not for scrapping all “comprehensive” reform altogether.

John the Libertarian on April 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM

More input than the ZERO input they were allowed to give by the “gang of eight” — that same “gang” that pretends they care deeply about border security, but not enough to actually allow U.S. Border Patrol to have any say in the crafting of their giant amnesty/faux border security bill?

AZCoyote on April 22, 2013 at 3:32 PM

workingclass artis,

Cornyn got the message loud and clear from us here in Texas with the Ted Cruz vote stomp of David Dewhurst.

He knows he is next if he steps out of line one inch.

He has used up all his hall passes.

It is do what we demand or out he goes and he knows it.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 22, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Read this for some insight on how deeply concerned the “gang of eight” truly is with immigration security:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/18/Sheriffs-immigration-agents-Senators-did-not-consult-law-enforcement-community-before-writing-amnesty-bill

AZCoyote on April 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Man oh Man, it isn’t JUST about fracking Latinos!

So another one bites the dust…

We are screwed…

Scrumpy on April 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

80% of illegal aliens are Mexicans, -my estimate. If anyone has better data I’d like to see it.

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

The “exposed flaw” is that our FBI and CIA have been brainwashed to whitewash Islamic terrorism.

If they won’t change, keep all foreigners out.

PattyJ on April 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Good for Rand. The man knows how to make an argument. Definitely beats the soap opera drama we usually get from congress. Go Rand.

Charm on April 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM

To paraphrase our beloved (not) Ward Churchill, because of stupid immigration policies, the Boston Marathon bombing seems to have been an example of “our Chechens coming home to roost.”

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on April 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Rubio has already “Jumped the Shark” and Paul is teetering on the edge by being on the wrong side of this issue! First and foremost…Seal the borders!!

Marco on April 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Legalizing tens of millions of new government-dependent, Democrat voters is a key part of the progressive takeover agenda. Just like socialized medicine, they will not stop until they get it, even if it takes decades. If only our side had that kind of tenacity.

stefanite on April 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

A Republic, if you can keep it.

Don’t know as we can keep it.

Doomberg on April 22, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Way to “stoke nativist sentiments” quoting the founding fathers and all.

Lily on April 22, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Rubio has already “Jumped the Shark” and Paul is teetering on the edge by being on the wrong side of this issue! First and foremost…Seal the borders!!

Marco on April 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

This bill does more to close those borders than anything its detractors have come up with.

I will tell you who has jumped the shark…all the people who are fighting so hard to maintain the present system…they can complain about these people becoming legal someday or getting welfare or whatever, but a lot of these people are already getting welfare, under this legislation they can not do that..they can not even get help to get Obamacare. And the way things are now their kids will be citizens someday anyway without paying a fine or back taxes or undergoing back ground checks or anything else.

Years ago hardliners stopped any kind of reform and the only thing that accomplished was to alienate an entire demographic. It did not make the country any safer. It did not save money resources either.

But then again, people who want to stop any sort of reform are mostly just reacting out of emotion and it is impossible to have a discussion with them. After all if hardliners want to assume that everyone else is either a liar or a fool or is deliberately deceiving them there is really no logical or practical way to respond.

Terrye on April 22, 2013 at 5:51 PM

This bill does more to close those borders than anything its detractors have come up with.

Terrye on April 22, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Bull$hit.

It does no such thing.

AZCoyote on April 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Heck Paul doesn’t even like E-Verify

KBird on April 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Here’s an article explaining what a complete sham the “tough border enforcement” provisions are.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-immigration-the-gang-of-eight-security-promise-that-wasnt/article/2527719

Read it and learn something, Terrye.

AZCoyote on April 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Let’s try something radical and apparently revolutionary:


ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

profitsbeard on April 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

This bill does more to close those borders than anything its detractors have come up with.

Terrye on April 22, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Why do you believe they will enforce a NEW bill when they do not enforce the EXISTING ones?

What political pixie dust makes you trust them now?

BTW- Are you wearing a KICK ME sign on your back?

profitsbeard on April 22, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Conservatives better be ready to do more than vent on boards like this.If we don’t shut down the Congressional switchboard with our calls,protest at local Congressional townhalls and withold cash contributions amnesty will be shoved down our throats by Dems,with help from the GOP.

redware on April 22, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Paul makes sense here. But does he mean it? Yes, he really wants to de-rail Rubio.

Let’s give the gang-of-eight their “path-to-retirement” they so badly need.

virgo on April 23, 2013 at 3:18 AM