Rand Paul: I won’t allow you to smear me by claiming that I’m for amnesty

posted at 6:01 pm on June 12, 2014 by Allahpundit

Breitbart dropped the A-bomb on him this morning, headlining a post about Paul’s tete-a-tete with Grover Norquist yesterday on immigration, “Rand Paul: Let’s Compromise On Amnesty.” Naturally Paul started getting hammered for it online, drawing this retort:

His staff, sensing peril in letting that accusation go unchallenged, slapped together an op-ed stating his position and handed it over to Breitbart. (Which, let’s just acknowledge, was a Jedi-caliber bit of content generation by the BB guys.) Is it true or false that Rand’s for amnesty? Here’s what he says:

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.

My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law…

Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.

I do not support amnesty, which is why I don’t support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.

Three things. One: Unless I’m missing something, his position on immigration hasn’t changed. He’s always supported reform of some kind; what he didn’t support was the Gang of Eight bill, ostensibly because he didn’t like the “special” path to citizenship it created but in reality because he knew that Rubio was going to get nuked for it on the right and decided he’d better stay far away. He’s never going to back away from reform entirely, though, and neither will any other 2016 hopeful. They’re too afraid of being buried under the Latino vote in the general election (even though they will be anyway). Realistically, Paul’s position here — no special path to citizenship and no legalization until the border is verifiably secure — is as far right as any Republican candidate will go in the primaries.

Two: How do you define “amnesty”? As letting illegals apply for citizenship? Letting them apply for legalization? When I use the term, I’m thinking of any bill that would permit legalization before the border has been measurably improved. Paul’s worried about the same thing, which is why he says no fewer than three times in this short op-ed that he’d require a vote of Congress affirming those improvements before any legalization could take place. If you’re holding out for something more stringent than that — no legalization under any circumstances, attrition through enforcement for the indefinite future — that’s great but you’re kidding yourself. Remember, even Ted Cruz, while opposing a path to citizenship, supported the legalization component in the Gang of Eight bill. Congressional Republicans will never again take a “no legalization, period” position after Obama’s landslide among Latinos in 2012. It is what it is. Rand’s plan is as conservative a bill as any prospective nominee will feel safe in supporting.

Three: Rand’s plan doesn’t have the tiniest chance of becoming law and he knows it. He’s putting this out there not as a serious proposal but to pander to conservatives who are skeptical of him. Apart from a few dozen righties in the House, there’s no constituency in Congress that wants to suspend legalization for illegals until the border is secure. Democrats don’t want to because they want the border open for future Democratic voters; Republicans don’t want to because they want the border open for cheap labor for the donor class and the Chamber of Commerce. The only reason border security is part of comprehensive reform in the first place is because it gives Republicans a way to sell the bill to the right. And even if Rand’s bill somehow ended up passing, the GOP would end up caving and gutting it within a few years. Imagine if they passed his plan and Congress was asked to vote in 2016 on whether new improvements to security have made the border sufficiently strong that we can now begin legalizing illegals who are here. How would that vote go in a presidential election year, with the GOP quavering at what might happen among Latino voters if they vote no?

I’m not knocking Paul for this, to be clear. His proposal, while laughably DOA, is a smart way to try to appease conservatives, libertarians, and Latinos simultaneously, emphasizing security while seeming to stand up to the right in insisting on reform that involves legalization. Is it too much to ask, though, that Republicans like him emphasize now and then that the only reason America’s stuck at this endless impasse on comprehensive reform is because Democrats won’t accept border security on its own terms? A Republican Congress, squishy as it would be, would pass a security-only bill overwhelmingly knowing how their base would react if they didn’t. It’s Democrats who can’t stand the idea of improving the border for its own sake, but rather as a regrettable concession to be made in an amnesty deal. Might want to mention that from time to time, senator, to remind voters who the “unreasonable” party in Congress really is.


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

Which, let’s just acknowledge, was a Jedi-caliber bit of content generation by the BB guys.

Hmmmmm…Hope you’re not planning on moving to Breitbart or anything AP. I’d read you there, sure, but their comment system sucks.

sauldalinsky on June 12, 2014 at 6:06 PM

If he wasn’t a lying squish, his Tweet would have simply said…

No amnesty, not now, not ever.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:08 PM

My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law…

And what good will that do with Obama as President? The moment any immigration bill is passed, it’s game over. Obama will “modify” it as he sees fit and you can bet that instant legalization will be one of the first changes made. And who in the GOP will bother to stop him, especially considering how many in Congress want legal status granted?

Here’s what I don’t understand? Why not just pass a border security bill first? Nothing else. Force the Dems to put their money where their mouths are. Have the law state that the border must be secured(really secured, as Rand says, not merely deemed so by a corrupt President) and then once that’s done, we can talk about the next step regarding the illegals who are already here.

Doughboy on June 12, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Attacking BB as ‘sloppy journalists’???

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:09 PM

He is setting the stage for his 2016 Presidential run.

Johnnyreb on June 12, 2014 at 6:09 PM

If he wants to legalize illegals, then he’s for amnesty, and if I recall, he’s on record as being on the “we can’t deport them all” bandwagon. He can whine all he wants to, but based on what he’s said previously, he does support amnesty.

He also knows damned well that any promise to “secure the border” before “reform” takes place, so he’s just pandering and pandering and pandering.

He’s lost me, based on this. I was willing to overlook some minor disagreements that I had with him, but there is no way I can support him now. Amnesty is THE crucial issue to my border state of AZ.

JannyMae on June 12, 2014 at 6:09 PM

His proposal, while laughably DOA, is a smart way to try to appease conservatives, libertarians, and Latinos simultaneously, emphasizing security while seeming to stand up to the right in insisting on reform that involves legalization.

But how is pandering to everybody and pleasing nobody smart? Isn’t that exactly why his proposal is DOA within his own party– never mind Democrats? And usually, if you’re going to do this, don’t you say one thing to one crowd, and something else to another crowd, as separate crowds– and not simultaneously? Smart?

de rigueur on June 12, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Correction: He also knows damned well that any promise to “secure the border” will never happen…. ^^^^

JannyMae on June 12, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Rand is a typical “Independent”…
He stands for nothing and changes his “core” beliefs daily to suit the moment. I won’t get off the couch to vote for him no matter what the circumstances are.

trs on June 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Enforce the existing immigration laws. That will solve the problems. Why pass new ones that will be ignored?

JannyMae on June 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Given that SENATOR Paul is allegedly IN the Senate, he should know better than anyone that ANY “reform” bill passed out of the house, even if that bill had nothing but border security measures in it, would have AMNESTY added to it in conference and VIOLA – we’ve got AMNESTY.

Someone needs to ask Senator Paul what he’s doing about the backdoor AMNESTY that Talibam is already doing via DHS and Border Patrol.

He says he’s against it, swell. What’s he doing to STOP it?

Meople on June 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Rand Paul: I won’t allow you to smear me by claiming that I’m for amnesty disappointment.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 12, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Three: Rand’s plan doesn’t have the tiniest chance of becoming law and he knows it. He’s putting this out there not as a serious proposal but to pander to conservatives who are skeptical of him.

Today Flake and McCain were asking Obama to clarify that these new kids aren’t eligible for the amnesty they voted for in the Gang of Eight Bill. And here Allah is letting us know that even a promise to enforce immigration laws is pandering now.

Kevin McCarthy!!!11!!

DanMan on June 12, 2014 at 6:14 PM

even though they will be anyway

I always admire boxers who know they don’t have the skill to out-box their opponent and spend the whole fight throwing haymakers in hopes of winning by knockout.

A man has got to know his limitations.

TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2014 at 6:15 PM

You lie with dogs (Norquist) and you get fleas, Senator!

Rubio tried the Potomac two step and what makes you think you are a better dancer than Fred Astaire!

Sit your two-faced self down and shut up!

islandman78 on June 12, 2014 at 6:15 PM

He is setting the stage for his FAILED 2016 Presidential run.

Johnnyreb on June 12, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Sorry, I think that’s a little more accurate.

Meople on June 12, 2014 at 6:15 PM

I don’t have all day and and day after day to try to interpret what Rand Paul means by his definition of “immigration reform.” What’s “untenable” is the hundreds of thousands of youths and adult aliens if not millions to soon be flooding our country. And look, in a headline thread, Cheese Wheel got right to the point:

They don’t learn. Secure the border, E Verify everything and watch the illegals flee.

Cheese Wheel on June 12, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Secure the border, and implement effective e-verify, and what Paul calls “untenable” becomes tenable. And we won’t need to all of sudeen “deport 11 million ‘undocumented individuals.’”

P.S: No blue state amnesty shill Kevin McCarthy as Majority Leader.

Please, the guy is worse than Cantor. And we have to primary and hold Republicans representatives to account if they vote for an amnesty shill as leader, that’s almost as bad as a vote directly for amnesty!

anotherJoe on June 12, 2014 at 6:16 PM

My mom use to say that when you try to please everybody, you usually please nobody. Rand Paul is a perfect example of that. He lost me some time ago with his pandering to whatever group he’s in front of as well as his sucking-up to the establishment GOP as a way of collecting IOU’s.

KickandSwimMom on June 12, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Tip: avoid arguments about what is and what isn’t “amnesty”. Rand Paul, McCain, etc. would love to make the argument just about that, wasting time that would be better spent.

Instead, point out that Rand Paul supports mass legalization, and then show how that wouldn’t work and would harm the U.S.

To do something about this, search Twitter for Rand Paul supporters and then discuss with them the downsides of the mass legalization Paul supports. Make the point to them that Paul is holding border security hostage to his mass legalization plan. If he really thinks border and national security are important, why hasn’t he been pushing for them independently of mass legalization? They must not be that important to him.

24AheadDotCom on June 12, 2014 at 6:19 PM

AMNESTY: Any plan that rewards anyone who came here illegally by giving them legal residency, no matter what “conditions” are attached.

novaculus on June 12, 2014 at 6:19 PM

I mostly agree with his position. But I still call his position amnesty because it does not call for an immediate, absolute, and verifiably secure border before even a discussion of anything else.

That is the only position that patriots can take, because we have a lawless piece of sh!t in the White House and lawless pieces of sh1t littered throughout his administration, the State Department, state and city governments all throughout the nation.

Absolute immigration control must be the first step.

Jaibones on June 12, 2014 at 6:20 PM

I had such hope when the young bucks, aka (whacko birds) showed up on the scene. This meager attempt on my part reveals my take on the timeline and events that have since unfolded..

Bmore on June 12, 2014 at 6:21 PM

They all talk about securing the border and they will say it louder but it’s all lies. We have children coming here in large number. Even Obama continues to lie about the security of the border.

Cindy Munford on June 12, 2014 at 6:21 PM

I’ll settle for 95% of the border being secured and deporting 400,000 per year. In 10 years we will be in much better shape because the spigot will be down to a trickle and the illegal population thinned by deportation and voluntary repatriation. After 20 years the problem would be minimal, maybe 1-2 million illegals left which is acceptable in my book.

Wigglesworth on June 12, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Feel the Cantor burn!

Cheese Wheel on June 12, 2014 at 6:21 PM

I hate to bring this up, but securing he border won’t do anything.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

It’s “untenable” to have 11 million illegals living in the country? What would be much much more untenable, if we continue to promise and / or give amnesty, would be 40 million more illegals undocumented individuals flooding across our border from Mexico / Central / South America for that amnesty and also the promises of welfare and medical care and God knows perhaps guaranteed income for any illegal undocumented individual that wants to waltz across the non-border for a promise of free milk and honey, and the next thing you know it’s 50 million or maybe even more. That’s a lot more untenable. No amnesty!

anotherJoe on June 12, 2014 at 6:25 PM

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Until we start sending people home, I agree. Same with the IRS scandal. Someone needs to go to jail.

Cindy Munford on June 12, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Here’s what I don’t understand? Why not just pass a border security bill first? Nothing else. Force the Dems to put their money where their mouths are. Have the law state that the border must be secured(really secured, as Rand says, not merely deemed so by a corrupt President) and then once that’s done, we can talk about the next step regarding the illegals who are already here.

Doughboy on June 12, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Half the illegals came here legally and overstayed their visas. Hence any plan which uses “border security” as a trigger (like Rand’s does) is a fraud. Interior enforcement like E-Verify (which Rand opposes) and a visa entry-exit tracking system is essential too.

Jon0815 on June 12, 2014 at 6:25 PM

I hate to bring this up, but securing he border won’t do anything.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Securing the border without interior enforcement and eliminating incentives will just mean that the illegal population will grow at a slower rate.

Wigglesworth on June 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM

I hate to bring this up, but securing he border won’t do anything.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Exactly. The border could be 100% secure and they would just come in as legal “guest workers” (whose numbers Rand wants to increase) and not go home. Rand’s plan is a scam.

Jon0815 on June 12, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Talking out of both sides of your mouth Rand will do as much good as it did Rubio, Cantor,Christi. We are paying attention, you said what you said,you can’t walk it back.

Bakokitty on June 12, 2014 at 6:28 PM

I hate to bring this up, but securing he border won’t do anything.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Exactly. The border could be 100% secure and they would just come in as legal “guest workers” (whose numbers Rand wants to increase) and not go home. Rand’s plan is a scam.

Jon0815 on June 12, 2014 at 6:29 PM

It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law…

Awesome.

-_-

Bishop on June 12, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Half the illegals came here legally and overstayed their visas. Hence any plan which uses “border security” as a trigger (like Rand’s does) is a fraud. Interior enforcement like E-Verify (which Rand opposes) and a visa entry-exit tracking system is essential too.

Jon0815 on June 12, 2014 at 6:25 PM

And I have no problem with that. I’m just saying that a series of bills, each one designed to tackle a specific problem is far more preferable to the comprehensive approach which everyone knows will lead to the same outcome as the 1986 deal. Amnesty for millions and the border still unsecured.

Doughboy on June 12, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Good politics. A good defense is a good offense.

200 comments or bust.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 6:30 PM

I hate to bring this up, but securing he border won’t do anything.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Certainly not when the Admin is acting as Coyotes.

The Obama Admin: Doing the job Mexican Coyotes want to be paid to do…

TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I really don’t get this whole “amnesty” issue. It seems like a fake issue to me.

Isn’t border control self-explanatory? What’s the big pressure on “amnesty”?

My BS detector is going off.

As for Rand, more and more he seems like a weasel.

Cruz seems like the only one that hasn’t let me down yet. Hopefully he won’t in the future.

WhatSlushfund on June 12, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Securing the border without interior enforcement and eliminating incentives will just mean that the illegal population will grow at a slower rate.

Wigglesworth on June 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM

It won’t even mean that if Rand gets his wish and we import more “guest workers,” who will inevitably become a new illegal population.

Jon0815 on June 12, 2014 at 6:32 PM

I’m not knocking Paul for this, to be clear. His proposal, while laughably DOA, is a smart way to try to appease conservatives, libertarians, and Latinos simultaneously, emphasizing security while seeming to stand up to the right in insisting on reform that involves legalization.

What kind of bullshit is this, AllahPundit?

You’re basically arguing that you’re not knocking Rand Paul for LYING and trying to be TOO CLEVER BY HALF.

NUANCE, dontcha know.

That’s bullshit. If Paul–who I have supported in the past–can’t say what he means and mean what he says, he is no f*cking different than Eric Cantor!

In point of fact, WHERE is it proven that Americans must embrace illegals who violate our laws in order to have “a more perfect union?”

WHERE is it proven that we must embrace Hispanic/Latino voters who illegal cross our borders because unless we do so, we will not survive as a country?

In point of fact: THEY ARE ILLEGAL.

If they want to come here, hide in the shadows and live their lives like that, fine; but we don’t need to embrace them, let them vote, give them benefits.

GET REAL. It’s like saying, so many people break the law, we should do away with laws altogether.

INSANITY.

mountainaires on June 12, 2014 at 6:32 PM

My definition of amnesty is anything that results in illegal aliens legally ending up somewhere other than back in either their home country or in prison.

That clear enough for you, Rand?

Shump on June 12, 2014 at 6:32 PM

It’s “untenable” to have 11 million illegals living in the country? What would be much much more untenable, if we continue to promise and / or give amnesty, would be 40 million more illegals undocumented individuals flooding across our border from Mexico / Central / South America for that amnesty and also the promises of welfare and medical care and God knows perhaps guaranteed income for any illegal undocumented individual that wants to waltz across the non-border for a promise of free milk and honey, and the next thing you know it’s 50 million or maybe even more. That’s a lot more untenable. No amnesty!

anotherJoe on June 12, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Yes!
With newspapers announcing freebies in the US, we are going to need to get serious about ridding ourselves of illegal aliens so when we dump them back in their home country, they can tell their village no mas freebies! Then, send a bill stating any aid sent to them will deduct the cost of sending their citizens home.

Cheese Wheel on June 12, 2014 at 6:36 PM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so rand, don’t make statements that would lead a normal thinking person to believe you ARE.

TX-96 on June 12, 2014 at 6:36 PM

All these illegal “kiddies” look 16-19 and old enough to carry one of those weapons agencies like Agriculture and Education are acquiring. Obama’s army…completely stupid and beholden to him.

clnurnberg on June 12, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Rand, we know you are all for amnesty, now we know you are a liar too.

Garyinaz66 on June 12, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Any plan that does not include making them leave by any means necessary, then applying to become citizens the correct way is amnesty.

SouthernGent on June 12, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Here’s what I don’t understand? Why not just pass a border security bill first? Nothing else.

Exactly.

Shay on June 12, 2014 at 6:38 PM

If illegals are not being kicked out the moment they are detected,
IT IS AMNESTY .
Every time.

burrata on June 12, 2014 at 6:39 PM

My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law…

No good. “Yearly votes by congress.” What a joke. Don’t attach any contingent amnesty to any current bill. Stop talking about doing that, because one way or another the security and e-verify won’t be implemented, but the amnesty will, like what happened after the 1986 bill.

Instead, an “immigration reform” bill now needs to solely concentrate on e-verify and border security. After that has been effectively implemented for several years, and after many of the most problematic illegals undocumented individuals have self-deported, only then do we consider talking about amnesty for some.

anotherJoe on June 12, 2014 at 6:39 PM

If someone is against E-Verify, a strict mandatory heavy penalty E-Verify, they are for amnesty/rewards for tens of millions of third world invaders.

VorDaj on June 12, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Sad pander should share a sandwich with Keanu Reeves.

ezspirit on June 12, 2014 at 6:40 PM

amnesty is anything that does not require illegals leave my country, by choice or by force, it does not matter which way they chose, but if we have to deport them forcibly they can never return for any reason.

Garyinaz66 on June 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM

pathetic liar.

i’d almost vote for a dem over scum like him. almost.

renalin on June 12, 2014 at 6:42 PM

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable.

Yes, that little word “reform” says he’s for amnesty. There is no need to reform anything, just secure the border and enforce the law, you know the same one that applies to people arriving by plane.

Decaf on June 12, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Amnesty is anything that allows someone that entered illegally to remain the US. Period.

We have the laws required to secure the border already. All they have to do is give teh order and support it. They don’t, so they don’t want to, and have no intention of, securing the border.

Rand Paul does stand in favor of amnesty.

Quartermaster on June 12, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Enforce the existing immigration laws. That will solve the problems. Why pass new ones that will be ignored?

JannyMae on June 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM

…the border is supposed to be secured now…so WTF are they talking about?

KOOLAID2 on June 12, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Technically AP, the definition of amnesty has absolutely nothing to do with border security. NOTHING. As for my definition, it means legalization. You broke the law and came into our country and then you are legalized with eventual citizenship……AMNESTY. Even with some penalties……ITS AMNESTY.

I actually would consider amnesty if I got a real, large, tough fence along the entire border. But because neither side wants actual border security as AP said, then I will never get it. So I much prefer the status quo. Sure, we are not rounding them up and sending them back. But at least they can’t vote and destroy our country that way. Plus, hopefully they don’t get too many government handouts and add to the debt too much. BTW, I believe the number isn’t 11 million, but probably more like 20-40 million.

Its a horrible situation created by the Dems and Republican establishment over the last 30 years. Greedy evil people wanted this to happen. The blood of the dead laying in the desert and in unventilated trucks are on these politicians hands.

KMav on June 12, 2014 at 6:45 PM

1. End birthright citizenship.
2. Require welfare programs to verify citizenship.
3. Aggressively go after waste, fraud and abuse.
4. Close the border until we have dealt with those already here.
5. Start rounding them up and bussing them out. If they committed crimes, they’re never coming back. If not, they can reapply from their country of origin.
6. Fine and jail employers who knowingly hired (abused) illegal labor.
7. Beef up border security and allow the states’ national guards to do their jobs.
8. Go after banks who send reparations as aggressively as those who fund terrorism.
9. No more free treatment in emergency rooms.
10. No more applying for asylum then showing up for court. You’re detained until court, and if you don’t have a case, you immediately get on a plane back home.

ezspirit on June 12, 2014 at 6:50 PM

…the border is supposed to be secured now…so WTF are they talking about?

KOOLAID2 on June 12, 2014 at 6:45 PM

The border is secure , with moats, and alligators in the moat ,
remember ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/266896/obamas-immigration-speech-republicans-want-moat-alligators-daniel-foster

All the stuff they’ve asked for, we’ve done,” he said, and the fence along the Mexican border “is now basically complete.” (That’s not true, by the bye). But Republicans want still more, he said. “Maybe they’ll need a moat, maybe they’ll need alligators.”

burrata on June 12, 2014 at 6:50 PM

I keep telling people that the Paul’s are frigging nuts.

HotAirian on June 12, 2014 at 6:52 PM

He’s never going to back away from reform entirely, though, and neither will any other 2016 hopeful. They’re too afraid of being buried under the Latino vote in the general election (even though they will be anyway)

Congressional Republicans will never again take a “no legalization, period” position after Obama’s landslide among Latinos in 2012.

Anyone else see the logical dissonance behind this? GOPe thinks on some level that they will be “buried under the Latino vote” regardless of what they do, yet they continue to pander to a constituency that they think will NOT vote for them (even if “immigration reform” is passed solely on the strength of GOP votes) in COMPLETE DISREGARD for their core constituency who has consistently voted for them for decades.

Party of stupid, indeed.

As an aside:

I despise the GOPe, the Democrats, the leftists, and especially the news media for making a rational debate about this issue (and any other, for that matter) impossible. Illegal immigration is NOT about race or ethnicity. It is about the rule of law and about our government’s PRIMARY function of protecting its citizens.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Actually, the best position he or any other GOP member should take on immigration is first and foremost to enforce the exiting law. Current law, if fully enforced would do wonders for the situation.

Tater Salad on June 12, 2014 at 6:53 PM

He’s putting this out there not as a serious proposal but to pander to conservatives who are skeptical of him.

If this is an attempt to pander to conservatives, then it is a seriously poor attempt.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Actually, the best position he or any other GOP member should take on immigration is first and foremost to enforce the exiting law. Current law, if fully enforced would do wonders for the situation.

Tater Salad on June 12, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Amen, Tater. Full enforcement of existing immigration law should be the ONLY thing the GOP is talking about. Period.

Once that is in place, then we talk about reformation.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 6:56 PM

I used to be a big Rand Paul fan. I like him less all the time. He is now on the list of Republicans I would never vote for.

bw222 on June 12, 2014 at 7:01 PM

We need to expel every last illegal and put a ten year moratorium on any new immigration. And after the ten year moratorium, new immigration quotas must be such that it doesn’t decrease the percentage of the demographic majority.

You don’t minoritize a demographic majority when the entire political dichotomy is based on democratic parasitism. As soon as a non-Caucasian enters the country, he is given instant victim status and pressured to help democratically gang up on whites.

Buddahpundit on June 12, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Rand’s plan is as conservative a bill as any prospective nominee will feel safe in supporting.

If that’s true, then I won’t be voting Republican in 2016.

There are (at least) two issues that will sink this country: deficit spending and the dissolution of the border.

Having a fiscal conservative who will balance the budget but not enforce current immigration law is not enough because that balanced budget will soon be overwhelmed by the votes of formerly illegal aliens who have become naturalized and hold no allegiance to this country or to the principles upon which she was founded.

I will not knowingly have my vote contribute to the sinking of this great nation.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:05 PM

How do you define “amnesty”? As letting illegals apply for citizenship? Letting them apply for legalization? When I use the term, I’m thinking of any bill that would permit legalization before the border has been measurably improved.

This is why you’ll never be more than a faceless/nameless writer hiding in the shadows.

When you use the term, you think of border security. Yeah, we think of amnesty, that’s what we think of as well… border security. #SMH. AP is enjoying those ‘special’ brownies in Colorado again.

When I think of amnesty, I think of 80-85% of the 20,000,000+ new voters voting for the party of gimme dat. Amnesty’s bottom line is voting rights for the invaders. If the invaders would vote 80-85% for the GOP, the Democrats would be pushing to have them all deported ASAP, but instead they push for citizenship so they can end the two-party system and turn Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Louisiana RED! California (55), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20) = 153…. when Texas (38) goes, so does the presidency because the electoral votes would start with a 191 lead before the other blue states are counted. 270 is needed, they only need 79 more votes which the west and northeast would make up quickly. Thanks, but NO THANKS! No Rand Paul, no BS explanation for amnesty dressed in any language. None of that! NO AMNESTY! NO AMNESTY! NO AMNESTY!

CommieJuice on June 12, 2014 at 7:05 PM

I used to be a big Rand Paul fan. I like him less all the time. He is now on the list of Republicans I would never vote for.

bw222 on June 12, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Same here, bw222. I just wish I had completed the HA 2016 presidential survey today instead of earlier. If this is what Paul is about, then I won’t be voting for him in the general or the primary.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Two: How do you define “amnesty”? As letting illegals apply for citizenship? Letting them apply for legalization? When I use the term, I’m thinking of any bill that would permit legalization before the border has been measurably improved. Paul’s worried about the same thing, which is why he says no fewer than three times in this short op-ed that he’d require a vote of Congress affirming those improvements before any legalization could take place. If you’re holding out for something more stringent than that — no legalization under any circumstances, attrition through enforcement for the indefinite future — that’s great but you’re kidding yourself. Remember, even Ted Cruz, while opposing a path to citizenship, supported the legalization component in the Gang of Eight bill. Congressional Republicans will never again take a “no legalization, period” position after Obama’s landslide among Latinos in 2012. It is what it is. Rand’s plan is as conservative a bill as any prospective nominee will feel safe in supporting.

Ok, without going into the strawman of the ‘you’re kidding yourself’ segment, let’s just say that anything that provides a path to citizenship without penalty for these people that have openly broken our laws, for entering the country, for staying here illegally every f*cking day, for ID theft, for not paying taxes, for draining our entitlements, for driving without insurance, etc (an exhaustive list of the ways they are breaking our laws would take quite awhile) – if there are no penalties, then IT. IS. AMNESTY. Define it otherwise if you wish, but you’re simply full of shit. Oh, I’m sorry – you’re kidding yourself.

If you want something that allows these criminals to effectively have cut in line in front of legal immigrants while having daily – every f*cking day – committed crimes, and not face deportation, fines, penalties, etc, well… that’s amnesty, pal.

Midas on June 12, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Why as a country, a political party or as an individual would you have any problems with illegal aliens being sent back to their mother country and legally applying for immigration to the US or anyother country. Other countries control and monitor who comes in, or applies to come in. Immigrants obey the law when applying everywhere else, so why is the US so stupid. Explain to me why illegal aliens vote for Democrats if they stay, will vote for Democrats if they have to go, and why Republicans are scared when if they ship them home they won’t vote for anyone in the US. Sounds like a totally legal and just plan to get rid of millions of votes for the other side, who can’t legally have a vote anyways. Any country that can’t control its own border will have no control over its own future.

leader4hru on June 12, 2014 at 7:12 PM

I read they will be housing many of them in government buildings, some as close to DC as Baltimore. There is more to this than meets the eye, and none of it is humanitarian.

clnurnberg on June 12, 2014 at 7:16 PM

How do you define “amnesty”? As letting illegals apply for citizenship? Letting them apply for legalization? When I use the term, I’m thinking of any bill that would permit legalization before the border has been measurably improved.

All of your options are wrong, AP.

Amnesty is any measure that would allow anyone currently in the country illegally to be granted the status of legal resident or citizen, or to otherwise be allowed to stay in this country due to negligent or intentional refusal by the government to enforce current immigration law.

Unless those currently in the country illegally are required to return to their countries of origin and apply for legal residency from their home countries (as current law requires), then any granting of legal status or citizenship (apart from current law) is amnesty.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Thousands of CHILDREN are proving this week that the U.S. southern border is NOT secured.

Until our Border Patrol is given the resources they need to fully secure our borders, the ONLY thing members of the House and the Senate should be discussing is how to ENFORCE OUR LAWS AGAINST PEOPLE ENTERING OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.

The concept of “Amnesty” should not even be mentioned as a possibility.

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:25 PM

There are 115 million Mexicans and over 400 million people in Central America. The majority are poor, uneducated and unskilled. Central American countries are telling their poor to head to the United States. Mexico has a major problem with illegals unless they are just passing through to enter the United States.

The number of OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) has increased significantly in recent months.

Family reunification can triple the number of uneducated, unskilled aliens. At what point do we totally lose control of our country or have we already done so?

bw222 on June 12, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Recently they made it so these kids can enlist in our military.

Dan_Yul on June 12, 2014 at 7:28 PM

I’m not knocking Paul for this, to be clear. His proposal, while laughably DOA, is a smart way to try to appease conservatives, libertarians, and Latinos simultaneously

This excerpt is laughable. His proposal does NOT appease most conservatives. It does NOT appease most libertarians. It does NOT appease most Latinos. Allow me to explain:

1. The overwhelming majority of conservatives consider any granting of legal status to anyone who is currently an illegal alien to be amnesty. Period. No fines or changing of the law will change that perception (excuse me, FACT) among conservatives.

2. The overwhelming majority of hardcore libertarians believe in open borders because the regulation of immigration by a government is unconscionable, and all government is EVIL!

3. The overwhelming majority of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants don’t really want open borders. They want for them and theirs to be allowed into this country. Period. Enforcement of immigration law apart from that is GREAT!

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:31 PM

I read they will be housing many of them in government buildings, some as close to DC as Baltimore. There is more to this than meets the eye, and none of it is humanitarian.

clnurnberg on June 12, 2014 at 7:16 PM

I’m beginning to wonder if encouraging the surge of CHILDREN entering the U.S. ILLEGALLY is an Obama Administration pay-off to the U.S. Teacher’s Unions.

With so many American kids going to charter, private, religious or home schools these days, somebody needs to find enough kids to fill the public school to justify hiring more dues-paying Union Teachers.

Does anybody else have similar suspicions?

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM

At what point do we totally lose control of our country or have we already done so?

bw222 on June 12, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Midas on June 12, 2014 at 7:38 PM

I hate to bring this up, but securing he border won’t do anything.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Other than our failure in government, I ask, “Why won’t it?”
It is working for Israel.

Amjean on June 12, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Does anybody else have similar suspicions?

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM

At this point, there are many suspicions regarding this administration I am now willing to entertain that I would have dismissed as mere conspiracy theory a few years ago…I really hate that, too. I don’t want to think about my country this way.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:40 PM

I hate to bring this up, but securing he border won’t do anything…

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 6:23 PM

…other than keeping our current problem from being compounded, you fool.

The first thing to do when trying to get out of hole is to STOP DIGGING!

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Is Rand getting advice from the same “strategists” that helped sink Rubio? I guess so because he is fast losing conservatives.

Rand needs to understand some things:

1. The NeoCons will NEVER support him. They will gladly vote for Hillary instead.

2. His father managed to hold on to his base because he was PRINCIPLED. If he was a panderer, he would have been a footnote by now.

3. The SMART thing that Rand needed to do was simply to grow his base beyond libertarians to the broader conservatives, PERIOD!

This means no pandering to the GOP Establishment. He won KY against the Establishment pick. The old Rand could have won the 2016 GOP nomination easily against any Establishment pick but now I fear he has already blown his chance.

TheRightMan on June 12, 2014 at 7:42 PM

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:35
Actually, Obama will probably just teach them to shoot. Whether we have a real military full of illegals or a pseudomilitary comprised of these young men doesn’t matter. It’s not the old bureaucrats who will be holding all those weapons they’ve been hoarding.

clnurnberg on June 12, 2014 at 7:43 PM

TheRightMan on June 12, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Great observations. As a Republican, Paul cannot hope to peel many Democrats away. However, as a libertarian Republican, he CAN peel away “independent,” conservative, and libertarian votes that would otherwise have gone to third parties. That hope is gone now.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Put what about the inherit probationary “work permit” that even Ted Cruz endorses? That happens PRIOR to border security and certainly considered by most here to be “amnesty”. Paul and Allah dodge this.

cdog0613 on June 12, 2014 at 7:49 PM

At this point, there are many suspicions regarding this administration I am now willing to entertain that I would have dismissed as mere conspiracy theory a few years ago…I really hate that, too. I don’t want to think about my country this way.

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 7:40 PM

I completely agree with you, yaedon.

I never would have even considered it to be a possibility with past administrations, since even if I disagreed with them on specific issues, I always thought that they were trying to do what they thought was best for the country.

But there is something that just doesn’t make sense about a surge of CHILDREN suddenly crossing the border. There has to be a reason for this.

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Two: How do you define “amnesty”?

Any bill that has any legalization of illegals of any kind.

Stoic Patriot on June 12, 2014 at 7:55 PM

But there is something that just doesn’t make sense about a surge of CHILDREN suddenly crossing the border. There has to be a reason for this.

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:50 PM

It also doesn’t make sense that the Obama administration would want to send these children to blue states far away from the border, like Massachusetts and Maryland, unless there is some sort of benefit for Democrats in these states.

The possibility of a Union connection is the only thing I can think of that might fit with liberal logic.

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Paul’s tete-a-tete with Grover Norquist yesterday

As much as I agree wholeheartedly about Paul lying about his position the very fact that he had a meeting with that scumbag Norquist is more troubling. I have always believed your character is defined by the company you keep and if he’s playing footsie with Norquist he’s lost any credibility with me…not that he had much to begin with.

ironmarshal on June 12, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Rand’s electoral strategy is to issue contradictory statements every few days. Very Clintonesque.

will77jeff on June 12, 2014 at 8:12 PM

So sick of Rand Paul’s diarrhea of the mouth and the almost instantaneous reflex he has to slurp it back in! Don’t blame the media because you say what you mean and then regret it because nobody likes what you said!Such a transparent libertarian loon!

redware on June 12, 2014 at 8:13 PM

I never would have even considered it to be a possibility with past administrations, since even if I disagreed with them on specific issues, I always thought that they were trying to do what they thought was best for the country.

But there is something that just doesn’t make sense about a surge of CHILDREN suddenly crossing the border. There has to be a reason for this.

wren on June 12, 2014 at 7:50 PM

This does not characterize my thinking. I have certainly (on occasion) suspected administrations with whom I disagreed of consciously doing things they knew were bad for the country (both Democratic and Republican administrations). However, until now, I have suspected that they did those things for their own benefit and not with the aim of the destruction of the country as founded (or whatever is left of that). Let’s just say I am no longer saddled with that disillusion.

As far as the children crossing the border thing is concerned:

Wasn’t the point of the DREAM Act that we should not “punish” minors who are in this country illegally since they are not here of their own accord? And now we have “children” who are crossing our border alone? How do politicians square that?

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Rand’s electoral strategy is to issue contradictory statements every few days. Very Clintonesque.

will77jeff on June 12, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Unfortunately, this is looking more and more true every day. I formerly thought very highly of the guy…

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Stand with Rand
CANT STAND RAND

bluegill on June 12, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Wasn’t the point of the DREAM Act that we should not “punish” minors who are in this country illegally since they are not here of their own accord? And now we have “children” who are crossing our border alone? How do politicians square that?

yaedon on June 12, 2014 at 8:21 PM

I can’t imagine how the politicians are going to square that.

If anything, the surge of children crossing the border is going to provide a very visible reason for the American people to turn against allowing “Dreamers” to stay in the county. Especially once the thousands of new young border-jumpers start showing up in public schools in the Fall.

wren on June 12, 2014 at 8:34 PM

VIDEO: Pro-Amnesty Rand Paul Takes On Amnesty Opponents, Declares that Illegals Won’t Be Deported and Should be Legalized:
http://youtu.be/TLHYEtunyrA

Gov Martinez gives away part of the game that pro-amnesty Republicans, like Rand Paul, are playing. They are avoiding the word “amnesty” (in favor of vague, positive sounding terms like “reform”) and are even denying that they are for amnesty.

Even McCain, Rubio, Graham and others deny they were ever for illegal alien amnesty!!

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/11/16/susana-martinez-mitt-romney-comments/

The governor [Martinez] also said she hopes the party can change their tone, eliminating words like “amnesty” from the debate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83960_Page2.html

After chatting with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer a few minutes before, she [Martinez] said that Arizona’s restrictive immigration law is not the type she would implement in her state.

“And it can be tackled without using the word amnesty,” she said. “People can be in this country legally and contributing, and they can come here to do all kinds of jobs, not just jobs Americans don’t want, all kinds of jobs, get educated, the whole nine yards, but be here legally. And there’s a variety of ways of receiving that kind of status.”

bluegill on June 12, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Gov Martinez gives away part of the game that pro-amnesty Republicans, like Rand Paul, are playing. They are avoiding the word “amnesty” (in favor of vague, positive sounding terms like “reform”) and are even denying that they are for amnesty.

Even McCain, Rubio, Graham and others deny they were ever for illegal alien amnesty!!

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/11/16/susana-martinez-mitt-romney-comments/

The governor [Martinez] also said she hopes the party can change their tone, eliminating words like “amnesty” from the debate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83960_Page2.html

After chatting with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer a few minutes before, she [Martinez] said that Arizona’s restrictive immigration law is not the type she would implement in her state.

“And it can be tackled without using the word amnesty,” she said. “People can be in this country legally and contributing, and they can come here to do all kinds of jobs, not just jobs Americans don’t want, all kinds of jobs, get educated, the whole nine yards, but be here legally. And there’s a variety of ways of receiving that kind of status.”

bluegill on June 12, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Democrats aren’t going to go for any plan that doesn’t include legalization, and legalization IS amnesty. I’m no longer putting up with word games from these people.

Murf76 on June 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2