Headlines

Conn Carroll

Rand Paul’s amnesty plan is worse than Rubio’s

Paul, like The National Council of La Raza, would never call his plan amnesty, but that is exactly what it is. Unlike the tens of millions of people worldwide who would like to become U.S. citizens, but are not in the country today, Paul would allow those illegally in the country now to both stay here and apply for citizenship. …

Worse, unlike the Gang of Ocho amnesty plan endorsed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Paul would force Republicans to play the role border-security-bad-guys every year. …

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out how this would turn out. Every year a majority of Republicans would vote to say the border was not secure and those who came to the country illegally should not continue down the path to citizenship. And every year every Democrat and a minority of Republicans would vote the opposite, allowing those who came illegally to advance down that path… until of course they are all sworn in as Democratic voters.

Read the Article

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

Both plans suck.

AZCoyote on March 20, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Amnesty by any other name still means that crime can pay.

OldEnglish on March 20, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Any plan that lets them stay in the USA is bad. If we do not have the courage to do what is right today, today is a good day to just kick this can down the road. Better no plan than one that is destructive.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Looks like no one wants to talk about Rand anymore.

thebrokenrattle on March 20, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I don’t like either plan, but what is to be done with those that are here now? Carroll seems to object to the idea of allowing them to stay here…does that mean he advocates shipping them all out, an option that isn’t at all realistic logistically or politically? If they do stay here, do they just remain in immigration limbo?

changer1701 on March 20, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I don’t like either plan, but what is to be done with those that are here now? Carroll seems to object to the idea of allowing them to stay here…does that mean he advocates shipping them all out, an option that isn’t at all realistic logistically or politically? If they do stay here, do they just remain in immigration limbo?

changer1701 on March 20, 2013 at 10:02 AM

1) it is a problem that has been here for over 25 years. No need to make rash bad decisions.
2) You freaking insistence that there is only two choices is ridiculous. They are here for certain reasons. Get rid of those reasons and there is no need to shipping them off. They will leave on their own accord.
3) The fact that you make this argument means you are not ignorant of these facts, but are just an ideologue willing to use the leftists tactics.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Looks like no one wants to talk about Rand anymore.

thebrokenrattle

That’s the cost of backing liberal policies that are terrible for the country, which is exactly what Rand’s plan is. And Rand’s plan is worst than most. Anyone, democrat OR republican, who feels it’s their job to worry about the employee opportunities of illegals over Americans deserves to be shunned. Heck, they deserve to be fired.

xblade on March 20, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Build a border wall, shoot anyone on sight.

Ban ALL Spanish language media and signs in the US.

Deport every illegal back home, and take fingerprints and ocular scans. If they return, execute them.

Heavy fines and prison for employers of illegals.

Seven Seas on March 20, 2013 at 10:22 AM

1) it is a problem that has been here for over 25 years. No need to make rash bad decisions.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Exactly. Obama and others argue that we already have de facto amnesty. That is correct. We do have de facto amnesty already, and that means that there is no valid reason to be rushing through a de jure amnesty law.

And why do we need a gigantic “comprehensive” immigration law anyway? We know, from painful experience with other “comprehensive” laws like Obamacare, that these big, complicated, multi-page laws tend to have a lot of unintended and undesireable consequences. Why not start smaller? We all agree we need better border security. Let’s start there.

AZCoyote on March 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM

We all agree we need better border security. Let’s start there.

AZCoyote on March 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Because, once border security and the legal immigration are fixed, there is no problem to address and thus no hammer to hit us over the head with…
Nice country you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it. We will give you a “secure border” in exchange for… A little while later, where is the secure border? Oh, that is gonna cost you some more… rinse and repeat.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The GOP needs to get Rep. Steve Pearce (R.-NM) front and center on this issue and then shut up, parrot whatever he says, and follow his example of serving constituents. His approach seems to be converting those he can convert with a servant’s heart.

BuckeyeSam on March 20, 2013 at 10:50 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343384/dontstandwithrand-mark-krikorian
Krikorian fisks Rand’s plan appropriately.

onlineanalyst on March 20, 2013 at 11:17 AM

“build that danged fence!” – via never gonna happen

johnnyboy on March 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Build a border wall, shoot anyone on sight.
Ban ALL Spanish language media and signs in the US.
Deport every illegal back home, and take fingerprints and ocular scans. If they return, execute them.
Heavy fines and prison for employers of illegals.
Seven Seas on March 20, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Sounds like a recipe for landslide elections in the future.

Genuine on March 20, 2013 at 11:51 AM