Skip to comments.Rand Paul: I wonít allow you to smear me by claiming that Iím for amnesty
Posted on 06/13/2014 10:00:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Breitbart dropped the A-bomb on him this morning, headlining a post about Pauls tete-a-tete with Grover Norquist yesterday on immigration, Rand Paul: Lets Compromise On Amnesty. Naturally Paul started getting hammered for it online, drawing this retort:
Senator Rand Paul ✔ @SenRandPaul
I will not let sloppy journalists characterize my
position as amnesty. It is simply untrue.
10:35 AM - 12 Jun 2014
233 Retweets 134 favorites
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, lets just acknowledge, was a Jedi-caliber bit of content generation by the BB guys.) Is it true or false that Rands for amnesty? Heres what he says:
I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eights 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 doesnt 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 here 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 dont support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.
Three things. One: Unless Im missing something, his position on immigration hasnt changed. Hes always supported reform of some kind; what he didnt support was the Gang of Eight bill, ostensibly because he didnt 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 hed better stay far away. Hes never going to back away from reform entirely, though, and neither will any other 2016 hopeful. Theyre too afraid of being buried under the Latino vote in the general election (even though they will be anyway). Realistically, Pauls 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, Im thinking of any bill that would permit legalization before the border has been measurably improved. Pauls worried about the same thing, which is why he says no fewer than three times in this short op-ed that hed require a vote of Congress affirming those improvements before any legalization could take place. If youre holding out for something more stringent than that no legalization under any circumstances, attrition through enforcement for the indefinite future thats great but youre 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 Obamas landslide among Latinos in 2012. It is what it is. Rands plan is as conservative a bill as any prospective nominee will feel safe in supporting.
Three: Rands plan doesnt have the tiniest chance of becoming law and he knows it. Hes 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, theres no constituency in Congress that wants to suspend legalization for illegals until the border is secure. Democrats dont want to because they want the border open for future Democratic voters; Republicans dont 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 Rands 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?
Im 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 Americas stuck at this endless impasse on comprehensive reform is because Democrats wont 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 didnt. Its Democrats who cant 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.
“Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States”
Not they’re not, you idiot. They’re drawn here by all the “free” sh** you and your merry band of traitors keep handing them year after year.
To late Randee-Boy, you are in favor of AMNESTY for Illegal Alien Invaders from Mexico.
The only thing that is broken is the enforcement of our current laws.
Do those things and illegal aliens will deport themselves and pay for the trip.
Then the country is finished. Any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here is amnesty. When you reward something, you get more of it. An amnesty will cost $6.3 trillion. So much for being a fiscal conservative.
Only idiots will buy his latest line of bullshit.SCREW HIM.
Isn’t Norquist an islamist?
They come here for the free ride of our welfare state. he needs to admit that he screwed up.
That’s what I’ve heard.
Randy Rubio Paul.
Mr. Paul, I consider you to be with the enemy.
That is all.
If he wants to maintain credibility, why hang out with Norquist at all. He’s irrelevant, a Jihad-baby, and a crony?
Paul has been more than a little duplicitous on this issue. He’ll need to personally apologize to Freepers and acknowledge his error before I trust him.
One new law is actually needed.
Illegal entry into the USA is currently a misdemeanor.
It needs to be made a felony.
I remember him saying there is nothing we can do but work on reform together. Looser!
Milton Friedman: There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite.
He’s still trying to triangulate this issue! That is just slimy at this point. If you’re not for it, then step up against it. I’d think riding the fence like that would require wearing a cup. Pick a team, Rand, though it looks like you already have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.