Look at the date--March, 2013--"Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge"
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 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:
Senator Rand Paul ✔ @SenRandPaul
I will not let sloppy journalists characterize my
position as “amnesty.” It is simply untrue.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/12/Op-Ed-Secure-the-Border …
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, 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 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 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.
Exactly, just like Rubio.
Illegal immigration is a true checkmate for our Republic.
Any politician that does not advocate sealing the borders deserves our contempt.
Like Rubio, I will NEVER give RP another "chance." They are both dead to me.
The Senator doth protest too much, methinks.
He uses weasel words just like his father. You’re finished, Rand. Give it up.
Paul somehow equates libertarianism with OPEN BORDERS. I’d love to see where Ann Rand (or however you spell it) says that - particularly when those Open Borders turn your country into a Third World cesspool.
Shaddup Ru Paul, you worthless DemocRat.
"I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable."
Senator Paul, here's your problem with this statement. The current situation is untenable, because President after President has refused to enforce immigration laws. Obama is now at the stage of rampant criminality, where he's activity committing immigration law crimes.
How can new laws, that won't be enforced, except for the open boarders part, help this untenable situtaion? It's just going to make it worse.
Scratch Rand Paul off any list of presidential candidates. Rand, you coulda been a contenda.
Are you kidding?
COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
“”THE ISSUE: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
THE PRINCIPLE: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
SOLUTIONS: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
TRANSITIONAL ACTION: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
Friedman was saying that illegal immigration is the best immigration because they fit libertarianism, since they are being excluded from government services, yet we still gain them.
Legal immigrants are the problem according to Friedman.
“Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.”
No comprehensive immigration bill once passed will implement border security period. Implement border security first, then we may entertain a discussion about changes to immigration policy such as universal E-verify and severe penalties for employing illegals.
RP: “I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable.”
How the ^%&# would you know?!?!?! You beltway-baboons don’t even TRY to enforce the law, so how would you know if it works? Moron.
“I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first.”
That phrase means that he is still for full amnesty AFTER the borders are sealed.
It’s too late. The horses have already left the barn and it’s too late to close the doors for they are already here.
The fact is that he is against adhering to our laws as written. He is in favor of forgiving the criminal acts of all illegals and trashing the laws that should have prevented them from staying here at all...along with their spawn.
Now, the word “amnesty” is drawing even more vermin from he south that will demand (and get) food, shelter, and money from honest tax paying citizens along with the ability to be exempt from most laws of this country.
You’re more informed than me.
This part really sticks out: “...or improve their economic prospects”
Pretty much means that people from ANY COUNTRY with a per capita income less than ours (i.e., 90% of the world) should be welcome here, no questions asked.
That is a VERY SICK philosophy.
Yeah, and George W. Bush told us he was totally against amnesty during a debate with Kerry in 2004. It’s far more despicable when politicians play the amnesty word game to try and hide their support for legalizing millions of illegal aliens.
Newt all but had the GOP nomination rapped up, then he went soft on illegals. Perry was doing well too until went soft on illegals ("You don't have a heart"). The only candidate that stayed firm was Romney and who won? Romney, maybe he was lying but at least he stayed firm. Amnesty killed Rubio with conservatives, killed Cantor and now might very well kill Rand Paul.
The other thing that smells to high heaven about Paul push for "comprehensive immigration reform" is the timing. One could easily conclude that Paul is working with the Camber of Commerce GOP and the administration to push amnesty down our throats this year. Paul's commitment to grass roots republicans as a constitutional conservative is now in serious doubt. It will be very difficult to believe anything he ever says again.
Why not? It's the same lunacy gift wrapped with different paper.
Nonsense, Newt never came close to having the nomination sewed up and what killed him was the GOPe and Black Thursday during Florida when Drudge, Rush, and everyone destroyed his momentum in what appears to have been a coordinated national attack.
Romney did not win the nomination because of immigration either, he took it by breaking spending records and 50 million of his own money and lying, and squelching the field for two election cycles, and never having to face a real challenge.
Look at the date--March, 2013--"Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge"
I repeat, Rand Paul is Ron Paul in camouflage.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69865.html#ixzz34gbRbakg
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.