Skip to comments.Elite GOP surprisingly more open to Rand than many think...But still wary.
Posted on 03/19/2013 10:23:20 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
National Review's Robert Costa reports from Washington DC that the GOPe are 'wary' of Sen. Rand Paul but are 'surprisingly open' to him
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
good... they should be
Plant story to make Paul look good LOL
because Rand Paul is pro-amnesty and probably squishy on other issues too?
I get the impression Costa hangs around the bars and speaks with GOPe. Why would he lie?
He does not support amnesty... read what he says before jumping to conclusions...
They must think that he'll 'come around' to their way of thinking at crunch time.
Wouldn't be the first time a promising candidate has left us at the altar...
of course they are-especially since Rand came out in favor of their amnesty scam.
Well. I did....I searched for and read multiple articles about what he said on the subject to the US Hispanic whatever pander group today...if you ask me, it sure sounds like he’s for it.
You need to check it out instead of clinging.
No, he did not... again you’re not reading what he said.
He wants ‘normalization’ not ‘amnesty’. They get some legal status so they can work.
What do you want him to do? round them up ?
jonny will get all excited!
What do you want him to do? round them up ?
Ideally? YES!... practically? I'd settle for putting any employer using illegals in prison. I'd settle for cutting them off from ALL public assistance, anything but dire emergency health stabilization, education, all that. They do not, nor have they ever belonged here. Because they are here is not a reason to say "let's normalize this"....what that is nothing but capitulation.
You know why, because at least Rand is showing something that few in the GOP have shown in recent years.....Leadership. It’s not just about where one stands on the issues, it’s about what kind of leadership qualities they have.
I have. Any sort of new “make them legal, but” status will have everything after the comma thrown out by the courts and the courts won’t even be wrong about it.
There is no in-between. They are either here illegally or they are legal and can stay or they are citizens. The way these GOPers want to do it will have the courts throw it out and leave the amnesty parts without all the bogus conditions.
The conditional crap I have read about is also unconstitutional
Does he support deportation or allowing illegals to stay pathway to citizenship or not? I read it, he supports letting them stay. That, my friend is amnesty no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The problem is that every single one of these asshats knows that rewarding these people is going to result in even more illegals crashing our borders. Looking the other way for personal political gain is inexcusable.
WASHINGTON Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., the winner of the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll for 2016 only days ago, has told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that there should be a path to citizenship for illegal aliens in the United States.
Well yes, yes I do, don't you?
Self deportation, if an illegal is against the law and facing prison for forged government documents, for lying on government forms, facing losing belongings like cars and homes that they bought while being illegally in the country (and likely forging and lying in regards to legal documents), when they face being picked up in a traffic stop and being deported within the week while their car is sold at auction and their apartment rent goes unpaid, then millions will start moving back home.
No where in his speech did he endorse a “path to citizenship”. The media are reporting it incorrectly, shocking isnt it?
No, it’s called giving them a visa so they can work and live within the United States.
Of course Rand supports amnesty—why do you think the GOPe is tolerqting him?
What do you want him to do? round them up?It's been done before.
I think an Operation Wetback would be impractical these days. The numbers are too many and they’re breeding. Many of these people are in the community. I dont think it’s humane to round them up and deport them.
I would support giving them a visa and not allowing them any access to welfare as I believe that would unsustainable. I doubt the Democrats would go for that though, it’s true that they do want a rich vein of new socialist voters .
I am proud to be a libertarian and have no problems with immigrants. America is a nation of immigrants. I dont want them to get welfare though.
That won't be your call.
If the GOPe want to give them welfare and “tax credits” I am not for that and neither would Rand either I hope.
If the GOPe want to use them for low skilled labor then what’s the problem?
America is a nation of legal immigrantsFixed.
BTW, it appears Senator Paul is not locked into a position of absolutely opposing citizenship for current illegal aliens.
Without using the phrase, Paul appeared to confirm to reporters that he does support a path to citizenship after a probationary period.
You have an option to get in the line, and you get a work visa if you want to work, Paul said when asked if he supports a path to citizenship.
Paul rejected the idea of deporting undocumented immigrants or immediately giving them citizenship. Instead, he argued for a probationary status.
The solution doesnt have to be amnesty or deportation a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period, Paul said.
Paul also said his team is in talks with the Gang of 8, but it isnt the gang of eight plus one yet.
Byron York notes that Pauls plan calls for border security, verified by Congress in an annual vote, before any path to citizenship is on the table.
How are masses of people arriving from Ireland and England on ships to New York “legal”? Please explain that to me.
Round a bunch of them up. Require eVerify. Cut them off from benefits. Create some fear and hardship. MAKE THEM SELF-DEPORT.
Why?? Let them come here... who cares? as long as they’re not claiming welfare. All throughout America’s history immigrants have been welcome in huge numbers. That’s why the population exploded over 200 years.
The AP claimed this morning that Paul was set to endorse a path to citizenship in his speech today. Not so, countered conservatives on Twitter: Read his prepared remarks and youll see that citizenship is never mentioned. Which is true, and also irrelevant. The whole point of Pauls speech is GOP rapprochement with Latino voters; he spends nearly two-thirds of it extolling Latinos work ethic, reminiscing about his friendships with Latinos growing up in Texas, name-checking Jaime Escalante and Pablo Neruda, and of course citing the ancient canard that Latinos are really just Republicans who dont know it yet. (He mentions abortion and gay marriage as particular areas of overlap. In fact, younger Latinos support legal abortion in all or most cases and nearly 60 percent of Latinos overall support state recognition of gay marriage.) Theres no earthly way that Paul, having made a conciliatory pitch that florid, would ultimately turn around and insist that illegals be forever barred from seeking citizenship. In his op-ed on immigration today at the Washington Times, he actually refers to them at one point as undocumented citizens.(!) When pressed on the issue in the Q&A after his speech, he said this:
Following speech @SenRandPaul said he would back system where once undocumenteds had work visa they could get in back of citizenship line
So no, he wont create a special path to citizenship to help move illegals quickly through the green-card process but theres a path to citizenship through normal channels in the end. Then again, with the singular exception of Jeb Bush, whom no one believes is serious anyway, every prominent Republican politician I can think of supports a path to citizenship eventually. Thats my whole point: If youre trying to build goodwill with Latinos, there has to be. But what about the rest of Pauls plan? Quote:
The first part of my plan border security must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished
With this in place, I believe conservatives will accept what needs to come next, an issue that must be addressed: what becomes of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States?
My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work
After an Inspector General has verified that the border is secure after year one, the report must come back and be approved by Congress.
In year two, we could begin expanding probationary work visas to immigrants who are willing to work. I would have Congress vote each year for five years whether to approve or not approve a report on whether or not we are securing the border.
Byron Yorks right that thats a key difference with the Schumer/Rubio bill. The Senate bill would grant probationary legal status to illegals on the day the bill is signed into law; the path to a green card and eventual citizenship would, however, be contingent upon improvements in border security. Immigration hawks argue that thats not good enough. Realistically, once someone has probationary legal status, therell be no political will to revoke it or to postpone the citizenship process indefinitely until border security has been tightened. Pauls solution is to make that initial probationary legal status also contingent upon better border security. Illegals here get nothing until theres real evidence that the borders being enforced more comprehensively. (Paul has been talking about that for weeks, in fact, as a contrast to Rubios plan; I wrote about it on January 31.)
Theres just one hitch. Democrats will never agree to let Congress decide whether the borders been sufficiently secured yet, especially with the GOP poised to gain seats in the Senate next year. The left wants llegals on the track to citizenship as quickly as possible, but if you make that track contingent upon border security, you risk letting a Republican Congress block it every year by voting that the border hasnt been tightened quite enough yet. Although actually, I think the lefts fear there is overblown: As we get closer to 2016, the specter of alienating Latinos anew by consistently voting to delay citizenship for illegals would convince enough Republicans in Congress to join with Democrats in rubber-stamping border security to get the citizenship process moving. Pauls bill is actually better politics for the GOP, arguably, because it lets them sound tougher on the border now, when conservatives are paying attention, while letting them go soft later when right-wing voters will be more forgiving of GOP caves that are aimed at winning the election.
One other footnote: He wants to modernize the visa system so that we can better track illegals who are here, but he opposes E-Verify because it forc[es] businesses to become policemen. Thats a concession to his libertarian base, many of whom support open borders and wont like seeing him acting like a border hawk today. The least he can do for them is make sure that private enterprise isnt being deputized by the state to carry out its regime of policing labor. Why a libertarian would necessarily favor more robust federal visa-tracking over E-Verify, though, I dont know. Granted, without E-Verify illegals who lack probationary status have a better chance of finding employment, but on the other hand Pauls scheme would likely require a bigger, more intrusive government agency to check up on illegal workers in lieu of letting employers do it. But then, lets not get bogged down in the details. This isnt meant as a viable plan for the Senate, as Rubios is, but as a political document aimed at showing grassroots conservatives that hes tougher on the legalization process than Rubio and at showing independents and Latino voters that hes compassionate enough towards immigrants to want them to stay and work here as long as they want.
First of all they’re loyal to other countries, not the US.
Second, they mostly don’t pay taxes, but consume services and get EITC, instead.
Third, they drive down wages and reduce opportunity for Citizens and legal residents.
Fourth, they commit crimes all out proportion to their percentage of population.
Back then, there was a frontier to populate, and industrial revolution in need of labor, both of which are notably absent from the nation today. We don’t need the labor and we don’t need the population.
I sure there were Romans who thought the exact same thing you do just before the Goths rolled over them.
How are masses of people arriving from Ireland and England on ships to New York legal? Please explain that to me.Two words: Ellis Island
After its opening, Ellis Island was expanded with landfill and additional structures were built. By the time it closed on November 12, 1954, twelve million immigrants had been processed by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration. It is estimated that 10.5 million immigrants departed for points across the United States from the Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal, located just across a narrow strait. Others would have used one of the other terminals along the North River (Hudson River) at that time. The peak year for immigration at Ellis Island was 1907, with 1,004,756 immigrants processed. The all-time daily high occurred on April 17, 1907, when 11,747 immigrants arrived. After the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, which greatly restricted immigration and allowed processing at overseas embassies, the only immigrants to pass through the station were displaced persons or war refugees. Today, over 100 million Americans - one third of the population - can trace their ancestry to the immigrants who first arrived in America at Ellis Island before dispersing to points all over the country.
Generally, those immigrants who were approved spent from two to five hours at Ellis Island. Arrivals were asked 29 questions including name, occupation, and the amount of money carried. It was important to the American government that the new arrivals could support themselves and have money to get started. The average the government wanted the immigrants to have was between 18 and 25 dollars. Those with visible health problems or diseases were sent home or held in the island's hospital facilities for long periods of time. More than three thousand would-be immigrants died on Ellis Island while being held in the hospital facilities. Some unskilled workers were rejected because they were considered "likely to become a public charge". About 2 percent were denied admission to the U.S. and sent back to their countries of origin for reasons such as having a chronic contagious disease, criminal background, or insanity. Ellis Island was sometimes known as "The Island of Tears" or "Heartbreak Island" because of those 2% who were not admitted after the long transatlantic voyage. The Kissing Post is a wooden column outside the Registry Room, where new arrivals were greeted by their relatives and friends, typically with tears, hugs and kisses.
I do not support giving them welfare and that must end. If they’re coming here for hand outs then they should be told NO and put to work instead.
There is plenty of room in America, the country is huge and can still develop further with more immigrants. The more the merrier I say. This has happened all throughout history... now you want to pull up the draw bridge? It does not make sense.
OK... so lets re-open Ellis Island and route them through there.. does it matter? The concept is still the same. Americ was built on immigration and assimilation
How about we cut the welfare out and/or refuse it to them and instead put them to work in a GOPe’s local factory? (if they’re still open after Obama’s anti-business policies)
There was no welfare state, there was a frontier to populate, and an expanding need for labor. All of things have changed. There is a welfare state (and, by Supreme Court decision, you can't cut them off from welfare), there is no frontier, there is no expanding demand for labor, and illegal aliens are a threat to national security (read the history of the Roman Empire).
So darn straight I want the drawbridge pulled up, the walls manned, the pots of oil heated, the catapults, trebuchets, and ballistas loaded, and certain death to await any would-be invaders.
I think there’s plenty of room and many of the states are under-populated with plenty of land that should be developed (mostly controlled by the Feds).
I’m not as hostile to new entrants as you are and I think it’s ridiculous you can be FOR the unfettered immigration America experienced for 200 years and now against another wave.
Found your problem. What you believe is a myth.
We have NEVER had “unfettered immigration.” Immigration was both controlled and limited. Immigrants could be turned away for undesirable political views, for being ill, or for any of many other issues. That poem about the Statue of Liberty - that was all it was - a poem.
This was changed thanks to an @$$hole named Edward Kennedy, and his Democrat buddies when they passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Their intention was to build a Democrat majority by changing the demographics of the US and they have had amazing success at it. Labour did the same to the Brits in the UK.
So if you like Teddy “The Swimmer” Kennedy’s methods and goals, by all means keep believing your myths. As for me, I want the border mined and the invading barbarians expelled - violently if need be.
Back then we were a "melting pot." Now we're a "tossed salad".
Who give a rats behind what the GOPe thinks?
The GOPe should just get out of the way.
Somebody's going to say, "If they wanted a winner, why did they support losers like McCain and Romney in the last two elections?"
The question answers itself. Who was the possible GOP winner in those elections? [No credit for the answer "Anybody."]
Is Rand Paul really a winner? I don't know, but don't assume that if there really were another Ronald Reagan somewhere that the GOP-e would be die-hard opponents.