Skip to comments.Rand Paul to Vote Against Gang of Eight's Immigration Bill
Posted on 06/23/2013 9:36:26 AM PDT by VitacoreVision
Rand Paul: Im a No On Gang of Eight Bill
Rand Paul: I'm a 'No' on Gang of Eight Bill
Rand Paul announced on Sunday that he will vote against the Gang of Eights immigration bill because it does not sufficiently secure the Southern border.
Im like most conservatives in the country in that I think reform should be dependent on border security first, Paul said, noting that he introduced a bill that was voted down that would have given Congress that power to vote on whether the border is in fact secure. To me what really tells me that theyre serious would be letting Congress vote on whether the border is secure. If the people in the country want to be assured that we will not get another ten million people to come here illegally over the next decade, they have to believe that they get a vote through their Congress. If this is a done deal once the bill is over I dont think well really get a truly secure border.
The Senate this week will vote on both the Corker-Hoeven amendment, a last-minute attempt by Republicans to strengthen the border-security measures in the Gang of Eights bill, and the Gangs bill itself.
Paul, an advocate of immigration reform, went on to say that the bill will undoubtedly pass the Senate, but that its dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House.
>> those no votes to be nothing more than safe votes.
Agreed. The MSM is going full court press for Jeb. If neither Cruz nor Palin runs I will energetically pull the lever for Rand. Even over Scott Walker who I think is great also.
Maybe in 20 years...
You are kiding right? They breed like rabbits.
It’s practically impossible to bolt for a third-party run after losing a nomination. TR did in 1912; did anyone else?
We should have Jebbie/Hillary (R) and HIllary/Jebbie (D). That would attract a lot of interest from the low-information voters and truly confuse them.
Cruz, Palin, Paul, and Walker are all preferable to Jeb Bush. I’m tired of the Bush influence on the Republican Party. Too many moderate/centrist types who stand for nothing are leading the GOP to the brink of oblivion.
Rand Paul needs to tell the Hispandering Speaking Association what his position on Interior Enforcement, Enforce IRCA and The Safe Act.
He also has to tell the black community what he learnt from the Jamiel Shaw case. Also he needs to explain what factories Black Americans refuse to work in.
Rand Paul needs to meet with Chris Crane.
Not really. Demographics here actually suggest a longterm decrease with birthrates under 2.1
Its practically impossible to bolt for a third-party run after losing a nomination. TR did in 1912; did anyone else?
Gary Johnson did it in 2012. It’s a complete waste & only serves to promote progressive candidates.
Paul has said repeatedly No new pathways to citizenship, the same is also posted on his web site.
Totally agree with the rest of your post.
There is not now nor was there ever a need to erase national borders except to make it easier for global commerce.
I like business as much as the next person and Mexicans (Latinos) do not bother me in the least...but everyone needs a backyard they can call their own.
The GOPe can go fly a kite when it comes to finishing off our national sovereignty. I told everyone that if the GOP did not build the fence, I was jumping ship.
Where's the Fence? Go Rand!
This bill was obviously a monstrosity from the beginning. The fact that Paul didn’t get it ‘til now is very disturbing, and frankly, disqualifying in my mind. Bob
“So Rands excuse is the border wouldnt be secure enough under this plan. And if the border were secure enough? Then what Rand? You would then agree to flooding this nation with 100 million plus new citizens in under 20 years?
Someone set this guy on auto-destruct! Sadly, it was him.
Well that’s good to know. So are you saying Rand’s only participation in this immigration bill is his amendment aimed at making the border more secure?
He’s still for legalization—just wants a more secure border first.
Two conflicting views on Rand. Which is accurate?
No “new path to citizenship” doesn’t really have any significant meaning. As Paul explains in this clip, starting at 3:15: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/immigration_06-18.html , he would first of all, with a secure border, legalize the illegals here now. Then he would allow them to apply for citizenship just as they would have been able to do had they remained home. So they wouldn’t be put to the front of a line for citizenship, but they would be able to live here legally until their citizenship came through.
That is amnesty through and through.
Again, Paul’s “no new pathway” claim is meaningless. He would allow the illegals already here to live here legally while putting them in the regular line for citizenship with those who stayed home. This is a “new-for-the-presently-illegal path to citizenship” and it is abject amnesty.
You’ve also got them bringing their kin in via chain migration, which would multiply that 30 million by a factor of three.