Rand Paul Endorses Immigrant Path to Citizenship
Last week: 
Today:
Paul open to voting for Senate immigration bill (but against path to citizenship for illegals)
Rand, hate to say this but you're starting to sound like Mitt Romney...
Posted on 05/26/2013 10:15:02 PM PDT by sickoflibs
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that his chamber’s immigration bill needs to be improved, but that there’s still a chance he could vote for it.
Paul said that he could end up backing immigration reform if Senate negotiators will work with him on his push to certify that the border is secure. Paul though warned that the bill also goes in the wrong direction on work visas.
“I support immigration reform. At this time, I think the bill needs to strengthen border security. It also needs to expand work visas,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“I will support a bill that fixes it, and I do want to support a bill,” Paul added.
Paul though said that he was against a pathway to citizenship for people currently in the country illegally, a key plank of the Senate bill.
“Tea party” is for small-government constitutionalism, which was a great umbrella for both conservative conservatives and libertarian conservatives.
I can assure you that if any GOPe front-group ‘tea parties’ were caught in the web, that was not what the IRS was intending.
Rand is triangulating on immigration, when he needs to be either leading or staying silent.
Just so we’re all clear on this: Rand Paul is “open” to voting for some version of an immigration bill that will never be brought to the floor of the Senate. He doesn’t support the bill that’s currently being hashed out, but does support something that no Democrats would support, and that Rubio would also oppose. Hmmmm, let’s see if we can all pass Politics 101.
1) We have a future presidential candidate in a year after which his party’s loss was blamed on a lack of outreach to Hispanic voters.
2) We have a bill that is not palatable to his potential base.
3) We have a media that loves nothing more than painting Republican pols as haters of immigrants.
4) Said politician comes out in favor of the concept of immigration reform, but compares the present bill to Obamacare. It just so happens that the bill in question is supported by a potential rival; one that he wants to stay on somewhat decent terms with on other issues.
5) Now he says he is open to voting for the concept, but on terms that mean those in his own party wouldn’t support it, and none of the Dems would.
This would be soooooooo confusing, except that it’s very simple. He has triangulated the issue. He is in favor of the broad concept, but only in ways that have zero chance of becoming law. It’s clever, it’s not principled in the least, and I guess we’ll see if it works for him. I predicted weeks ago that in the end Paul would end up loudly opposing the Senate bill. I’m sticking with that prediction.
I tend to think it would have been very important for the IRS to take down GOP-E front groups since they were the ones who would promote Romney versus Obama.
The GOPe is on their side and Romney was just their kind of opponent. A plutocrat without charisma who takes Obamacare off the table—what’s not for them to have liked? (Proof, meet pudding!)
We have forty million people out of work in the United States. 40 million. We have another close to 40 million who are under-employed, not making the money they used to and barely getting by.
What about their better life? I submit that until we get that 40 million people back to work, and the other 40 million better employed, we not only put an end to illegal immigration and the right of them to work here, but we also cut off all but the very most positive immigration for the next 20 to 30 years.
The other day you claimed Palin was for amnesty, now you're saying Cruz is a phony? Good grief.
The best of ways, unfortunately very few of the GOP politicians understand that repeating core principles is an important thing to do..
This has been one of my pet peeves in California for the last twenty years. None of the Republican nominees comes to California and contests the state. And lest folks think that’s a rational position, let me say this.
If Coca Cola kept it’s product in a refrigerator with the door close, you couldn’t see it, and they did no advertising, and whenever someone on television in a round table setting said Pepsi was better, and the Coke person remained silent or said, “Well, Pepsi is pretty good.”, how much Coke would they sell?
We have got to hawk our product in all markets. It’s the only way to expand the franchise. And Republicans priding themselves in having such great business oriented minds, you’d think sooner or later they’d grasp this concept.
We can’t remain silent.
We must sell our products.
We must explain why ours is better.
We must remain firm, and quit agreeing that the Left’s products are better.
We must stop bottling Pepsi and selling it from Congress, if Coke is our brand and we want it to flourish.
Until they become somewhat competitive, the national GOP won't either. It will take a long time to make a change, it would have to be a project with lots of different people pulling in the right direction, lots of effort to continuously espouse good and compelling arguments for conservatism while also blasting the insanity of liberalism's many idiotic ideas.
I fear 50 states just like CA if they pass amnesty.
I believe I accused them all the other day, as far as immigration is concerned, and I wouldn’t take any of it back.
I believe I accused them all the other day, as far as immigration is concerned, and I wouldn’t take any of it back.
Yeah, well we’ll have to differ on this.
It’s like Ford taking all it’s dealerships out of California and then saying they’ll return when sales pick up.
Making assertions is fine, but when you are definitively proved wrong and still continue to make them, you might want to remain a lurker a while longer.
I’m not so sure we differ as much as you think, changed minds aren’t going to happen only by visits from a presidential candidate. It’s got to be a much bigger effort.
Because nobody but nobody has a louder voice than a presidential contender.
So you either choose between a blasting loudspeaker or a guy with a wax cup with the end cut out of it.
This problem isn’t limited to the presidential candidates either.
Our gubernatorial candidates get no support whatsoever while the Democrats fly in big names from all over. This relegates the person with sound principles to being somewhat of an outcast even in his own state.
The party really has contributed to the state being as imbalanced as it is. Yes, folks should know better on their own, but if you haven’t had a chance to get excited about a candidate selling sound ideals in 20 plus years, who is really to blame?
California isn’t in play, because you can’t win a pro game with the pee wee league players. Every state needs heavy hitters unless they’re lopsided in the opposite direction.
Last week:
Today:
Paul open to voting for Senate immigration bill (but against path to citizenship for illegals)
Rand, hate to say this but you're starting to sound like Mitt Romney...
Yes, his name is Rand Paul. He's supporting a bill that clearly provides a "pathway to citizenship" for illegals, while loudly telling his gullible supporters he's against amnesty.
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.