Immigration: Rand Paul to back path to citizenship

[Valin]

AP/Politico:

 

3/18/13

 

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is endorsing a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

 

In a speech to be delivered Tuesday morning to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the potential 2016 presidential candidate declares, “If you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.” A copy of the speech was obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

 

(Snip)

 

Different from other approaches, Paul would not attempt to crack down on employers by expanding working verification systems, something he says is tantamount to “forcing businesses to become policemen.”

 

(Snip)

 

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Well This Should Be Interesting To Watch.

[Valin]

Byron York: Rand Paul’s immigration plan doesn’t start with legal status for illegals

The Right Scoop

March 19th, 2013

 

According to Byron York, Rand Paul’s immigration plan begins with the border and does not confer legal status on an illegal until both government agencies and Congress has signed off on the border:

 

WASHINGTON EXAMINER– Despite press reports, it appears Sen. Rand Paul’s immigration proposal is strikingly different from existing proposals in one critical respect: It does not confer immediate legalization on the estimated 11 million immigrants currently in the country illegally.

 

(Snip)

 

I’m trying to be as accurate as possible here so as not to misconstrue his immigration plan as something it is not. I’ve heard disagreement on whether or not he actually offers a path to citizenship for illegals, as some have said the AP got it wrong this morning.

 

For now, here is what Rand Paul actually said about his immigration plan in his speech this morning:

 

How do we now reflect this in our 21st century immigration policy?

 

It is absolutely vital for both the success of our immigration policy and for the purposes of national security that we finally secure our borders.

 

Not to stop most immigrants from coming-we welcome them and in fact should seek to increase legal immigration.

 

The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

 

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

 

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

(Snip)

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

Comments as always...interesting.

[Valin]

Mean while not everyone is thrilled with Rand...

 

#DontStandWithRand

Mark Krikorian

March 19, 2013 7:21 P.M

 

Rand Paul’s amnesty speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was a pastiche of establishment cliches. Permit me to select some and respond:

 

(Snip)

 

Senator Paul amassed a lot of political capital with his filibuster, even among people who don’t fully agree with him on the drone issue, or foreign policy in general. But I’m afraid he’s just dissipated a lot of that good will with this embarrassing, amateurish foray into a policy area he knows nothing about.

[Valin]

Marco Rubio Responds to Rand Paul and Jeb Bush on Immigration

 

 

On CNN’s The Lead today, Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) offered his thoughts on Senator Paul’s immigration speech. He said that Rand Paul’s statements showed there was a growing consensus for immigration reform. Rubio then reiterated the main points of his plan: modernizing our legal immigration system, enforcing our laws, and finding a way to give legal status to the current population of illegal immigrants without granting “blanket amnesty.”

 

(Snip)

 

Here we (at least I) see the problem on the Right.

From the Comments

 

Unindicted Co-Conspirator

 

"it would incentivize illegal immigration in the future.”

 

Newsflash: anything short of deportation (jail time, in the case of repeat offenders) will incentivize illegal immigration. They don't care that much about citizenship. They would be perfectly happy with a green card, plus government handouts from sea to shining sea, which are mostly no longer predicated on being a US citizen.

[Valin]

Prepare yourself for a SHOCK!

TOS is not happy

 

But then for so many of the folks there anything less than a B-52 strike on Juarez Mexico is considered being a squish.

[Valin]

Senator Rand Paul On Immigration And Marriage

3/19/12

 

Hugh Hewitt: So pleased to welcome back Senator Rand Paul. Senator, I know it wasn’t your fault, but you stood me up because of that filibuster thing last week.

 

Rand Paul: I had forgotten about that. I think we had a whole busy day that day, and we really literally walked in that morning and saying you know, I’ve been wanting to talk about this, maybe I’ll do it if they let me have the floor. And we really had not had a lot of conscious forethought, because I wore the worst shoes I’ve got in my closet, and my feet were killing me after about four or five hours.

 

HH: Well, I salute you. We might disagree on a few things, but I love that, and I thought it was an excellent argument to have. And when Senator Durbin would not agree to your resolution, I just couldn’t believe that. So well done. Now you do have a very excellent understanding of the executive power, and of the Constitution, and I’m a law professor and I teach doctors, occasionally, so I find it unusual that you do. But I’ve got a tough question for you, Senator. Given that understanding, if you were the president of the United States, would you instruct your solicitor general to file a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8? It’s two separate questions, really.

 

RP: You know, I think the states do have the right to make decisions on marriage. Marriage has always been sort of at the state level. And the confusion on DOMA is, though, that it defends the states’ rights, but then it also has a federal definition. So it does federalize at least part of the definition. Then, there’s the confusion over what’s federal and what’s state anymore, because the federal’s gotten involved in so many state affairs. But my state has a constitutional amendment defending or calling for traditional marriage, and I think Kentucky should have the right to do that, because marriage has always been at the state level. So what that means exactly with the defense of DOMA, I think they may split the issue somewhat. I think there’s a possibility that they uphold the state right to it, but they do say something about a federal definition. I’m not sure exactly what comes of it, nor am I sure that I’m the expert as far as the law on that goes, either.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

Prepare yourself for a SHOCK!

TOS is not happy

 

But then for so many of the folks there anything less than a B-52 strike on Juarez Mexico is considered being a squish.

 

They apparently haven't seen this yet. When they do.....BOOM