By The Right Scoop


Sounds to me like Rand Paul is moving over toward Rubio’s corner and is OK with putting the current illegals living in America on a path to citizenship if we stop the flow and secure the border:

POLITICO – Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that Republicans must “evolve” on immigration while preventing America from becoming a magnet for immigrants to come and get benefits.

“We cannot just be a beacon for everyone to come here on benefits,” Paul said on conservative commentator Bryan Fischer’s radio program Wednesday.

“You can’t have open borders in a welfare state. We’ve got a pretty significant welfare state, so it’s not just about normalizing the 11 or 12 million here, it’s whether or not while you’re doing that another 11 or 12 million come in, and I think that will bankrupt the country,” Paul said.

He continued: “So I am concerned, but I’m also open-minded enough to say that it is an issue that we do need to evolve on. But I’m not willing to be so much in adapting that I believe you allow people to come in without having a secure border and without not letting people get to the front of the line.”

“My proposal is that each year we vote on a report [on border security]… so each year if we’re going to normalize some of the people who are undocumented here, it is dependent on a vote on the border security that affirms that we are securing the border.”

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • BeyondPolls

    Oh really? This coming from the man who wanted to remove parts of the 14th Amendment that relate to immigration. Also, the same man who wanted air surveillance around the border.

    • Orangeone

      It looks like Mr. Paul has evolved doesn’t it.

      • BeyondPolls

        Looks like he’s trying to make sure Rubio doesn’t get ahead of him. In other words, Rubio’s plan is the way things have to be.

        • Orangeone

          Politics above American citizens, again. Sad.

          • BeyondPolls

            Do you like our current path to citizenship?

            • sDee

              The one based on 1965 Diversity Quotas for planeloads of uneducated Somali muslims and extremist latin american marxists?

              The one that is destroying the very fabric of America?

              The one that all these “immigration reform” blowhards conveniently never mention?

              • BeyondPolls

                So you are not satisfied with our current path to citizenship, green card lottery et al.
                What is your solution?

                • sDee

                  …..
                  Our foundational immigration law and the types of visas which provide paths to citizenship are fine. They are very similar to other civilized nations who do not have this illegal insanity. They are based upon a millennium of immigration law and served the nation well for over 200 years.

                  The “great immigration tradition of America” and spectrum of freedom loving immigrants who built America, that these snake oil politicians like to reference, was our strength because of the “National Origins Formula” and the Immigration Act of 1924.

                  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 pioneered by Ted Kennedy, abolished these and replace it with “Diversity Quotas”. The Progressive bureaucrats deeply entrenched in the INS and Sate Department have since taken full control of this and at their full discretion, hand out visas and citizenship to marxists, communists, and a range of “disaffected” people who they know will vote for central power.

                  Combined with the government’s goal of open borders and no enforcement, if we do not replace and repeal the 1965 Act, we will lose America .

                • BeyondPolls

                  Yes, those quotas are what need to go. This is finally a reasonable argument on immigration.

                • HarrietHT2

                  Has there been in our history one man who has done more to dismantle this nation than Ted Kennedy? I can’t think of one.

                • keyesforpres

                  A moratorium on all immigration and we take a breather for 10years or so and clear out the bad folks and get the others assimilated (illegals out!).

                  Then, when we resume immigration, no more than 100 to 200 hundred thousand per year.

                • BeyondPolls

                  That’s not what America is about.

                • keyesforpres

                  Our Founders wanted a Judeo Christian nation for their posterity. They never intended for the whole world to come here and destroy us from within.

                  They even said this nation was founded to expand the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. You think allowing millions of Marixts and muslims will do that?

                • BeyondPolls

                  I agree with the first half of your statement, but I think you are misconstruing the Constitution’s foundation on higher moral law into some type of radical fascist idea.
                  We have freedoms of religion, expression, speech, and press, so I seriously doubt the Framers wanted us to suppress immigrants based on religiousidealistic presuppositions.

                • keyesforpres

                  They would never have wanted muslims to immigrate here. Read up .

                • BeyondPolls

                  We still can’t deny people on those grounds. I don’t like Islam as a religion, but we can’t treat people like that.

                • keyesforpres

                  What do you mean we can’t treat people like that? No one has a right to immigrate here. We have every right to deny anyone entry into our nation.

                • BeyondPolls

                  America is a nation of legal immigration.

              • Orangeone

                And some of those Somalians are sending their children back to study in terrorist camps, sending money back to finance terrorist activities.

              • sDee

                deleted duplicate comment

            • Orangeone

              IMO it is not strict enough. We have a very large amount of unsolved violent crimes with DNA and fingerprints that have never been submitted into the database (we need to fix this even with no legal immigration occurring). In addition, we have millions of cases where paternity has not been established and the taxpayers are funding those families through welfare. Legal immigrants should have their DNA taken and both DNA and fingerprints run against all unsolved crimes and frankly the paternity database.

              I also think we need age restrictions like many other countries have (Australia is no older than 40), a strict provision to discontinue immigration if America’s true unemployment exceeds a certain percentage (5%), financial requirements, in cash, that the legal immigrant must have and deposit into US financial institutions (Croatia is a great example). This would make us more similar to other nations. I also think legal immigrants need to have financial supporters in case something happens (death of spouse), no access to any of our social programs (health care, welfare, food stamps, child care) and must pay out-of-state tuition levels at our universities because they have not contributed to the taxpayer subsidies.

              I also believe there should be a provisional time period, say 5 years, with another background check run before citizenship. These are all requirements other countries have and they are reasonable.

              • BeyondPolls

                Some of that sounds similar to Rubio’s plan. But I don’t think we should ever discourage honest immigrants from coming in. That’s un-American.

          • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

            Politics above American Citzen? You obviously have not been following him as I have for the last couple of years, as he has not changd his stance on immigration. He is not ‘running’ for the Presidency, he is making a change to how our politics is currently being run. Immigration is messed up, we all know that, but we can’t just secure the border. I am sure you are a person who believes so strongly in the Patriot Act and would even back some sort of legislation that would spy on certain people just because of their ethnicity. Most modern old republicans these days don’t even understand the idea of Liberty. Just their made up type that they thought in their head, which only consists of partial liberty.

            • Orangeone

              Another PaulBot surfaces. Son needs to go by the way of his kooky father.

              • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

                That is what your response is? hahah Very nice and mature. Stuck in the old times are you?

                • Orangeone

                  BTW thanks to you and your PaulBot friends for 4 more years of Barky Boy.  Hope you enjoy the Election Consequences.

                • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

                  Oh I voted for Romney by the way.

                • Orangeone

                  I doubt that very much!  Lots of PaulBots saying that knowing they took their marbles home, pouted and didn’t vote.

                • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

                  Why would one lie about voting for a man that was nothing more than an establishment and had no idea what he was doing? And had a VP who ran on conservatism but voted the opposite? One should actually be ashame to say they voted for such a man… And I am to be honest, I just knew Obama was a lot worse at the time…

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      He knows that securing the border will take time and “enforcing” it means many illegals will be deported and many more will self deport.

      • BeyondPolls

        Good grief, not self-deporting again.

        • keyesforpres

          Self deporting works. A year and a half ago we were getting an illegal immigration bill through our state legislature. Guess what? Many areas that were infested with illegals were suddenly illegal free!!…before our governor even signed the bill!! Of course, many have come back because of barky’s illegal executive orders.

          You should research “Operation Wetback” and see how aggessive deportation also leads to aggressive self-deportation!!

          • HarrietHT2

            Exactly. The forgotten man is either going to roll over and be a chump or he’s going to stand up like a man and demand the government implement a second Operation Wetback. A national discussion on the issue alone is all it would take to begin the self-deportation process, to start the flow of aliens moving in the opposite direction. The next president will be he who is man enough to fight for the forgotten man, the tax-payer, the law-abiding citizen, our rule of law, national sovereignty, and public safety, our national identity and American culture. Does such a man exist?

            • keyesforpres

              Tom Tancredo. He ran in 2008, but the press wouldn’t give him coverage. When I asked him if he’d end muslim immigration, he flat out said, “YES, I have a list of countries that people would not be allowed to immigrate here.”

              Alan Keyes as well.

              • HarrietHT2

                I agree with you on both of these men.

          • BeyondPolls

            Well, if it prevents BPA’s from constantly shipping people back and forth across the border, then I’m all for it.

    • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

      Not once has he said he wanted air surveillance around the border. You are definitely mistaken. If he did I would like to a see a report of that…

      • BeyondPolls

        Okay, I jumped to a conclusion there. He used to support helicopter bases around the border.

    • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

      Paul has said that courts should review the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” to conclude whether or not it should apply to the children of illegal immigrants. If court challenges fail, Paul would support a constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

      • BeyondPolls

        Yes, that’s what I meant.

      • keyesforpres

        The 14th amendment does NOT give US citizenship to foreigners giving birth on our soil. It only gave citizenship to freed slaves.

        The Congressional Globe of 1866 is where the proceedings of the 14th amendment were written down.

        Jacob Howard was the man who wrote,”Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and he was recorded as saying, “This will NOT include babies born to foreigners, aliens…” I don’t remember the rest, but you get the drift.

        Rand is just like his daddy…both think we should just let folks keep coming here and hope we can convince them of individual liberty….doesn’t work that way.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MVMVLN267XCY2HS5KL25QTQRKQ John

    The problem is Rand, you’re never going to get enforcement from the Democrats. They will not barter in good faith.

    • Orangeone

      The problem is Rand Paul.

      • Guest1776rcp

        I’ll take Rand Paul over Paul Ryan, Crispsie Creme, JEB or Marco Rubio any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

        I prefer West, Palin or Cruz but I could actually vote for Rand Paul unlike the others I mentioned. If one of the establishment yes-men like Ryan or RINOs like JEB etc.. wins the nomination I will write in Daffy Duck again.

        • Orangeone

          Some day Daffy Duck might just win!

          • HarrietHT2

            DD would be an improvement over what we have now.

            • Orangeone

              We need a write-in campaign so those that have been writing in Mickey Mouse (MM) select the correct consonant pair!

    • conservative58

      “…you’re never going to get enforcement from the Democrats.”

      Exactly! The Democrats are only interested in enforcing GUN CONTROL laws against law-abiding citizens. As for the ILLEGALS — “What difference does it make?”

  • Orangeone

    Rand Paul might be well served to study the Constitution he swore to uphold. He might be wise to study the 1986 Amnesty failure. And he might want to pay particular attention to why the 1986 Amnesty failed and the financial impacts to Americans then that are continuing today. And then he might want to join his nutty father in retirement.

    And this from the same person that “went after Kerry” and then voted for him for SoS

    • sharpley

      I wonder if Rand will evolve, or pull a Santorum (re: Spector), and endorse McConnell??

    • aposematic

      That applies to all R’s and D’s too. Why single out Paul? I guess Rubio’s amnesty plan has been forgotten already.

      • Orangeone

        I agree it applies to all but the subject of the thread is Rand Paul

  • deTocqueville1

    Unfortunately Rand is showing its all about Rand and is already, like Rubio running for the GOP nomination for the presidency in 2016. He is pandering to the GOPe because he thinks he can only get to his objective with their support.

    What a contrast between Paul and Cruz!

    • Orangeone

      What a contrast between Paul and Cruz!

      Well said! Ted Cruz is doing the job he was elected to do, be US Senator while Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are focusing on campaigning.

  • deTocqueville1

    delete

  • StrangernFiction

    They aren’t going to secure the border Rand. Capisce?

  • deTocqueville1

    The word poseur comes to mind.

  • StrangernFiction

    evolve buckle

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      YES!

  • physicsnut

    they lied about immigration in 1965.
    They lied about immigration in 1986.
    Any questions ?
    We don’t even need the present level of legal immigration,
    never mind the illegals.

    • Orangeone

      Exactly! And notice how this is happening every 23-28 years as new generations of brainwashed youth out of the public school system begin to vote?

  • sjmom

    Do we the people have a choice about immigration reform? Guess not.

    I’m not Hispanic but if I was it would anger me to think one party or the other is trying to “buy” me because I am not for sale. The politicians treat people like commodities and why groups have allowed them to get away with it I don’t know?? Perhaps, I’m just a rebellious sort because as a woman I always despised being looked at the way the feminists see me and politicians like to categorize me.

    Guess what, I’m a whole lot more and then some! The Lord created each of us special and if people would see themselves as God does there’d be a whole lot less of the “group think” and people wouldn’t be so easily manipulated. Oh well………….its no wonder Jesus called us sheep. Now, if you will excuse me, I’ve had my morning rant and I will leave everyone in peace. :)

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      THat was a great rant though sjmom!

    • Orangeone

      What we do have is the right to collectively sue over the costs of the illegals here and the illegals granted amnesty in 1986 as well as the violation of the law passed in 1986. We the taxpayers are stuck with the financial burden and that is the “harm” we must experience in order to sue.

  • tinlizzieowner

    Republicans have already ‘evolved’ Mr. Paul. They have evolved into 80’s era Democrats and that’s the problem.

    • physicsnut

      right. And there is no reason to be in a rush – illegals have been doing this forever. Furthermore – we ALREADY HAVE a “path to citizenship” – and do not need a new one. It is all phoney crap to get more democrap voters. Accuracy in Media has an article on the democrat strategy – which involves getting illegal votes, and suppressing OUR votes.

    • Orangeone

      Out of the ballpark with one swing at bat!

      • tinlizzieowner

        Well, I’m not good at baseball but I’m great at clubbing baby Seals, ask any liberal.
        ;-) ;-)

  • TickedWhiteDude

    Rush puts best…He will endorse full blown amnesty IF they cannot vote for 25 years….Muahhahahaha.

    • HarrietHT2

      Did Rush say that? That he would endorse amnesty if they cannot vote for 25 years?

      If so, then he cannot be a conservative, no matter how much he blathers on about how he is one. This means that he will sell out the rule of law, national sovereignty, our culture for a temporary voting reprieve, during which time a whole host of new illegal immigrants will flood across the border, knowing another amnesty is just around the corner — and the millions of chain immigrants along with them.

      But it won’t matter to him, because he is insulated from the consequences, and by the time the nation is utterly destroyed, he will be dead. In the meantime he keeps his empire intact as he shills for the “opposition” party.

      • TickedWhiteDude

        You must not listen to Rush…In fact, you most likely listen to what others say about him. He was making a point, and that is if they wouldn’t allow the illegals to vote for 25 years AFTER they were made legal citizens, the democrats wouldn’t want ANYTHING to do with them.

        • HarrietHT2

          That puts a different color on it, for sure. But still, my radar is up. Thank you for clarifying the 25-yr comment.

          • TickedWhiteDude

            Rush uses absurdity to illustrate the absurd. It’s also always good to keep your radar up.

  • davienne

    oh great … they cant and wont enforce the immigration laws already in place .. so they make up more laws that they cant and wont enforce,…
    Excuse me for thinking this sounds like a really stupid idea… to make laws that they have no intention of in enforcing
    THE LOONIES IN CHARGE OF THE ASSYLIM….is what comes to mind

    • aposematic

      The illusion/deception (solving problems that only exist in the Pols minds or exist only because the Government created the problem) is more important than reality and at least since the last two elections it is abundantly clear the people are easily fooled.

  • RefudiateGOPe

    Yeah, we need to evolve. We need to evolve back to the future. We need to evolve back to following and enforcing our laws. Once laws are enforced and we find that we have some problems, then let’s talk reform. Until we start following and enforcing the current laws we have, we don’t need to be changing or “evolving” to fix things.

    • Orangeone

      We need to evolve back to have a potus that has actively and honorably served in our military! I want Eisenhower back.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    So I’ll try telling that to the ICE agents next time they ask me for my papers. “Hey, you need to evolve…”

    • marketcomp

      LOL!

  • ryanomaniac

    If I get pulled over for speeding and they ask for my ID I’ll say I have a G.E.D. Apparently they couldn’t do anything about it. Right, Im a law abiding white dude. I’ll be thrown in jail.

    • Orangeone

      You’d be a little safer in MN Ryan, the cops are targeting white women because we have a higher rate of paying the citations. It’s all about revenue!

      • ryanomaniac

        Funny you said that. My sister got a traffic ticket in our home town. She paid it. The city screwed up some how and they issued a warrant for her arrest. She was now in MN. She got pulled over with her four kids on board. They saw this mistaken warrant and put her a$$ in jail. Towed her car. They did however let her make a phone call to her friend to come and get the four children. An illegal just has to say G.E.D. and roll on.

        • Orangeone

          OMGosh I am sooo embarrassed to be in MN. In one hour one day I saw 4 women pulled over, all white, all by male cops. The cities know the citations will be paid and they are also hoping for other violations (cell phone – tell your sister to leave her phone in her purse out of reach), etc.

          • HarrietHT2

            You know, Orangeone, I’d say it’s about time to get your fanny out of the People’s Republic of MN. How on earth do you people keep electing Bachmann in such a hostile environment? That’s rhetorical. Her district must be at least a little bit “normal.”

            • Orangeone

              Trying but it’s tough with a home, business and professional licensure. I’ve been looking in WI because it’s the easiest move, already do most of my commerce over there. TX has MUCH better representation but the Calicooks are moving in and that’s troublesome.

              Bachmann has been in a conservative district until the redistricting. She is one tough woman and fought back against a huge dem establishment of rabid animals, including the MSM.

              • HarrietHT2

                You know, I wouldn’t go to TX either; you’re right about the Cali[k]ooks. Well, moving depends on a lot of things, not least of them your age and family situation, in addition to those you cite and the political environment. I wish you well, wherever you are.

  • PhillyCon

    Hmmm. I wonder if this has anything to do 2016.

  • Sandra123456

    And another Republican bites the dust.

    Actively pursue the laws we have now. If you’re not going to do that, then why make more laws? What’s the urgency?

    All the lawmakers in Washington DC should go home for the next three years, and meet if they must to name post offices and such somewhere in Alaska for one week a year.

    Have enough laws, not much enforcement.

    • sjmom

      They are truly making fools out of themselves and at this point I wouldn’t support anyone who is using important issues to get a nomination.

  • MadAsHellJack

    So Rand you’re finally evolving into a RINO! DISGUSTING!

    • Orangeone

      He’s a Libertarian, conservative fiscal, liberal social.

    • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

      RINO? Are you just talking out of your ass? He is the farthest from the group of being a RINO…. Because he believes everyone should have the right to come to the US, doesn’t make him a RINO. He doesn’t saY ‘give everyone amnesty now’, he believes if we lived in a Free Market society, then people should be able to come and go as they please. Which is right.

      The problem with most of you guys is that you are the group, if it came to it, would vote for someone like Bush again. I say most of you, not all. I see this all the time. So lovey dovey over a man who was clearly a liberal with the legislation he passed and helped pushed our nation into an economical downturn. Once again, I said ‘helped pushed’ and not ‘created’, as the financial crisis has been going on since the 1970’s.

      • MadAsHellJack

        Any talk by a republican of letting illegals become legal is 100% BS! He may be farther right than some RINOs but this kind of talk makes me see him as just one more politician that sold out. Oh and George W. I detest many, many things he did that we are still saddled with and will be for life and I would not vote for George W again.. The DHS,Patriot Act and the TSA are all an abomination to our Rights. And no I am not talking out my ass Pete!

        • http://twitter.com/PeterLeaman1 Pete – TYF

          Well glad to hear about George W Bush. However, when trying to label Rand Paul as a RINO it is, yes, you just talking out of your ass… Consevatism to the Constitution must mean something different to you then.

  • aposematic

    The only “vote” on border security that means spit would be 98% or better of the citizens living on the border. Any talk of “normalizing the undocumented” (amnesty) before the above is accomplished and verified by the border residents is to evolve yourself and the GOP into the netherworld of insane self destruction. So Senator Paul, you may now join Senator Rubio in killing any possible chance you may have had in ever becoming POTUS.

    • Orangeone

      Personally I’d like 100% of Congress and the WH to physically reside on the border, with their spouses, children and grandchildren, in gun free zones with no armed protection. Let’s see how well they fare.

      • aposematic

        Or go ahead and let them have guns (i.e. no gun control laws) and then let them get sued by some illegal for violating the illegals rights or some other nonsense these hypocrites now support.

        • Orangeone

          I like that too!

  • Pancake3

    Right to carry? Seems to me that self-protection does not end at my front door. Why in the world does any governmental body have the wherewithall to tell me I cannot protect myself against any form of menace in my house or out? Seems the NRA has gone along with restrictions or changes to a right guaranteed by the Constitution. We should all carry whatever weapons (be it a baseball bat, knife, iron skillet, gun, or whatever) any place we might choose to go. Phooey on right-to-carry.

  • hramirez18

    My 2016 list
    IN OUT Maybe
    Gov Walker Rubio West
    Gov Palin Paul (2) Jindal
    Ryan Santorum
    Bush
    Bachmann

    • Orangeone

      Watch Scott Walker, he might also be soft on illegals. He won’t answer any direction questions on the topic. I like his fiscal policies, the way he stood up against the unions but want to know more.

      • aposematic

        NJ’s Christie for just one example. My Gov. VA, McDonnell, is pulling some swift tax increases portrayed as neutral. Also our R controlled Senate and House have just file 13’d several individual freedom and anti-Agenda 21 Bills… Can’t trust any Pol these days.

        • HarrietHT2

          Anti-Agenda 21 bills, filed? Submitted? Anti-Agenda 21 is a good thing. What are you saying, exactly, if I may ask?

          • aposematic

            They are trashing (file 13) the anti-Agenda 21 Bills and passing pro-Agenda 21 Bills. And VA Legislature is R controlled…disgusting at best.

            • HarrietHT2

              Time for Virginian’s to flood the State Capitol switchboard, and trot out replacement candidates for the next election.

    • marketcomp

      IN, Ted Cruz 2016! In my opinion there is no one the US Senate who can communicate nor articulate the immigration issue like Ted Cruz and he is from a border State. He has said he beleives in securing the border first then decide what to do with those who are here. He has said that only 2% of Hispanics in his State think that immigration is important but 52% of Hispanics think jobs and growth are important. Something that neither the democrats, or republicans think important when it comes to Hispanisc. Perhaps we need to send Hispanics from Texas to California and Florida and other States to educate them on what it means to be free.

  • MadAsHellJack

    Can we evolve back to the time when we had sanctity of life, born and unborn, sanctity of our Constitution, sanctity of the Ten Commandments, the sanctity of Christianity and the sanctity of Our GOD!

    • stage9

      See my post above….

      ..and no, because we’ve “outgrown” those things. (that’s the new atheists buzzword — we’ve “outgrown religion”) We’re 21st century man — smarter than God, and more enlightened than reason itself.

      • HarrietHT2

        That’s a very nice line: “more enlightened than reason itself.” It speaks clearly of man’s arrogance.

  • Wigglesworth

    It’s not just securing the border. The vote should also be on interior enforcement. If Chicago and LA aren’t turning over illegal aliens that are arrested for various crimes then no amnesty should be given to anyone either.

    • Orangeone

      Mpls and St. Paul are sanctuary cities. Illegals thrive on all the public assistance bennies too, costing us $774 million/annually which is very close to the amount of deficit we have each year. I am facing increases in taxes because of it, again this year.

  • Wigglesworth

    Also the vote should be a unanimous approval by the governors of the 4 border states, not a vote in the House or Senate.

    • Orangeone

      Unanimous vote of 100% of the governors and 100% of people paying taxes.

      • aposematic

        Yes, yes, yes!

    • sDee

      The influx of illegal foreigners is not just a Mexican border problem. They come into every airport in America on visas that they have no intention of honoring. In fact this is the islamists’ MO.

      So to your point, why have all these “conservative”, 10th Amendment zealots not added a provision that prohibits all Federal interference in the States’ investigating and prosecuting illegal foreigners? Including stopping those entering their states with out visas, and occupying their states illegally.

      Never mind I guess…. it’s really a rhetorical question.

      • stage9

        because that is not politically beneficial.

      • KenInMontana

        Article 1 Section 8 ; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,..”

        You would need a Constitutional Amendment to effect a change or to legally legitimize immigration enforcement by the States. What I would like to see the border State’s LEOs start doing would be to dump any undocumented or illegals they happen to come across in the course of carrying out their sworn duties at the nearest convenient ICE offices, and keep doing it until the ICE officials have gotten so tired of it they start doing their actual job.

        • HarrietHT2

          Interesting approach. At the same time, Andrew McCarthy argues that while Article 1 Section 8 intends clearly a federal role regarding citizenship, it does not — not — also intend a federal role for border security. See here: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/304214

          • KenInMontana

            Starting with the Preamble’s “to provide for the common defense” authority for the protection or defense of the United States is pretty clearly vested in the Federal Government.

            Article 1 Section 8 also covers defense pretty thoroughly;

            To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

            To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

            To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

            To provide and maintain a Navy;

            To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

            To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

            To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

            It is argued that this is also reaffirmed by what is known as the “necessary and proper” clause at the tail end of Section 8;

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

            Couple this with the enumerated authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and you have the Federal authority to control and enforce immigration law.

            As to the question of the Sovereignty of the individual States, there are many who make the case that it “went the way of the do-do”, at Appomattox. However if one reads past Section 8 (few actually do) to Sections 9 & 10, the Constitution did away with much of that Sovereignty;

            From Section 9:

            No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

            No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

            And from Section 10:

            No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

            No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

            No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.</blockquote

            Section 10 pretty well confines the business of the State Governments to within the their borders. Now it's possible, tough, but possible to make an argument that part of the State Government's responsibilities would be the safety of its residents, but that only gets you so far, as you run headlong into the enumerated purview of the Federal Government.

            In all honesty I am surprised McCarthy missed this.

            • KenInMontana

              I am in all honesty surprised McCarthy missed this.

              • HarrietHT2

                He did say that, “in the early Republic, the dubious thing was suggestion of a federal role in immigration enforcement; the state’s power was undeniable.” I wonder about his historiography here.

                Perhaps in the short run, absent our “legally legitimiz[ing] immigration enforcement by the States,” the drop off at ICE of illegals by LEO’s is not a bad idea, especially here in AZ.

                • KenInMontana

                  I’d be willing to bet there is at least one “lawdog” down there in Arizona that has the “stones” to do such a thing. ;)

            • keyesforpres

              But since the federal gov’t failing to provide for the common defense and failing to secure our borders, don’t you think states have a God given right to defend themselves?

              • KenInMontana

                States and Nations do not have rights, people do.

                • keyesforpres

                  Of course it’s the people who have rights! We have a right to defend ourselves from invasion. The federal gov’t is NOT protecting us from invasion therefore, we have a right to defend ourselves from invasion…the power rests with the people NOT the federal gov’t. We have a God given right to defend ourselves.

                • KenInMontana

                  We’re not being invaded, there are no foreign armies that have crossed our borders.

                • keyesforpres

                  Mexico’s military crosses our border all the time.

                  This most certainly is an invasion.

              • KenInMontana

                Do you approve of just ignoring the Constitution when it suits you?

                • keyesforpres

                  Don’t be absurd. The federal gov’t is ingoring their Constitutional duty, therefore, we have a right to defend ourselves…since they won’t do it.

                • KenInMontana

                  I’m not being absurd. I’m not the one engaging in hyperbole.

                • keyesforpres

                  We have a right to defend ourselves.

  • standsomemore

    Yawn. Go head, Rand, keep chasing the weekly “shiny thing.” Here’s an idea, why not talk about “evolving” on the unemployment rate?

    • keyesforpres

      Love that! “the weekly shiny thing”.

  • DavidRobertson

    I’m not sure I understand Mr. Paul’s comment that we should “evolve” on immigration. I believe conservatives agree with him that a seperate and first process of securing the border should come before adding any reform to the existing illegal population…so how are we any different than what he says? What are we evolving from? Only the most extreme believe that we should deploy a massive government force to force deportation. While that would be possible with a smaller pool of people, the poor enforcement over the past decades make that reality a bit out of the possible without a significant expansion of government. The only stark difference between conservative and liberal on this issue is ENFORCEMENT and SECURITY before reform. We simply don’t want to repeat the bait and switch of years past. Rand’s statement that we must “evolve” is a back-handed way to paint conservatives as knuckle-dragging, racist, mindless apes…helping the MSM paint the narrative. He could have chosen a better way to address his point.

    • HarrietHT2

      You make a very good point here, DavidRobertson: “Rand’s statement that we must “evolve” is a back-handed way to paint conservatives as knuckle-dragging, racist, mindless apes…helping the MSM paint the narrative.” It also demonstrates conclusively that Rand Paul has no core conservative convictions that the rule of law, national sovereignty, and culture are sacrosanct. He is merely a progressive in libertarian drag, the topic of libertarians best left for another day — hint: they are actually liberals.

  • stage9

    You see folks, these are the new “buzz words” liberals have taught these idiots in Congress. And after the walloping in the last election, the repugnantcans are over-reacting and trying to institute the same tactics.

    You see, Obama “evolved” on counterfeit marriage, so the repugnantcans need to “evolve” on immigration.

    They all believe that everybody just needs to “evolve” beyond reason and common sense and all will be well.

    Implicit in the word “evolve” is the assumption that what we’re doing is currently operating BELOW the moral standard and we need to change our viewpoint in order to achieve that higher standard.

    If marriage has worked in its present state for millennia, that doesn’t matter; we need to “evolve” past common sense and reason and adopt a system that is counter-intuitive; something that’s doomed to fail.

    But just as evolution itself is a phoney premise — because things succumb to entropy over time not order — so too are these word games.

    Instituting counterfeit marriage is not “evolving” from a lower moral standard to a higher one — quite the opposite; it’s repackaging a high moral standard by lowering it to a lower moral standard and calling it “righteous”.

    We’re supposed to believe the same thing in regard to immigration. We’re expected to “evolve” on immigration which means that we’re expected to buy into the notion that lowering the standard, including the standard of law, will benefit us all, despite the fact that we all know intuitively that it won’t. We’re expected to turn off our brains and allow liberal buffoons to fill our heads with their omnipotent wisdom. We’re expected to “look the other way” when Senators break the law, or bend the law — for votes — while “we the people” are not afforded the same courtesy.

    Everyday our representatives prove to us that the law is a subjective thing — that they can break it and never face consequences. It can be bent when it conveniences them. And this itself is a crime against us that needs remedying.

    • marketcomp

      Yeah, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio need to freak’in “evolve” and uphold the Constitution that they took an aoth to uphold! Disgusting!

  • steprock

    I really think we have to do something sensible that many immigration hawks will probably scream about. But I want to challenge you on being hawkish on this subject.

    Think of it: you cannot very well send cops door to door in riot gear rounding up people who are illegal and dropping them off on the border. It ain’t gonna happen. It’s inhumane and Mexico doesn’t want them.

    What’s the next step then? Dems want open borders so they can buy illegal votes. We want to kick out everyone who can’t prove they belong here.

    Guys, there has GOT to be some compromise on this. There just has to. And if we can get secure borders, that’s a big deal. Rubio’s plan imposes penalties on current illegals and sends them to the back of the line.

    What more do we really want? SWAT Teams beating down doors? Interment camps on the border? Random police stops for anyone who’s too brown? Because if you stay hawkish on immigration, that’s what you are asking for.

    • ryanomaniac

      You will compromise yourself into the ground if you feel that way.

      • steprock

        Then how do you get what you want? I’m not talking about letting values slide, but coming up with a reasonable compromise wherein we get what we want: Secure borders.

        You can’t just dig in your heels and get something for nothing. A compromise is when both sides give up on something and come to a new agreement.

    • sDee

      Always question the premise. Mass deportation and breaking down doors is not necessary and impractical. New laws are not needed.

      It took decades to get here. It will take decades to reverse. We got here by not enforcing our laws. We simply have to start enforcing our laws. Just stating publicly our resolve to enforce our laws, will reverse the flow – that I can guarantee.

      Anything else is political deception to win a block of 12 million entitlement voters.

      • steprock

        OK, fair point. But how do we get there?

        The Dems are pretty clear that they want to buy illegal votes and will do nothing to uphold their Constitutional mandate to secure our borders.

        How do we get anything – anything at all – from people who think like this?

        I, for one, am listening up when Republicans come up with some kind of a plan, even if I’m not thrilled about all of it. We can’t just stay where we are and the Dem’s long-running plan sucks.

        • HarrietHT2

          The calculation missing in your position is that Obama has sued the state of Arizona for enforcing federal law, and won. Obama is so determined to have open borders that he sued my state for exercising her sovereign right to protect her citizens. And the SC went along with it. NO PLAN will MAKE him enforce the law. And the Republicans KNOW THIS. They all know he sued AZ because AZ was doing the job he would NOT DO — and never intends to do. This is all smoke and mirrors, a charade, real-true kabuki theater.

  • dontdrinkthecoolaid

    Let the illegals in with provisions: No voting or entitlement rights for 20 years.

    • sDee

      They are already in.

      That they are already on US soil without a visa/permit, is self-incriminatory proof that they violated US Federal Law

      Because they violated US Federal Law, they are ineligible for any sort of existing visa or permit that would give them a path to citizenship

      If our politicians “reform ” intends to allow them go onto that existing visa path to citizenship, they must first excuse their pre-meditated violation of US Federal law. (aka Amnesty)

      Therefore, any “reform” from our political class boils down to nothing more than Amnesty for law breaking foreign citizens.

      Promises of “no voting or entitlement rights for 20 years” will be honored just as all the laws today are. i.e. “fuhgetah ’bout it, suckahs!”

      Politicians Lie.

    • keyesforpres

      Meanwhile, dems let them vote and give them welfare, and they are raping and murdering us daily.

  • Sober_Thinking

    The perfect storm. Open borders, welfare state, Democrats who exploit Hispanics through misinformation (our corrupt media) and promise them welfare in order to get their vote.

    I agree that we’ll have to reach some unpalatable compromises somewhere… though I won’t like it one bit and I’m not sure what those compromises are. But secure the border right now… because as news of compromise and “evolving” stances on immigration get aired (and the MSM will race to air this crap so more illegals can crowd in and vote for their masters), the trickle becomes a flood. Every day, every hour, more and more unskilled moochers invade our country. And Democrats love it and often benefit from it. This must end NOW.

    • sDee

      Exactly the real issue here. That one I’ve read about except Sessions is even hinting at that reality, is grim.

    • steprock

      Secure the borders. Baby step one is a big step indeed.

      Sober, why is it that we just EXPECT our rulers to screw things up and not follow their clearly mandated role in the Constitution?

      Why do we EXPECT so little of them? Hardly a Lincoln or Jefferson in sight.

      • Sober_Thinking

        Great point… we are being trained to live with less and less I fear.

        I’m laughing because you are sooo right. They were elected and we pay them to do their job… and they seem incapable of doing that one simple thing.

    • HarrietHT2

      Your point is well taken. In fact, over the last several days I’ve come to conclude that another wave of illegals arriving here — via this dog and pony show we’re living through — is the desired outcome of our elected body, obvious to anybody now that they intend soon to erase our north and south borders, NAU-style.

      How else does it make any sense at all that Republicans would so thoroughly destroy their brand, much less willingly import Democrat voters in such mass numbers sufficient to make permanent a one-party progressive/statist government? Have Republicans decided the best they can hope for is to pretend they’re the “other” party just so they can sit at the table as lackeys?

      • Sober_Thinking

        Wow… I don’t recognize you but man, that was an excellent post.

        Welcome.

  • Spartan4Palin

    I literally can’t stand the stupidity anymore. A voting block of people who don’t necessarily identify with you does not ‘suddenly’ change their mind because you promised them an extra present under the tree. That is not a sudden sign of respect if that is what you’re hoping for? And if these morons think it is, they have a very serious problem with reality and common sense?

    For gawds sake, I would like just 1 person to have the balls to stand up there and say; ‘I’m not going to pander to any group. Here are the principles of Conservatism that WILL get us out of this mess. Conservatism encompasses the individual to be able to thrive on their own merits. Their own ideas. And their own hard work. And we welcome those who wish to stand with us as we fix these problems and disaters created by utopian and liberal ideologies that fail EVERY time they are tried. History is repleat with the failures. And because history tends to repeat itself, we are again, living out those same failures imposed by a president that believes he IS the answer to the failed ‘utopias’ of the past. And like those before him, he will fail because the idea of collectivism is NOT a principle. It’s an idea and/or theory from a man (Karl Marx) who was living off of someone else’s hard work. And like those believers of the ideology, it’s failure is ALWAYS some else’s fault for not succeeding. It is human nature for the ‘individual’ to live free. And until they can successfully drum it out of the human spirit, they will NEVER win.

    I’m tired of being a pawn of some politicians game to garner respect from an elite class of crapweasels either in DC or in the media who live in a bubble of ‘evian’ type air. I have watched my paycheck dwindle because of bills written to stroke their pious sensibilities that end up hurting the rest of the country, all in the name of a 3in guppy that lives in a rain puddle. My paycheck has dwindled so much that EVERY penny is accounted for. EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM. And by the end of the month I can no longer afford a 32oz drink outlawed in NY. If only we had representatives that could do accounting that same way. We wouldn’t be in the same damn arguments over spending every year, every congress and every presidency playing it like its russian rhoulette.

    So here’s the deal to all those in DC and around the country. There is a BIG group of people who sat home in 2012 because of your lack of enthusiasm to speak to those that were already in your voting bloc. We were taken for granted. You keep going down this road of pandering for a few more percentage points, and you will suddenly find out that it is all you have left.

    • sDee

      Well said! True. They can no longer keep us in the dark. We may not know the depth fo their over run of our liberty and sovereignty, but we cannot not avoid that it is here. There will be a revolution – the only question now is what will be its nature.

      • steprock

        We have come to the cliff, we have come to the wall.

        Nothing is going to change in this bitter partisan atmosphere. Our takers in government won’t stop taking. The takers in the populace won’t suddenly become hard workers.

        I fear that nothing will change until we face utter ruin. Going back to the basics is out of the question until the current system collapses.

        Either that, or there will be large numbers of like-minded Conservatives who can make a change at the ballot box first. Problem is, our supposed party has abandoned the core principles as well. So, collapse and ruin it is. Or outright refusal to comply.

        I suppose a third outcome is we muddle by for a few years and the country limps along until true Conservatives have had enough and gain power.

        • HarrietHT2

          Frankly, I wish we had some “bitter partisan atmosphere.” From my reading of events and players, what we have is full-out capitulation by first the beltway Republicans and now even the “conservative” (HAH!) “stars.” Please, oh please, may we have some real-life bitter partisanship, evidence that we are fighting tooth and nail for our beloved country.

    • Sober_Thinking

      Great rant… spot on.

      I offer my meager condolences to your situation… I’m getting there too as my paycheck and benefits are also fading…

      I hope we get ‘er done in 2014… or we’ll be done.

      • Spartan4Palin

        You’re very kind and I truly appreciate the thoughts. It’s not the paycheck so much for me, in that it’s the critical mass we’re now at because of their stupidity and narcissistic need to ‘be liked’ by their peers. And we all suffer and pay for it. I’m not worried for me as much as my family and friends around me who have it worse.

  • marketcomp

    I am so sick and tired of libertarians and these fake republicans righteousness. They tell us that we must accept same-sex marriage, illegal drugs, and people should do whatever they want with no consequences and now we need to “evolve” on immigration that will inevitably destroy the customs and destroy traditions that make us uniquely Americans. How is it that you call yourselves leaders when you continually swim with the fish? These people are not leaders but opportunist. We are always very skeptical about these politicians and the minute I saw Rubio on a foreign trip with John McCain I knew that he had turn- I had suspensions before that but that solidified it for me. These talk radio host need to stop putting these people up as leaders because they are no such leaders; they are followers who sing to one tune. But with Rubio and Paul there really were no other candidates better in their primaries and having a cohesive message got them to where they are.

    In the case of Ted Cruz he had a tremendous amount of competition so he have to perform in both of the primaries in Texas so he is battle proof and understands messaging. It must not only be cohesive but able to present and communicate substantive ideas and deliver that in a format that the public can understand. Now that’s an ability that neither Romney, Ryan, Rand, nor Rubio have.

    • HarrietHT2

      I agree with you. But it’s more than messaging: it has to be WHO he is, not what he wants to become. If he is a man of strong principle and integrity, a man who has internalized his core beliefs to the point that he is unshakeable, he is compelled from every ounce of his being to stay true to them and speak of them plainly and without fear. He realizes that truth is beauty and beauty, truth, and he will protect them with his life. He is a rock. No, neither Romney, Ryan, Rand, nor Rubio qualify, not by any yardstick.

      • marketcomp

        Right on, HarrietHT2! I did say that messaging is just a political move and in most instances meaningless. Messaging along with conviction, a belief in Conservatism and the ability to present and deliever are all crucial and I really do think all of those qualities are in Sen. Cruz. I cannot even imagine him being molded or shaped into a RINO.

        • HarrietHT2

          And now we begin to keep a close eye on Cruz, as I had done with Rubio earlier, with disappointing results. See this here, if you care to know when my hopes for Rubio were forever shattered:http://www.amnation.com/vfr/

          I frequent VFR daily, so I’ve known for months who the real Rubio is. His subsequent voting record further confirmed for me his sham conservatism.

          • marketcomp

            Thxs for sharing that, HarrietHT2. I am just not that into him anyway. So with the next electioin we may get a Hillary or whomever the dems put up but I will not blindly vote for another RINO and I know that there are many like us who believe, not feel, the same way. These RINOs have got to be the most incompetent politicians on the face of the earht. There are no numbers showing that Hispanics will overwhelmingly vote for Republicans when they agree or implement amnsety and this latest amnesty move will prove no different. You have to go out in the community and visit the churches to communicate our ideas. Ideas are what win elections, not amnesty peddling.

  • http://twitter.com/Lady_Penquin Lady Penquin

    Sure, Sen Paul, you’re gonna trust those government reports? You’re gonna believe the whitewashed hearings? Everything the government is saying and doing is one big lie, and now you’re signing on. Sad.

  • crakpot

    “Evolve” is a liberal word for “surrender.” He’s better than Rubio, but he needs to walk that back.

  • c4pfan

    I’m so tired of being told what I should think! He didn’t give a good reason.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    there is no longer any incentive to obey the rule of law in this country. Those that registered their guns are now on a list compiled by DOJ in the vent of targeted confiscation.

    Then we have the chief law enforcement officer constantly breaking the law and ignoring court rulings like moratorium on drilling and recess appointments.

    and now we have this…and I notice it comes from a Senator that has no clue what it is like to live with uncontrolled illegal immigration. The impact is enormous. Between entitlements, education, infrastructure to the environment itself it is unsustainable and yet we told to ‘evolve’.

    VOTE THEM OUT AND KEEP DOING IT UNTIL THEY GET THE MESSAGE ABOUT WHO THEY WORK FOR.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/CZSU2D67ODNZOKEZYHXONQ4F5Y John

    E -friggin’ – volve??? …………………To get more voters for DNC???
    After Reagan’s amnesty, LESS southern neighbors voted for RNC.
    Forgotten? Not by us.
    Are you blind and brainless? Just join DemocRATS and stop this charade.
    BTW – the unemployment in USA must be ZERO!! How do I know it?
    Just read below:
    “President Barack Obama will let his jobs council expire this week without renewing its charter”

    • c4pfan

      I’m so getting over this obsession of running for 2016 already.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/CZSU2D67ODNZOKEZYHXONQ4F5Y John

        Majority of illegals vote for DemocRATS!!! And it is not 11 million….. several years ago the “estimated Gove number” was 20 mln, if I remember correctly.
        In reality, it must be well over 50 million.

  • HarrietHT2

    So he’s peachy keen on normalizing 11 million lawbreakers whose presence here not only drives wages down for Americans but places enormous strains on taxpayers, policing, educating, medicating, adjudicating, and what did I miss? them.

    Forget the rule of law, forget national sovereignty, forget culture, forget the United States of America, because it’s quite clear that Republicans have decided to join Democrats in erasing America once and for all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chester.simms.1 Chester Simms

    And so begin the series of steps that will put Hillary Clinton into the White House.

  • HarrietHT2

    So he’s peachy keen on “normalizing” 11 million lawbreakers whose presence here drives down wages for American workers and places enormous burdens on the American taxpayer who must, educate, police-adjudicate-incarcerate, treat medically, feed (thank you food stamp president), and what did I miss? them.

    So the Republican Party has decided the US is kaput: rule of law? what difference does it make?; national sovereignty? who cares?; public safety? they’re little people, the serfs — no one cares about them, the chump taxpayers; culture? hey, one culture is just as good as another — all civilizations die, get used to it.

    Well thank you Paul and Rubio. Now we know where we stand with the Republican Party.

    Sen. Vitter and Sessions should get out front and form a third party. WE ARE SO READY.

  • NJK

    What’s the point of a vote? They normally vote without knowing what they’re voting for. They never read it. I’m beyond digested. I’m coming to the realization that if you’re a true American and born here, you don’t matter, other than having them pick your pockets.

    We’re men and women without a party or a country. Republican Party RIP.

    • HarrietHT2

      Or, as Amity Shlaes would say, the forgotten man: the middle-class, law-abiding, taxpaying white guy on whom the varied special interests prey, looting you to fund one vote-buying scheme after another using the tools of class warfare and identity politics.

  • MissMyGuy

    I wish these politicians would start talking in terms of protecting our sovereignty. That is their job after all. Uphold the constitution. Stop diluting the issue.

  • cabensg

    So much for the Constitutional candidate. Do these people ever think of just doing nothing? By nothing I mean secure the border. Eliminate any government benefits for illegals. Enforce the laws on the book. These are already laws just enforce them.

    After this is done develop a workable green card program. I’m supposing there already is one that no one knows about or is enforcing so this could probably go in the first paragraph.

    This is what I love about Republicans. The minute liberals go around screaming something needs to be done about something (other than what’s good for the U.S.) Republicans jump right on board to try and fix (compromise) it. Their idiots.

  • ApplePie101

    This just reinforces my belief that any genuine constitutional candidate who wins a seat in congress must go into it with the mentality of a guerrilla in enemy territory.

  • TerryinFL

    Yup, way to go fellas – throw the working schmuck under the bus! Both of these men are too young to have lived thru how the addition of millions of illegal aliens has already adversely affected our Constitutional Republic the last 25 years and none want to discuss what Ike pulled off. My guess is that neither of them has ever had to compete with the illegal alien for a rung on the proverbial “ladder to success” that would support their family and lead to a better life. In other words, they are book smart but not street smart. Kinda’ like my ex-brother-in-law who had a business doctorate and a law degree but didn’t have enough common sense to come in out of the rain.

  • Constance

    Secure the freaking border. Do nothing else until that is done. You geniuses in Washington think you can manage that? No? Well, then leave it to the rest of us and get out of our damn way.

  • 57thunderbird

    RINO,err I mean Rand Paul has already been indoctrinated into the Beltway mentality.

  • 57thunderbird

    I’m not surprised.He also voted yes for Hanoi Kerry.Turncoat!

  • 12grace

    Disappointing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

    Ugh. Sorry Rand, I love ya and all that, but no thanks. Republican’s WON’T GET ANY VOTERS FROM THIS DEAL! Go ahead and grant them amnesty, and watch the Democrat’s take over normally Red States. I don’t care how “conservative” some Republican’s say they are, but the Democrat’s will have yet another loyal voting block.

  • kamiller42

    Rick Perry had the best solution on dealing with illegal immigration. Tighten up the borders to dry up the problem. We are going to keep coming back to these arguments as long as the border isn’t sealed, just like the debt ceiling debate. Asking congress to seal the borders is like asking them to control spending.

  • http://www.facebook.com/quindan Daniel Quinn

    RHINO, RHINO, RHINO! forget you, you have gone over to the dark side!