Rand Paul wants “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Rand Paul calls it an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegals and believes it is something that needs to be done, and he believes his conservative credentials can help him do it. Of course he only spoke of it somewhat generally some I’m not exactly sure what “eventual path” means, only that he says “but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally.”

POLITICO – In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said he’ll return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party. He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives. And he believes his ideas — along with pushing for less U.S. military intervention in conflicts overseas — could help the GOP broaden its tent and appeal to crucial voting blocs that handed Democrats big wins in the West Coast, the Northeast and along the Great Lakes.

Paul plans to inject himself into the middle of the GOP’s emotional immigration debate in the wake of Romney losing swing states with heavy Latino populations like Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Paul is working on a novel plan that he says would “assimilate” many of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those individuals, he said, could apply for legal status, but immigration would then be clamped down in the interim. He also says his plan would toughen security at the border.

“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”

Paul said the “trade-off” would be “not to accept any new legal immigrants while we’re assimilating the ones who are here.” Asked if he is concerned about the ripple effect that could cause around the world, Paul said the details over which countries would be affected are still in the works.

But it’s clear Paul wants to have a voice in the roiling debate, even as other prospective 2016 GOP players, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, plan to assert their views when Congress takes up immigration reform next year.

“I think I might have the ability to get out in front of this issue,” Paul said when asked if he believed conservatives would cry “amnesty” over such a plan. “I think I might have the ability because nobody really questions — at least not so far — whether I’m conservative enough.”


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.
  • I can not support him as easily as I can not support other amnesty proponents.
    we’ve done it 8 or so times, and suddenly we think #9 is the magical time?

    • THis is what Kruchev was referring to: “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright. But we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

  • odin147

    I don’t mind an eventual path but only if border is completely secured, and we have control over who is coming in and who is going out. It is time that the legal conservative Americans start increasing their birth rates.

    • Orangeone

      23 million unemployed, we know of 12 million illegals here. Citizenship means they can bring their entire families from Mexico. They multiply like rabbits. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million, now we have 12 million more. It encourages illegal behavior. They ALL violated federal law by entering and remaining in our country. Intern and return.

      • tvlgds

        The actual numbers of illegals here is closer to 32million. By the time they bring the families and drop more kids on our soil, we will be Northern Mexico with the very rich and the very poor! All by design, of course! I suspect we’ll actually have open borders within a year.

        • They fired up the NAFTA super highway this year, and open borders has been the goal for some time now. (on both sides) The North American Union has already been created, they just don’t want people to know about it.

          • tvlgds

            I suspect you’re exactly right. There’s whole lot they don’t want us to know that will get sprung on us soon!

    • bbitter

      There is an eventual path already… it’s called; go back home and do it right.

      I think we need to reform immigration laws, but there is NO WAY we can grant anything for those who are currently breaking one of the most basic laws of the land; citizenship.

      How can we honestly expect someone to respect the laws once they are here, if they broken them to get here, and continue to break them by staying and working?

      Think about it: how many laws do ILLEGAL immigrants break simply by staying and working here in the US? (Charges that immediately come to mind beyond illegal immigration: Fraud, conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, tax evasion, identity fraud, identity theft, extortion, etc…)

      …it’s like telling Lance Armstrong he can’t dope for better performance once he passed the entrance trials, then feeling let down when he lies about his conduct and tests positive for enhancers when competing and winning.

    • Betsey_Ross

      Exactly. Build the [email protected] wall. It should have been finished ages ago. If you can’t get a job and pay your own way, forget it. Go back to where you came from. Rush had an interesting proposal. If they all of a sudden become legal then they can’t vote for 25 years. I could get behind that. I can’t afford to pay for anyone that isn’t going to work. I am looking at figuring out how to support myself these days. I didn’t count on 12 million more. That was never in my retirement plans.

      • keyesforpres

        That would never work. Just the fact they are here means demonrats would drive them to the polls to vote like they always do.

        • Betsey_Ross

          Rush said it wouldn’t work either, but it neither does paying for all of these illegals. California had it on their ballot a few years back. It won. No one wanted to keep paying for them, but a judge ruled it illegal. Now they are just about ready to fall down the rat hole.

          • keyesforpres

            We’ll still be paying for them if we legalize them. Many will lose their jobs because their employers are only hiring them because they are illegal.

            It will also be even easier for them to access welfare. They would be MORE expensive legalized.

          • tvlgds

            Oh I remember it well. Prop 187! We, the people, said hell no we don’t want to pay for illegals and it was in the courts by the time the votes were tallied that very night. Gov Pete Wilson was going to fight the courts, but then Gray Davis took over and dropped it. Same thing with gay marriage. Before I left, we the people said no gay marriage. It’s been said again since then and nobody pays attention. I’m not sure why they go through the motions of letting the people decide and when they don’t like what we decide, they throw it out. Welcome to Amerika, Komrades!

      • Patriot077

        Paying for social services for this many people is breaking our backs and not one citizen has ever had a true voice in whether or not we want to provide all these services. This is wrong on so many levels. The border states are most heavily impacted but it hurts all of us particularly if there are “sanctuary cities” in our states.

      • E. Lee Zimmerman

        Better yet: catch the illegals and make them build it.

        • keyesforpres

          Heh, heh, and when they are done still send them home….at least 500 miles south of the border.

  • ssenecal5000

    It’s a head fake . “eventual” has long been in the conservative dialogue

    Secure the border, back of the line, then wait for your eventual turn.

    • Orangeone

      Secure the border, intern, collect DNA, return. Stand at the back of the line and be rejected because we know you already violated the laws of our land. In Mexico, you would be imprisoned for at least 10 years in a he!! hole for entering illegally.

      • keyesforpres

        I agree. Make an announcement were are going to start deportations and if you are arrested we will do what you suggested and let it be known that they will never be allowed back in. If they ever want a chance to come legally they better scram now. Watch them scatter like cockroaches.

        • Orangeone

          Make it so Key, make it so!  Best idea I’ve seen in a long while.

    • keyesforpres

      What a disgusting article. Mexico doesn’t have open borders. Why should we? Terrorists are coming here.

      To say there would be no illegal immigration if we had open borders is like saying we’d have no rapes if we didn’t make it illegal.

      We offer unlimited agriculture visas. There is no reason to come here illegally, unless you can’t pass the medical screening and criminal background check.

      See Reconquista and research the hate many Mexicans have for us.

  • Rocco11

    How about an “eventual path” to photo ID for 100% of voters? Our core principles are strong, but we’re getting cheated out of existence…

    • Unfortunately I’m not too sure how much even that would help. Ill bet there is 100X more voter fraud from poll workers than from people standing in line 3 times, and dead people voting.

      • 80% of votes are counted electronically. Those votes are controlled by four companies who have no transparency, and include code in the memory cards that record the votes that can alter the vote.

  • bbitter

    Beating our heads against the wall? Yeah.

    Our rights are protected by the rule of law. If we infringe the rule of law in any way, we infringe our own rights, for if we can bend the law for one reason, we can surely justify bending it for another. Citizenship is what cements our rights, and we are planning on giving that away? It is one of the most sacred things our country can bestow.

    I cannot bend on this.

    Amnesty will not help those who came here illegally; all it does is teach them that if they get enough people behind it, they can get our government to give out anything. This is called mob rule.

    Rand, if you can’t understand this… I can’t get behind you. This is very basic stuff; the essence of liberty is the rule of law.

    • Orangeone

      And voters have a right to know his position BEFORE an election. Like Rubio, another amnesty guy. Is Ted Cruz next?

      • HarrietHT2

        And Rush said flat out on one of his shows earlier this year that one day Rubio would be President. I can never forgive him that. Just like he said Boehner was at heart a nice guy, decent, and all that stuff; and he even golfs with him.

        Meanwhile Boehner is stabbing us in the back even as we write. “Obamacare is the law of the land.” Well, so was prohibition, you feckless, useless, excuse for a man.

        • Orangeone

          Agree, agree, and agree even more with your last point!  Yes, both slavery and prohibition we laws of the land.  Should we return to those laws Barky Boy?  Both involved gov’t control.

          • bbitter

            were you waiting for me to reply? I’m not sure if you meant me or just making a point ( a point I think I got) …but here goes. (Assuming your post was not sarcastic.) Why would enforcing current laws mean a return to slavery or prohibition?

            There ARE stupid laws. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be enforced, bad laws have a way of making a horrid mess when they hit the fan, enforcing them wakes the voters and the laws are changed. I have no problem changing laws, but the laws we do have should be enforced. Period.
            Besides, subjectively choosing what laws to follow or ignore is a half-step from full dictatorship – it’s the main problem we have with Obama’s admin.
            None of this, however, will ever give Boehner a spine… Lord save us, we need good leadership.

        • How much earlier in the year? It depends. Because many here were saying it before he tried to push the DREAM Act this Summer.

          • HarrietHT2

            Sorry, Alex, my memory is not that good. But I do know this: when I heard Rush say it I already knew that Rubio is a Trojan Horse RINO. That’s why it angered me so; that’s why I remember it!

  • I guess those who obey the laws before we even come here have a sign on our backs that says, “Slap me”. I’m sick of them pandering to illegals. They’ll be in for a rude awakening when all of these new so called citizens still vote straight D.

    • 4Hoppes2

      History tells us they will still vote straight D and until the border is secured and the benefits are cut totally off for the illegals and there is a comprehensive employer verification plan we are better off not tipping our hand.

    • sDee

      …and head straight over for food stamps, housing assistance, welfare, obamaphones and Medicaid. Becuse they are going to find out real fast that $12 an hour cash goes a whole helluva a lot farther than $20/hr for the same job once you have to pay taxes, SS, Medicare, and obamacare.

  • sDee

    Here we go again…..

    We have immigration laws. Enforce them.

    We have immigration quotas. Use them. For example why is the INS specifically recruiting, targeting and importing 1000s of of subversive marxists, muslims, and islamists every week, instead of hard working freedom-seeking Capitalists, Christians and Jews?

    Why is no one suggesting we “reform” the 1965 Immigration Act which is the biggest immigration mess in history?….hmmm….

    • Reform equals racism, that’s why. 🙂

      They want class and race warfare. They have to get it going somehow. What is better than screwing over the middle class while bringing in foreign nationals? Government helps to grow opium in Afghanistan which increases production and the influx if illegal drugs, then arms the cartels to help kill tens of thousands of Mexicans and a few Americans. Government fuels the fire on all sides. It isn’t an accident, and it isn’t new.

  • Sober_Thinking

    If they snuck in this country illegally, they are illegal aliens… NOT future U.S. citizens. If I rob a store and get caught, that doesn’t mean I get to keep the money I took. Rand is going to ruin his reputation if he tries to get behind the DREAM act or any other amnesty program for illegals.

    Why is this so hard for anyone to understand? It’s called “illegal” for a reason. They are breaking our laws by invading our sovereignty. Stop this nonsense.

    • Orangeone

      They understand but are looking for ways to remain in power not uphold the Constitution.

    • sDee

      Yeah we talked it over and decided it was our own fault for waiting so long to get the racoons out of our attic. So we built them their own bedroom. They still sh’t on our floors.

      • 4Hoppes2

        Good analogy.

      • Sober_Thinking


  • It is more reasonable than what Rubio, Graham or Schumer have proposed. But not him too. Gah, how many of our leaders are saying no to it?
    Pretty disappointing. Still like him but how many of all of our 2016 candidates, narrowed down, have rejected amnesty?

    • What does Allen West have to say about it?

      • 4Hoppes2

        He is exactly right one voting block gets unlimited voter support the other gets unlimited cheap labor.

    • I thought that the establishment was going to put Romney in this time, but the overwhelming amount of electronic fraud went to Obama.

      Who knows who they will put in next time?

  • NO to the national ID card straight from 1984.
    YES to voter ID.

  • williamm

    Path to citizenship for people here legally.

    Eligibility Requirements

    In order to apply for U.S. citizenship, you must meet the following requirements:

    Be at least 18 years old
    Have had a valid Green Card at least five years. If you are married to U.S. citizen you may apply after three years with a valid Green Card. Or, if you have served in the United States armed forces during war, you may apply for U.S. citizenship without first obtaining a Green Card if you were in the United States upon enlistment into the U.S. military.
    Have maintained continuous residence in the United States for at least five years (or three years if you are married to a U.S. citizen)
    Have been physically present in the United States for at least two and a half years (or one and half years if you are married to a U.S. citizen)
    Have lived in the state where the Form N-400 is submitted for at least three months
    Be able to read, write and speak English
    Have a general knowledge of the fundamentals of U.S. history and government
    Be a person of good moral character and willing to abide by the principles of the U.S. Constitution.


    • sDee

      I encourage anyone in favor of amnesty to volunteer and get involved in the illegal community. We have, providing healthcare, I can tell you it all that and worse. It is a dispiriting and sobering experience.

      All we worked with have come here knowing they were breaking they law, they remain here breaking the law, they vote, they misrepresent themselves and their families for benefits and privileges. Worst of all they are not ashamed of their deception. They do not appreciate this country. They boast of their scams because they feel they deserve it. Many openly mock us and most of all they are already working closely here with city/county/state employees and unions. They know socialists and know what they need to do to get amnesty.

  • You can’t deport every illegal here, there will have be some kinda of way for citizenship, eventually.

    • Take all the toys away, they’ll eventually leave on their own.

      • yeah some of them will leave on their own, but the ones that lived here for most of their lives don’t have anything to go back to.

        • keyesforpres

          Most have not been here most of their lives. Most can’t speak English. You don’t reward lawbreaking. I do not understand this notion that because they are here we are supposed to give them legal status. We lost our country Tues night because of this.

        • James1754

          And this is your responsibility how?

        • sDee

          They have as much to go back to there as the had when they came here. More actually.

        • keyesforpres

          That’s their problem. We offer unlimited agriculture visas. There is no reason to come here illegally unless they can’t pass the medical screening and criminal background check.

        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          That’s their own fault.

      • Constance

        I like Rush Limbaugh’s idea – amnesty for everybody, BUT they can’t vote for 25 years. Problem solved.

        • THe only thing I wonder about that, would that apply to me too? Don’t think I could handle not being allowed to vote for another 25 years.

          • TitaniumEagle

            Amnesty for everybody, but they can’t vote for twenty-five years or until they get a job and can demonstrate knowledge of the first amendment (see: freedom of religious expression) and of the tenth amendment.

            • That’s better. 1st Amendment- 5 freedoms. Relgion number 1 and the free excersize there of. The Press, Assembly, and petitioning the Government.

              10th States rights.

              My job is a home school mom.

              Do I qualify?

              • TitaniumEagle

                You win the right to vote and a bonus prize for actually coming here legally 🙂

                • YAY! 😉 Now, I just need to work towards actual citizenship. I don’t want amnesty. If something is worth having, it’s worth working for. Thanks TitaniumEagle 🙂

                • TitaniumEagle

                  Wow, if only 51% of the country had that attitude we’d be in a much better place right now.

                • Thanks 😀

          • But you’re here legally, that wouldn’t/shouldn’t apply to legal resident aliens or newly minted Citizens. It shouldn’t even apply to resident aliens who are here legally and then apply for citizenship. Once you qualify for citizenship and are accepted, you should be able to vote, period.

    • sDee

      The assumption that illegals have to be deported is a false one. Thousands of years years of history show this is not true. ALL modern sovereign nations EXCEPT the US handle this fine.

      We do not have an illegal problem because it is too easy to get in. We have an illegal problem because it is too easy, too lucrative to stay. As a US citizen just try to do any of what the illegals do here in another country and you will find out really fast that it is impossible to live a normal life.

      Illegals have all the trappings of citizenship but none of the responsibilities of citizenship. Simply remove the trappings under existing law (enforce visas/permits in order to work, no drivers license, cannot buy a home, no bank account/debit/credit card, no free public schooling, no scholarships, no free medical care, no food stamps, no housing assistance, no free legal services. Do that, and over the next 5 years 80% will drift back home – they do have homes and citizenship you know – they are not gypsy.

      The remaining 20% or so who want to remain here illegally may be crimanal, stubborn or may have to be deported and/or arrested. There may be some who decide to apply for citizenship legally.

      • I’m not saying we have to take everyone in but there should be exceptions for some.

        • keyesforpres

          On an individual case I would agree, but not mass amnesty. For example Rifq Bary’s family brought her here illegally. I was all for her being granted amnesty. If you’ve never heard of her go to http://www.atlasshrugs.com and scroll down on the right for “Rally for Rifqa”. ONLY on an individual basis. NEVER on a mass scale.

          • No amnesty for anybody period. Rifqa the illegal alien needs to be deported too.

            • keyesforpres

              You obviously didn’t bother to read about her. She left islam and her parents found out. They went to the Noor Mosque in Ohio…ties to Hamas. She ran away because she overheard her mother on the phone saying to her father that when he got back in the country he would have to take her back to Sri Lanka and “take care of her”….ie kill her.

              Apostasy. You do know that all sects of islam call for killing someone who leaves islam?

              Her family should be deported as they broke the agreement that they would not try to get her back if the authorities sent her back to Ohio. They lied and tried to get her back so they could kill her. CAIR-Council on (UN)American Isalmic Relations was involved and the parent’s lawyer was tied to CAIR.

              If she had been sent back she would have been butchered. I highly recommend you read up on this brave young woman.

        • anyonebutbarry2012

          they need to work on it both sides, if they don’t barry will reward and give away free. they will have to work out a way for some to be able to work towards a green card. something. with wayyyy down the road possible citizenship. the people are here, they need to secure enforce the border keeping the murderes, jihadists. etc out. deal with the illegals here.

        • Wigglesworth111

          I don’t mind a few exceptions as long as it is not systematic. I think exceptions are already made for example if you are a political refugee although this status is abused.

    • keyesforpres

      You can’t find all the murderers either. I guess we should just legalize murder then.

      • illegal immigrants aren’t murderers.

        • keyesforpres

          Many are. I guess you didn’t get the analogy. To say we can’t deport them all therefore we should give them amnesty is ludicrous. 25 Americans are killed everyday at the hands of illegals. Half through drunk driving (not illegal to drive drunk in Mexico) and half through murder. Mexico empties their prisons out and brings them to the border. Remember, Mexico only prosecutes 1% or rape cases….meaning it’s really not a big deal in Mexico. The age of consent in many states in MX is 12. Now imagine that mindset in millions of men sneaking in here.

          • I get the analogy but I think it’s silly one. Crossing a board isn’t the same as taking a life. If we did what you want with illegal immigrants, I probably wouldn’t be here.

            • keyesforpres

              Well, I am sorry your family came here illegally. That is what you seem to be saying. Just because your family got away with it does not mean millions more should get away with it. This is what I find so disturbing with so many whites with Spanish surnames. You want amnesty because most illegals have Spanish surnames. We are going to become a third world toilet like Mexico if we keep heading down this path.

              • What I’m trying to say, some had no choice coming here, you don’t punish the innocent.

                • Wigglesworth111

                  I was on a jury once and in the sentencing hearing someone made that argument. The judge correctly said it was the mother’s fault for committing the crime and she is the one who put her child at risk, not the state for enforcing the law. Maybe single mothers should be exempt from the law because we don’t want to punish the child for a parent’s bad decision.

                • Orangeone

                  You cannot benefit from the fruits of an illegal act. If the mother is illegal, her children (they never have just 1) are also illegal and all must be deported.

                • Wigglesworth111


                • keyesforpres

                  Exactly. It goes back to the Congressional Globe of 1866 where the proceedings of the 14th Amendment were recorded. Jacob Howard wrote “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and he was recorded as saying children born to foreingers, aliens..(I forget the rest) are NOT US citizens.

                • keyesforpres

                  You also don’t reward children with what their parents’ stole. Your parents could have come here on an agriculture visa. I’m sorry they didn’t respect us enough to do it the right way. I am sick of the contempt so many people have for our laws, our borders, and our way of life.

                • Orangeone

                  Your parents made that decision. If you are not in this country legally, you will eventually be found and I hope prosecuted to the great extent and pushed right back across the border.

                • My parents are citizens, but it wasn’t always that way, my dad was brought here just a few months old, It was my grandma that decided to come here, and I’m glad she did, she and part of my family that came here are legal citizens now. My Dad served in the US Navy, earned a degree, and lives the American dream who came from nothing except getting a chance in this country.

                • Orangeone

                  Anyone who supports violation of our federal laws is not a true American citizen. That’s why we are near collapse.

                • keyesforpres

                  Why didn’t she respect our laws and come legally? Could she not pass the criminal background check? Medical screening? We have a right to know who comes here. Third world diseases are skyrocketing here. Americans are dying from these diseases.

                  Guess it was just easier to sneak in and not be bothered with showing respect to this nation.

                • I hear some complain that getting rid of the anchor baby law is “separating families”. So let’s not separate families. If we deport illegal aliens, bring their children with them back to their country of origin. That keeps families intact. Enough said.

                • keyesforpres

                  Their babies aren’t US citizens anyway, and shame on these illegal parents using their kids as pawns.

            • Orangeone

              If you are here illegally, you need to be found and deported.

            • I had no idea your family came here illegally. But just because they did doesn’t mean it’s okay for millions of illegals to come here.

              • a part of my family did, but they are citizens now.

                • keyesforpres

                  That honks me off that your family broke our laws and then got citizenship ahead of people waiting patiently to come here. Wrong on so many levels.

                • Should have been put to the back of the list behind everyone who were on the right and legal track to citizenship. I don’t know Steven’s family circumstances so I won’t say they should not have got on the list at all. I’m not going to blame Steven for the “sins” of his family either.

                • keyesforpres

                  He shouldn’t be rewarded for it either.

          • Orangeone

            Time for a bounty. If the federal gov’t paid $100 per illegal identified and we put Sheriff Joe in charge of running the bus fulls back across the border, we would stimulate the economy, increase tax revenues (the $100 is taxable), significantly reduce the illegal population which will save states like CA, AZ, TX, NM and others hundreds of billions, thus allowing taxes to be lowered at the state level and even more consumer disposable income.

            Problem solved. Next.

            • keyesforpres

              Don’t take them to the border. They’d be back in a day. Drop them in southern MX.

              • Orangeone

                Remember the unaccounted for #FastandFurious weapons? Wouldn’t want our folks shot down.  Take them to the border well guarded with armed civilians authorized to shoot if a step touches our soil and blow their @sses back to MX for the buzzards to enjoy for dinner.

                • keyesforpres

                  The border is far more dangerous than other parts of Mexico. Put them on a steamer and drop them in Southern MX.

                • Orangeone


                • Hey, what happened to Orangeone?

        • Orangeone

          Some are, some are rapists, some are child molesters, some are human traffikers, some are kidnappers, all are ILLEGALLY in the US of A and stay here ILLEGALLY.

        • Come on.

      • Orangeone

        Can I have that be the federal crime I’m never prosecuted for violating?

        • keyesforpres

          Sure, throw in rape and bank robbery too! Afterall, we’ll never catch them all…let’s just make it all legal and that way we won’t have any crime!

          • Orangeone

            Ooops, got the sexual assault in my list but did forget the bank robbery.  Let’s add forgery just for kicks and perhaps money laundering, and my all-time favorites, insider trading and Ponzi scheming.  Love workin’ with ya Key.

            • keyesforpres

              I’ll give you amnesty on all counts and do it for everyone else who’s done it, afterall….we can’t catch them all!

              Poof! Now all those criminals are now legal! Poof! They are no longer living in the shadows! Poof! Hey wait a minute…..I think we will now get way more of that stuff since I gave all those criminals amnesty….forgiving them their crime…letting them keep what they stole.

              • Orangeone

                Not that I really want to add more to the already long amnesty list, but let’s not forget about gunwalking to foreign countries, consulate murders, domestic terrorism and accepting illegal foreign campaign contributions.

    • Learnedsmtn2day

      Lets for the sake of argument assume you’re right. Why cant we legalize them but without the possibility of citizenship so they don’t add additional needy for our government feed with our money.

      • keyesforpres

        If you give them legal status they can still access welfare, we have to educate their children, they will still vote, and they can still send for family members.

        • Orangeone

          And will still work for cash, avoid paying taxes, send the money back to Mexico, and yes, be entitled to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security for never having contributed.

    • James1754

      That is the most stupid thing that Hillary Clinton ever said.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      Yes, you can.

      • keyesforpres

        LOL, I’m sure willing to give it a try.

        I guess Steven has never heard of “Operation Wetback”. Yes, that is the name. Eisenhower aggressively deported 1000 illegals a day for three months and dropped them 500 miles sout of the border. Most self deported. There were around 1.5 to 3 million here at the time. Most in the Southwest. He deported 90,000 or so and 1.4 to 2.9 million self deported! It can be done.

  • I am recently naturalized (voted for the first time), of Indian origin. Of the top ten difficulties that I have ever faced in this country was making sure that I followed all rules and regulations to a T. I cannot count how many times I’ve had financial setbacks because the (then) INS messed or delayed paperwork.

    I worked very hard just to ensure that my status was maintained.

    I guess I should’ve just waited for Rand Paul.

    When a civilization dies out, it does so from forces within, not without.

    • Constance

      Welcome to this country. We DO welcome you and all that you bring with you as a person who followed our laws and respected our sovereignty. Thank you.

    • Orangeone

      Thank you for entering the US legally!

  • maynardb50

    Maybe Rand Paul should check out becoming a citizen of Mexico after fording the Rio Grande illegally and see how THAT works out, before telling U.S. citizens to accept those who come to OUR country illegally. Be sure and take a U.S. flag with you Rand, and try waving it around down there!

  • Learnedsmtn2day

    Where the hell do we get the money for millions of poor/low income people!!! Damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Constance

      Damn it is damn right!

  • James1754

    Eventual path. Let them go back to their country and apply like all the other law abiding persons wanting to enter the US.

    • Orangeone

      Marked so we can identify that they have previously violated our federal laws so their application can be marked DENIED

      • KenInMontana

        Marked??? Just what do you mean by “marked”?

        • Orangeone

          Recorded in a system that does not allow altering or deletion (like we mark former employees as not eligible for rehire)

          • KenInMontana

            No such system exists, as has been proven by the myriad of comprised systems government and private. When you use a term such as “marked” in regards to another person, it opens up an avenue of negative connotations, not to mention a likely world record for breaking the “Godwin” threshold.

            • Orangeone

              I know the system doesn’t exist, we need it along with the proper deportation system and herein lies the challenge.  When an employer cannot rely on the documents (photo ID) provided on hire as belonging to the person hired, we have a fatally flawed system, yet many are quick to blame the employer for illegals working here.

            • Orangeone

              Would you like me to edit my post? I’d be happy to clarify it.

              • KenInMontana

                If you want to clarify it, that’s up to you, I was just pointing out where your comment could be “taken”. My goal is to show others where their point is vulnerable to gross misinterpretation, where a troll would see an opportunity to wreak havoc. We need to make our arguments, ideas and propositions, clearer and stronger. To refine them to be more succinct, so there is no misinterpretation possible to run with.

                • Orangeone

                  Great intel, thanks much! I shall be more conscious of gaps for trolls going forward.

      • James1754

        I believe fingerprinting does the same job.

  • Did hispanics all support Republicans after Reagan supported amnesty? No, they did not. So why would they support Republicans now? Working for illegal aliens means nothing unless you guarantee them lots and lots of free stuff, like the Democrats always do. So unless you’re prepared to do that, forget getting their votes. Deal with it.

    • tann12

      I agree (libertyship46).

    • PhillyCon

      Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    • Orangeone

      If I made add, remember that we didn’t vote Dem in part because of their views on illegals gaining amnesty. The same will hold true for Repubs that take that position.

      • Well, we know that’s one of many areas Dems are spectacularly wrong in. Except in rare cases, they aren’t really appealing to vote for.

  • jrt1031

    The Pauls are a few fries short of a happy meal. Crazy/radical runs wild in that family

    • keyesforpres

      Yeah, I had wondered if he was an open borders nut like his daddy. I know some Paul supporters that are totally anti illegal immigration and I told them I did not know how they could support Paul because he believed in open borders. They never could give me an answer.

      • That’s puzzled me too really.

  • E. Lee Zimmerman

    Yeah, sorry, but it’s really hard to even imagine getting behind a movement to suddenly legalize everyone here illegally. I get that, for the Liberal AND (apparently) Conservative elite, it’s the soup du jour … but, waiter, there’s a fly in my soup. If it speaks Spanish, does that make it a Spanish Fly?

    Electoral Dysfunction is no reason to sell out our principles.

  • There are lots of things that could be done to discourage illegal immigration.

    Close the border for real (not like now)

    Make actual legal immigration easier!

    Make it illegal for a company to hire an illegal alien. – fine of 10 thousand dollars per illegal alien found working. Make random checks like they do on liquor stores checking to see if they sell to under agers.

    Make it illegal to rent or sell a home/apartment to an illegal alien – fine 20 thousand dollars per offense.

    Do away with the anchor baby law. If a baby is born here of illegal parentage, that baby should be the nationality of the parents. They did NOT apply for naturalization, they are NOT Americans and therefore neither is the child.


    Surrendering and just granting all kinds of illegal gang bangers and criminals citizenship is the road to ruination of this Nation.

    • keyesforpres

      Legal immigration should NOT be easier. Many of our most dangerous immigrants are legal.

      The problem is millions want to come here every year. As it stands now, there is basically no background checks for legal immigrants. It is time to end mass immigration. It is incompatible with modern society. It is too easy for folks to not assimilate with modern technology.

      • We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

        • keyesforpres

          Technically, there is a background check, but because the numbers applying are so large, they have seconds to do background checks. We must end mass immigration. We had mass immigration at the turn of the last century for years and in 1925 it was ended because ppl were not assimilating.

          • I want background checks that work like this: The immigrant has to go to the police in his own country and obtain a statement that he has no criminal record. He (I’m using he, but I mean he or she) should also have to pass an FBI background check (Fingerprint check). Also he should have to have a medical examination in his own country performed by an INS appointed doctor. Checks for AIDS, TB, Cancer etc… If he fails the background test or the medical tests, he is simply excluded from entry. There is a lot more I could talk about here too, but it looks like the thread has moved onto the next news item.

            • keyesforpres

              That stuff is supposed to be done now, but there are just tooooo many people coming here and it can’t be done. We need a breather to get people assimilated.

    • Orangeone


      I have tremendous respect for you and your intellect. One of the schemes illegals do is to use the paperwork of a legal resident as their own to lie to the employer about being in the country legally. It is impossible for the employer to know this. For example, eVerify was a gov’t program (don’t get me started on that part) to verify the authenticity of the SSN. What it doesn’t tell the employer is that that person is already working and receiving income from 10 other employers at that very time. An employer CANNOT receive that information.

      The other point is the immigration process. We need to stop immigration to this country until such time as the economy improves and true unemployment is below 2%. Then we need strict age, income, asset, mandatory employee hire requirements if you own a business, net worth qualifications like they do in Australia, New Zealand, Croatia, Switzerland, etc. As tough as they are for some to meet, we need to increase the quality of immigrants, not lower the bar below ground.

      The rest of your comments, I totally agree!

      • DuraMater

        Amen and amen!

      • Yeah, we need to increase the quality of our immigrants.
        While I might have more empathy for a blue collar Mexican worker as long as they try to contribute and aren’t illegal than a blueblood elitist European scientist who won the irrelevant Nobel Peace Prize, common sense sez we don’t need more low skilled laborers, especially in a recession. If we’re taking them in they need to have high skill contributions.

      • Great and informative post. I leaned something new. Thank you.

  • TimeForAnarchy

    There already is an “eventual path.” The system works fine. Why not use it like it was intended?

  • Every illegal alien that this plan would “help” is a slap in the face to all those immigrants who took the legal and right way. Paid their fees, met the immigration standards and attended the interviews. Waited the years to hear back about their status and in that time were law abiding and working and paying taxes.

  • dontdrinkthecoolaid

    Oh God. Help Us. I liked this guy until I read this piece. There are numerous studies that having the illegals become citizens quickly, either thru a “path” or amnesty will only create more democrats. Even Ronald Reagan tried it with amnesty and even he, as popular as he was, didn’t get more than 40% of the vote. Don’t bother with a fast track naturalization process. Send the money on getting our schools out of the hands of the LIBs who are poisoning our children.

  • tshtsh

    Perhaps, the current path is an eventual path–20 years or so. It is going to be a no go for democrats if you insist on a secure border (don’t forget dems like to play a little Lucy and Charlie football).

  • jollyjellybean

    Rand Paul is every much the LIBERAL that his father is. He wants pot legalized and no criminalization of any kind for any kind of deviant sex weirdos. Nuts.

    • Jay Jefferson

      So should alcohol by legal for deviant sex weirdos too? How about porn?

      • KenInMontana

        Just what point are you trying to make?

        • Jay Jefferson

          Legalizing pot is a conservative small government issue. Google Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, Barry Goldwater, Bruce Fein, and their stances on ending the big government drug war.

          • KenInMontana

            I’m familiar with all six of them, and the naive Libertarian position on drug legalization. The “war on drugs” is a separate issue from illegal immigration.

            • Jay Jefferson

              How was Ronald Reagan naive when he said in a radio address that “if adults want to take such chances (with marijuana) that is their business?”

              • KenInMontana

                Care to supply a source for that Reagan quote, including the context. Not to mention the quote bears little resemblance to the naive Libertarian position on the legalization of drugs.

                • Jay Jefferson

                  “If adults want to take such chances [with marijuana] that is theirbusiness”– Ronald Reagan, August 1979 from “Reagan: In His OwnHand” pg 399 of the hardback edition.

                  And how were Buckley, Milton, and Goldwater all naive?

                • KenInMontana

                  Although Milton is an icon of Libertarianism and a very astute economist, Goldwater was more of a rebellious Conservative who ran on an early LP-type platform, Buckley was a Conservative, not a Libertarian. Libertarians seem to feel, incorrectly, that because they share some Conservative views or that a Conservative happens to share a few Libertarian views, that the two philosophies are the same. Many Libertarians have a habit of jumping on some quote (almost always while deliberately ignoring all context) of a historical figure and extrapolating that in order to claim that individual’s statement as a validation or legitimization of their views. Case in point (one of many) is your use of Reagan’s statement about adults smoking marijuana, as an endorsement for the legalization of all drugs. When taken with the historical context of the actions and policy stances taken on the subject of illegal drugs by his administration, your assertions hold water less effectively than a colander.

                  Getting back to the point, I stated that the Libertarian position on drug legalization was naive, more precisely “that all drug related crime will magically cease if we just legalize drugs”. The reality is no, it will not. Anyone who has any actual experience with drug addicts, and just what lengths they will go to, in order to get the money to get that next fix, will attest to that fact (provided they are being honest about it).

                • Jay Jefferson

                  Didn’t some 90% of all alcohol crime go away after the end of prohibition? Any armed beer cartels in Harlem today?

                  As for Reagan’s “war on drugs,” you can thank NON-conservatives like Bill Bennet and Bush Sr. for that. One guy couldn’t do everything alone.

                  And here’s another Reagan quote for you: “The heart and soul of conseratism IS libertarianism.”

                  KenInMontana, you’re the ignorant one.

                • KenInMontana

                  Typical, you can’t conduct a a civil discussion, so you resort to personal attacks and poor spelling. Yet, you have the temerity to attempt to label me as “ignorant”. Allow me to do you the favor of freeing up a bit more of your time, so that perhaps you could shine the light of a bit education into the cavernous, dark and utterly empty void between your ears.

                • Swing and a miss.

                  And he could have tried to argue with better information, which Ken would have gladly provided, if he had stayed polite.

    • TitaniumEagle

      What do you mean by “deviant sex weirdos”?

  • Constance

    What in the hell is the matter with the people in the GOP? Why am I even asking this question? It’s a waste of time anymore.

  • drphibes

    He didn’t fall too far from the tree. The nut tree.

  • Jim Botts

    Amnesty is here folks! Obama is in the white house, Reid controls and senate, and too many Republicans on capital hill want revenge when the grass roots killed the bill under Bush.

    I suspect Rand Paul realizes now that its going to happen and is injecting himself to make sure we don’t get totally screwed. Paul’s thinking is, if this is going to happen and we can’t stop it, don’t cede your place at the bargaining table.

    All of you right leaning people who stayed home because you didn’t like Romney? I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY!

    • 401_Unauthorised

      Yes we are. More than you know. Now get over it and fight the good fight. You may not know it yet botts but on 6/11/12, we all dodged a bullet!

  • Rand Paul is not as crazy as his father, but he is starting to become just as bad!

  • DuraMater

    Goodbye, Sen. Paul. Of all the good solid conservative principles for which you have stood and have spoken forcefully, I am grateful for your service. Unfortunately, the mere suggestion of placating and rewarding the illegal population, of any ethnicity, is a game changer. Keep this up and you’ll be out of a senate job, I promise.

    No amnesty by any name (DREAM ACT) or route (school or military) is acceptable or moral. You people in DC want to chase after the “Hispanic vote”, go to Spain, or South or Central America or be prepared to lose your unhyphenated American base (which includes many who were not born here but came legally). If you think that is an even trade off, you people are even more naive and foolish than I thought.

    The reason this country is having such difficulty maintaining its cultural, moral and political bearings is precisely due to the population which you seek to woo. But go ahead and collapse the US for those illusive Hispanic voters. They will continue to vote for the same despotic government they left behind but with the added benefit of more free stuff. America is and has been their ATM machine and they are not about to turn over their race or EBT cards to the GOP.

    In the name of all that is holy, wake up!

  • Stehekin912

    A Martian has come in and inhabited the body of Rand Paul. GOPod People?

  • xjesterx

    Let’s go with Rush’s plan: We will make you an INSTANT citizen. Come forward, you will be given the oath, and you are now a citizen. All 12 million of you.

    ONE CATCH: You cannot vote in any election for 25 years. If this is about citizenship, then that part really won’t matter. This is the price you pay for skipping the line and being here for years illegally.

    Now, if the left is genuine, the catch won’t matter. I fully support amnesty under this plan. Let’s all get behind amnesty! Yeah! Oh, wait…you lefties don’t like this? I wonder why….

    • keyesforpres

      That would be national suicide.

  • Jay Jefferson

    Senator Paul isn’t compromising here, PERIOD! Despite Politico’s propoganda, Rand has always stood against FDR’s drug war (Google it, he started it), our Wilsonian strategy in Afghanistan, and has never been a big “deport everyone” advocate. Those positions have always been real principles of the conservative-libertarian tent we call the Tea Party movement. He’s not changing his mind on anything. Rand’s not reaching out to Patrick Leahy to “compromise.” He’s doing it to advance his agenda in the senate: Constitutionalism. That should be every senator’s agenda. Barry Goldwater would be proud of him.

    And when has Rand Paul supported leftist welfare crap like the DREAM ACT? When has he ever supported letting illegals come to sit on their asses and collect welfare checks? If he supported the left’s idea of “amnesty,” that would be selling out. Rand’s not doing that, unlike half the comments on here that call for his head. He’s just acknowledging that a Berlin wall at the border doesn’t make any more sense than an open border.

  • Jay Jefferson

    Senator Paul isn’t compromising here, PERIOD! Despite Politico’s propoganda, Rand has always stood against FDR’s drug war (Google it, he started it), our Wilsonian strategy in Afghanistan, and has never been a big “deport everyone” advocate. Those positions have always been real principles of the conservative-libertarian tent we call the Tea Party movement. He’s not changing his mind on anything. Rand’s not reaching out to Patrick Leahy to “compromise.” He’s doing it to advance his agenda in the senate: Constitutionalism. That should be every senator’s agenda. Barry Goldwater would be proud of him.

    And when has Rand Paul supported leftist welfare crap like the DREAM ACT? When has he ever supported letting illegals come to sit on their asses and collect welfare checks? If he supported the left’s idea of “amnesty,” that would be selling out. Rand’s not doing that, unlike half the comments on here that call for his head. He’s just acknowledging that a Berlin wall at the border doesn’t make any more sense than an open border.

    • keyesforpres

      What Rand is advocating for is the end of our nation.

      • Jay Jefferson

        Right, and the ayatollah’s advocating Israel….

        Come on, that’s just absurd.

        • keyesforpres

          End. Of. Our. Nation. You can’t have tens of millions flooding into this country and think we will maintain our sovereignty.

          • Jay Jefferson

            Where in Rand’s plan does he say to let anyone in? Assimilation is fine.

            • keyesforpres

              You can’t assimilate the 20 million or more that are here. Besides, why would they want any kind of legal status. Under ObamaNOcare, illegals get free healthcare (like they do now). Why would they want to become a citizen and have to buy health insurance or pay a fine?

              Give them legal status and they can send for family members. Millions more will pour in because of that and because we reward illegal immigration. Why is it so hard to understand that if you reward law breaking, you get more law breaking?

              • Jay Jefferson

                That’s why we need to end the welfare state. Without it, there’ll be no incentive for illegals, or any immigrants, to come here and be lazy. THAT’S what Rand Paul fights for. You can’t tell me with a straight face that Rand supports Obamacare.

          • Jay Jefferson

            We have in the past. Ever heard of the Irish, Germans, or Italians?

            • keyesforpres

              We didn’t let them come here illegally. They were medically screened, and they came to be Americans. They didn’t come with the attitude 60% of Mexicans (both legal and illegal have). They didn’t come here thinking this was stolen land for them to take back.

              We also would go through periods when we greatly reduced immigration because folks weren’t assimilating. In 1925 mass immigration was ended (until 1965). We also were not a welfare nation and we were teaching patriotism. We can’t keep doing this.

              • Jay Jefferson

                I personally know an illegal immigrant who doesn’t view the southwest as some kind of “stolen land.” Not every Mexican’s in La Raza.

      • Too late. Progressive Republicans have already let Obama kill it.

        We need to build it back again. Here or somewhere.

  • 401_Unauthorised

    Again, like I have often observed, conservatism will not last much longer in America if it cannot think for itself and reject those that purport to be its leaders and champions when they come out with nonsense like this. First Hannity; Now Rand. (Not like either was ever really a ‘conservative’, especially the former) Who and What’s next? Huckabee on th joys of ‘gay’ marriage? If nobody has yet noticed, the aftermath of the recent elections is going just as planned by our fraudulent friends in the Republican party. Either way, they were always set to win. It was a catch 22 from the beginning. How? Here’s how.

    If Romney WON, the socialist path would have been extended, allbeit in a slower and more cunning way, with Obama’s status quo hardly being challenged. (Oh sure, you would have had a pipeline or two installed here and there; Ask China how state-managed ‘capitalism’ works; throw folks a bone or two and we’re all capitalists now, including Mao.) Those that cried for clothes to be put on the emperor would be silenced quickly by those they thought to be on their side. They would be told to ‘get with the programme’; quit their fundamentalism; sympathise with Romney on the amount of problems he and Ryan have to sort out in the wake of Obama’s presidency; ‘Romney’s doing the best he can considering the last administration’ we’d be told. All while, in reality, UN treaties ceding sovereignty away would be signed almost every hour behind closed doors, with Romney seeking to distract our attention with press conferences every hour, smiling as he cites George Washington and pays lip service to ‘rolling back’ the state, thereby gently applying the Kool-Aid syringe to constitutionalists everywhere.

    If Romney LOST, which he did, the so-called ‘conservatives’ at the GOPE were ready to start falling over each other in a flurry of statements like the one from Rand Paul above about how Republicans must stop taking extremist positions and must shift slightly, as if that made any sense. Ignore the fact that they ran a disgrace of a candidate, who could hardly say he was to the right of Clinton let alone the right of Reagan. Ignore the fact that while every Tea Party Republican candidate kept their seats in the House, all the other faux conservatives lost their seats (save maybe West). Just comfortably ignore the fact that 3 million less Republican voters came out for Mitt Rmoney, *Romney* than did for John McCON *McCain*. Instead, they would bleat on about how Hispanics and Blacks now have to be pleased.

    If you’re really paying attention and don’t just say you are, with the amount of information available to you today in 2012, you would be a fool not to see that you are being engineered by those that claim to be on your side.

    The likes of Rand Paul are nothing but sunshine patriots at best; and at worst they are cunning socialists superficially wrapped in the conservative flag (aka wolf in sheep’s clothing).

    There is a reason why the Apostles’ epistles warn against false prophets more than they exhort to be brave against persecution. In the face of fierce persecution, the human soul, even without an indwelling Holy Spirit can muster such unbelievable courage. But when faced with a foe who one thinks is one’s friend, all can be lost before one even knows he’s been robbed of his/her religion. How long before conservatives realise the greatest threat to their values is not from the OUTSIDE but from WITHIN?!

    I don’t know the inner workings of Mr Rand’s relationship with his father, congressman Ron Paul. But surely the latter cannot be proud of his son in the wake of these recent developments. I know I am not.

    • keyesforpres

      Ron Paul is total open borders.

      • 401_Unauthorised

        And thus the penny dropped. Dind’t know that. Thanks for the info. Makes sense now. Seems its true then: The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.

        • keyesforpres

          He also thought the Ground Zero Mosque was okie dokie too.

    • If we were responsible for Obama getting back in then that would be our fault and those people would be responsible for the country’s destruction.

  • FreeManWalking

    IMO Newt laid out the best solution I have heard so far using 3 principles, and everyone attacked him as being for amnesty.

    At the core of being American is a thorough understanding of American exceptionalism. We are a nation not defined by place or ethnic heritage, but by the collective understanding that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is precisely these rights, freedoms and opportunities that have drawn ambitious, risk-seeking immigrants to our shores for four centuries.

    It is essential that every native-born American and every immigrant learn about this exceptional heritage and our exceptional history.

    Three Principles

    1. No “comprehensive” plan can work. President Bush could not pass one during six years with a Republican Congress. President Obama could not pass one with a Democratic Congress. Immigration reform can be outlined as a complete proposal but has to be passed in a series of steps, with each one understood and passed on its own merits.
    2. Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process. Those who adhered to our immigration law cannot be usurped by those who violated it.
    3. We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts.


    • keyesforpres

      Amnesty. Thanks for reminding me why I hated the idea of Newt being president.

      • FreeManWalking

        He wasn’t pushing amnesty, but like you many jumped on the bandwagon yelling NEWT is for amnesty without reading or consideration of the plan he put forth.

        It doesn’t show much thoughtfulness to the issue if anyone thinks there is going to be a deportation of 12+ million illegals.

        It isn’t going to happen, I don’t care who is president.

        • keyesforpres

          Ah geez, does it have to be explained to you how you use a multi pronged aproach? You do some deporting, cut off welfare, fine employers who hire them, etc. You let them stay, more will come.

    • Orangeone

      I think you have a typo. You have 12k votes which is 12,000. The real number is 12m or 12,000,000

  • Here we go again.

    We don’t even have a decent definition on the right for what “amnesty” actually means. And yet discussing anything less than fullscale deportations leaves you open to accusations of amnesty.

    Until that wholesale madness is cured, forget even discussing the illegal alien problem. Just focus on closing the blasted border.

    • 401_Unauthorised

      Teach us then, O great and wise one. What does ‘amnesty’ really mean?

      • keyesforpres

        Amnesty is forgiving the crime, letting someone keep what they took, etc. Granting citizenship is the ulitmate amnesty. Giving illegals legal status is amnesty.

        Tom Tancredo sums it up, “Letting illegals stay is amnesty”.


        It isn’t just citizenship, any type of legal status is amnesty.

        • As much as I admire his fortitude on the issue, I have to disagree with Tom on practical grounds. It creates a totally unenforceable standard.

          I’ve seen proposals that require illegals to leave, go get in line at a US embassy in their home country, and apply for permission to legally emigrate, and wait for permission. ..And those were called amnesty by some really “tough-guy” paleocons.

          I’m not sure why granting a special class of legal status, along with a fine, and no ability to vote or contribute to campaigns should be called amnesty. Maybe even only allowing the children of illegals to have a path to citizenship, but not the parents. Something that actually has a hope of working.

          But as I said, getting control of the borders is far more important than dealing with who is here already. In fact, I favor allowing the states to deal with the fact of whoever is here already, and telling the feds to FO. But that’s just me.

          I would also add that we need to copy some European country’s law with regard to the so-called “anchor baby” problem. Just copy Germany’s law and blame it on them. That way we can end that magnet to illegal border crossers, and the lefties can’t whine because we would be granting them their stupid wish to be more like Europe.

          • keyesforpres

            No one says you get all illegals out of the country. The goal is to greatly reduce their numbers here and crossing our borders. Get us back to NOT pressing one for English. This is not an all or nothing proposition.

            • Well, I’m all for that. It’s just that I believe we’ll need a complex of answers to specific cases.

              A) Control borders better
              B) End anchor baby status
              c) End chain migration
              D) “regularize” the status of illegals

              Where, “D” means a whole bunch of different things.
              Guy who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan get at least a green card. Valedictorian kid of illegal alien gets a worker visa, and her parents stay non-citizen, and pay a fine. Stuff like that. It has to be complex or it simply won’t happen.

              • keyesforpres

                It’s easier to just tell them to get the $%%&(&^*^(&)()( out.
                Before our governor even signed our illegal immigration bill last year, a lot left. Then o’s backdoor amnesty brought many of them back.

                • Sure. It just won’t happen. So we have to go complex.

                  Of course, Obama got away with claiming he reduced the flow of illegals. Obvious. A crappy economy ceases to draw as many across the border.

              • keyesforpres

                I am strongly against allowing illegals in our military. Good grief! How do they get into our military in the first place? Don’t we check? Sneak in and we arm you? Crazy!

                • I’m against recruiting them, but if they served in theater, that makes them Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force. That beats a straight flush in the game of green card lotto.

      • KenInMontana

        Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits.

  • All these swell ideas from GOP pols make me wonder what their agenda would have been had they won the election. Have a feeling Amnesty was at the top of their list, not Repeal Romneycare.

    • I don’t think Romney felt strongly about it either way, he responds to pressure. He would have had statements about self-deportation he made in the primary, and he’d have to look consistent. Anyhow definitely a step or two up from Bush or McCain who had deep emotional ties to passing amnesty. Obama himself cited that in the second debate.
      With Romney it was let’s try him out and see how he does, with Obama you KNOW he’s going to pass an amnesty, he’s explicitly said it’s going to be one of his top priorities in his second term. That should be frightening.

  • NoToTyrants

    “I think I might have the ability to get out in front of this issue,” Paul said when asked if he believed conservatives would cry “amnesty” over such a plan. “I think I might have the ability because nobody really questions — at least not so far — whether I’m conservative enough.”

    I am questioning it now Senator Paul.

    This is national suicide via exsanguination. This will bleed us dry.

    The 70% of Hispanics voting Democrat were motivated to do so not by Amnesty, they were voting that way for WELFARE and centralized government. The same can be said for the 70% of Jewish voters, the 98% of Black voters, the 60% of single women, etc.

    Even if Republicans are stupid enough to vote for Amnesty or Legalization or Comprehensive Immigration Reform or whatever Orwellian term you choose to use in an attempt to pull the wool of the Republican electorate’s eyes, the 70% of Hispanics will still not vote Republican.

    Senator Paul SECURE THE BORDER!!!

    • Sinsonta

      Exactly. That is my taking. Why giving them path to citizenship if they are going to end up siding with the Democrats.

  • Joengima

    Alright I had it.

    I know Paul isn’t compromising but if the GOP seriously won’t back off this amnesty speak, fine.

    Here is the plan the GOP should push.

    Securing the Border: Send money, resources, and regulation exceptions to Border State Governors and have them secure their boarder properly. Must be completed ASAP

    Grant instant Citizenship for all Immigrants classified as “Residential Alien”

    Illegal Immigrants will be given a 1 year Deportation-Amnesty meaning if they come forward and admit their illegal status in a specified state location, they have no fear of being deported for being illegal.
    -They’d also be subjected to background checks, and amnesty will be repealed should there be criminal record. They’d be deported Instantly.

    Illegals who have no criminal record will be granted “Residential Alien” status. They are barred from applying to Citizenship for 30 years.

    Illegals Immigrants who enlist in US Military will be granted Citizenship after 5 years of enrollment.

    Family Unification-Some say Illegals would want to bring their family to the US. We will grant Residential Alien status for them. (Only immediate family though)

    A Must:

    1) English as Official Language.
    2) National E-Verify System-make it a Federal Crime to hire Illegal immigrants
    3) If they commit a crime, during Amnesty period, are instantly deported and banned from the US

    • keyesforpres

      Um, if they are here illegally, they ARE a criminal.

    • Orangeone

      Sounds like the Reagan plan that has now landed at least 12 million more in this country. Oh, by the way, he made the same deal to seal the border and the demorats backed out after the amnesty was granted. That last thing I want in our military is illegals. Would you like a repeat of the 9/11 terrorists armed within our ranks like Ft. Hood?

      • keyesforpres

        I’m with you. It is a really DUMB idea to allow people to invade and then arm them and put them in our military….I mean think about it, you want to attack us so we make it easy by letting you sneak in and then we put you in our military. How can anyone even think that is a good idea?

        • Orangeone

          Romney did!  He said it during the 2nd or 3rd debate, can’t remember which.  I think that is when he lost the millions that stayed home.
          Our military men and women have enough worries, both during deployment and when they come home.  We don’t need to add the horrific risk factor of armed terrorists on both sides to their worries.

          • Millions that stayed home…and let Obama win so he could pass full amnesty first thing in another term.

            Adios America!

      • KenInMontana

        Nidal Hasan, (Ft.Hood) was born in Virginia to parents who were legal immigrants, a legal US citizen. The 9/11 terrorists all came to the US through legal channels, student/work visa programs. So neither are relevant to the illegal immigration argument. The 9/11 terrorists were guilty of over-staying on their visas (they had expired) so they would be a valid argument for tightening visa enforcement, but, neither example has anything to do with illegal immigration. There has been Hezbollah propaganda found in the area of our southern border, which is something that is relevant to our seriously porous border, an issue that needs urgent attention and a workable solution. I do not believe a continuous wall is workable or realistic, perhaps better barriers at the easiest approaches that would funnel those that would try to cross illegally to more formidable terrain that could be effectively monitored and would aid in enforcement. That said it is a complex problem that will not be easily solved.

    • Sinsonta

      I’m not in favor of at least 1 of the conditions you have mentioned. To give instant citizenship to the ones that are already Residents is not wise. They should wait the normal period required to become a US Citizen. The law call for 5 years after holding a Resident status and subject to no criminal records.

      • PVG

        Voter Id. in all states. No voting until citizenship, PERIOD! No entitlements! Must have a job or means of support.

  • 11Steve11

    The only path to citizenship should be through demonstrating that one truly understands the Constitution of the United States and is willing to pledge allegiance To The United States of America. If someone really likes what we are and will do this, I have no problem allowing them citizenship. This subject is really that simple. The test process must be long and thorough. With one exception, if one is willing to lay their life on the line by joining our military, and can complete the service to our country in an honorable manner, then a faster path to citizenship should be made available. If they do not want to pledge allegiance to America, then they do not want to be a citizen.

  • Darkbella007

    Border first. Why is that so hard?

  • Martin2717

    Well…… it was nice knowing ya, Paul. First, you supported Romney from the beginning and now this. Unreal.

  • wolfveryne

    And seal the Boarders , install E-Verify ,they will not be allowed for 12 years ,, any Questions?

  • TaimeAgair

    They all say the same thing every election. The illegals always get their amnesty but we never get our borders closed. Neither party has the balls to do that. The masks really came off after this election. Pathetic.

  • Hannity does, too. The path to citizenship isn’t amnesty. It only allows for citizenship for a people after a set time frame after some qualifications. Most illegal immigrants will remain in the US whether or not they are citizens, anyway.

    • wodiej

      what qualifications would that be? Are they going to be required to speak English? Prove they can earn a living and pay to take care of themselves without gov’t assistance? Are they going to be required to know at least the beginning History of this country? I’ll believe it when I see it. They still broke the law by the way.

  • JoJo58

    No Rand, just stop passing out the freebies like free healthcare, housing, social security food stamps etc. when the goodies go, so will they. It’s a no brainier, but I guess we expect far too much from congress.

    • dontdrinkthecoolaid

      Reagan tried amnesty with 3 million and never got more than 40% of the vote. Why bother? How’s about enforcing the laws we have and telling the idiots in immigration to do their jobs faster than the speed of stupid.

    • Intelligentsia from Europe cannot get here – illegals clog the system… designed by Ted the Swimmer Kennedy.

      • Can’t say I’m particularly sympathetic to most blueblood European scientists/intellectuals. The Nobel Prize is increasingly useless nowadays anyways. But surely some of them will help contribute more to the US than low skilled people from the third world. Read my post above. The Swimmer made a really destructive bill.

  • wodiej

    I am one of many who can vouch that these illegals are not only taking our jobs but they are bringing down the wage scale. I am asked on many job app’s if I have ever been on welfare the last 2 years. If you have, they get federal credits for hiring you. These businesses do not care about people anymore-all they care about is the biggest profit they can make. Been out of work 34 months and mowing lawns in the summer and decided this year to make a go of it as a small business. These capitalists who create jobs can shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Rand Paul can too for that matter. He’s beginning to walk in his father’s footsteps. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree as they say.

  • ………………………………………….Mr. Rand, even if you get a few thousand of Spanish votes, you’ll lose ours – “only” ONE HUNDRED MILLION.
    Think, Rand, do not follow back-stabbing advises of liberals.

  • Given the topic of immigrants in recent elections, an interesting new book that helps explain the role, struggles, and contributions of immigrants and minorities is “What Foreigners Need To Know About America From A To Z: How to understand crazy American culture, people, government, business, language and more.” It paints a revealing picture of America for those who will benefit from a better understanding. Endorsed by ambassadors, educators, and editors, it also informs Americans who want to learn more about the U.S. and how we compare to other countries around the world on many issues.
    As the book points out, immigrants and minorities are a major force in America, as the GOP recently discovered. Immigrants and the children they bear account for 60 percent of our nation’s population growth and own 11 percent of US businesses and are 60 percent more likely to start a new business than native-born Americans. They represent 17 percent of all new business owners (in some states more than 30 percent). Foreign-born business owners generate nearly one-quarter of all business income in California and nearly one-fifth in the states of New York, Florida, and New Jersey.
    Legal immigrants number 850,000 each year; undocumented (illegal) immigrants are estimated to be half that number. They come to improve their lives and create a foundation of success for their children to build upon, as did the author’s grandparents when they landed at Ellis Island in 1899 after losing 2 children to disease on a cramped cattle car-like sailing from Europe. Many bring skills and a willingness to work hard to make their dreams a reality, something our founders did four hundred years ago. In describing America, chapter after chapter identifies “foreigners” who became successful in the US and contributed to our society. However, most struggle in their efforts and need guidance, be they in Beantown or Anytown, USA. Perhaps intelligent immigration reform, concerned Americans, and even this book and others can extend a helping hand. http://www.AmericaAtoZ.com

    • keyesforpres

      In the course of makings one life better, you do not have the right to steal. Illegals are stealing…..jobs, identities, healthcare, welfare, etc. Illegals aren’t coming here to be Americans they are coming here to steal.

      Did you see the videos of illegals in 2006 marching in our streets and tellings us to die or go back to Europe?


    • keyesforpres

      Read thru this and get back to me on how much illegals contribute to this country.


  • physicsnut

    message to Rand – if Reagan didn’t legalize the illegals back then, do you think we would have lost this election ? It’s the demographics stupid. Why do these people drop a rock on their foot ? The first things any illegal learn is that republicans are evil, and conservatives are knuckle dragging neandertals who marry their mothers. Pat was right – there is a culture war.

  • Lee

    AWESOME!!! As soon as I can fly to Mexico, I am crossing over the border and asking for a path to citizenship. That includes Canadians, right?

  • As a Hispanic American and an a Constitutional Conservative and a Jeffersonian. I will leave those in this great audience with this great quote from Thomas Jefferson.
    ” I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlighten as discoveries are made. New truths discovered and manners and opinions change. With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance, also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat that fitted him when a boy. As civilized society to remain ever under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors.”-T. Jefferson

  • anyonebutbarry2012

    An advocacy group for young immigrants expressed concern Wednesday after President Barack Obama, at his first press conference in months, said he would support “a pathway for legal status” for those living in the country illegally.
    That Obama used the phrase “legal status” instead of “citizenship” raised alarm bells for some deep in the weeds of immigration advocacy, since some more conservative immigration reformers think the estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally should be given legal status but not the opportunity to become citizens.
    “He looked like he sidestepped around saying ‘citizenship,'” said Marisol Valero, spokeswoman for United We Dream, a group that represents young people who were brought to the country illegally as children and want the opportunity to become citizens. “We are worried that the president and other leaders will not be supporting a path to citizenship for everyone.”
    But a White House official told Yahoo News the president was outlining his blueprint for reform that the administration released in May, which says illegal immigrants who have no criminal record and meet certain criteria should be able to apply for citizenship after about 15 years.

    greedy law breakers, always wanting more….. the r’s need to work on this, before barry gives them all free homes, educations etc.

  • Listen I live in Japan, I’m on a visa. I love living here, but I Don’t Want To Be A Japanese Citizen. I’m an American, and to top it off I’m here legally. For all those Illegals living in America here is my spiel:

    You get to stay but you are not given citizenship Automatically, if you want it you have to go through the process and Apply for it.

    If you don’t fine just like me you get a visa and you have to reapply or until you get permanent residence status BUT NOT CITIZENSHIP! IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT GO HOME or somewhere else.

  • John_Frank

    Sigh … if someone came to America illegally, or overstayed their
    visa and is now here illegally, why should that person be eligible for
    IMV the decision by Senator Paul to get involved in the immigration debate is largely about his 2016 Presidential ambitions.
    final question for all those championing “comprehensive immigration
    reform” which includes the RNC, along with the Republicans in the House
    who are working on bi-partisan legislation, the Republican House
    leadership, the Republicans in the Senate who are working on bi-partisan
    legislation, along with Senator Paul … why are you pushing this issue
    at this time?
    It strikes many of us that this effort by
    Republicans to address comprehensive immigration reform at this time has
    much more to do with their desire of winning a larger share of the
    Hispanic vote than addressing the concerns of the people, top on the
    people’s list being the economy, the debt and national security (which
    includes the need to secure the southern border and enforce existing
    With great respect, I suggest that those Republicans
    pushing for “comprehensive immigration reform” need to go back and
    listen with care to Governor Palin’s CPAC 2013 speech. Then apply the
    principles that she enunciates in her speech before moving any further
    on this issue. Just a thought.
    CPAC 2013 – Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkRw4EOwY2g&feature=youtu.be