Replies

Rand Paul has repeatedly denied that he has proposed a pathway to citizenship. He has insisted that he supports a pathway to legal status.

Weasel words by someone who is more and more sounding like John McCain on this issue.

The truth is, he removes the illegality of the Illegals, thereby granting them Amnesty.

By doing that, the Illegals, if they choose to seek it, can get in line LEGALLY to become citizens.

This IS the pathway to citizenship for everyone.

So he is lying both when he does not support Amnesty or a pathway to citizenship, because that's EXACTLY what his plan does.

Rand Paul has repeatedly denied that he has proposed a pathway to citizenship. He has insisted that he supports a pathway to legal status.

Sorry, but that is just not so.

Rand does support a plan that allows illegals to stay in the US and eventually have a "path to citizenship".
He just objects to calling it a "path to citizenship".

Here is one of many articles revealing his true position on the issue.
If you question the accuracy of this source just Google "rand no citizenship" or ""rand no amnesty" and you will find many others.

Remember - in spite of his invigorating CPAC speech he is still a politician at heart.

Rand Paul: Don't Call My Plan 'Pathway To Citizenship'

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supports allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, receive legal status and eventually apply to become citizens. But he would rather not use the term "pathway to citizenship," he said Tuesday.

"I think we're trapped. The immigration debate has been trapped and it's been polarized by two terms: path to citizenship and amnesty," Rand told reporters on a conference call. "Everybody who doesn't want anything to move forward calls every proposal that somebody else wants 'pathway to citizenship' or 'you're granting amnesty.' Can't we have reform and just not call it by some names that discourage the progress from going forward?"

Paul gave an address earlier Tuesday to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce where he laid out his desired plan for immigration reform. A number of news outlets, including this one, reported that Paul had endorsed the idea of a pathway to citizenship, although not using the term specifically. His office insisted later that he had been misinterpreted: he did not want any special avenue for people to become citizens, although his plan would allow them to do so.

Rand Paul has repeatedly denied that he has proposed a pathway to citizenship. He has insisted that he supports a pathway to legal status. Those are very different. The conflicting stories make it hard to figure out what the truth is.

As friends of mine who are "Republicans" before they are "Conservatives" continue to throw Rand Paul under the bus, they get my attention. I wonder to myself what happened to the Republican's so called "11th commandment" about not speaking ill of fellow Republicans? The answer, I think, is simple. Rand Paul is not "one of them". He's not part of the country club Republican GOPe circle. And *that* I find VERY attractive in a presidential candidate. By all means, McCain and Graham (et al), keep calling Rand a "whacko bird". You are opening our eyes.

Here is my problem with a "pathway to legal status" and it is something I would like Mr. Paul to explain.

Will these "legal residents" pay local, state and federal taxes?

If not, why not?

If so, how can we have people required to pay taxes and have no representation in the government which imposes the taxes.

Where the founding fathers wrong when they said "No taxation without representation."

Or is Mr. Paul wrong when he advocates permanent legal status WITH taxes and WITHOUT representation?

They both can't be right.