Replies

Please explain to me just what a Senator is suppose to do other then propose legislation that would in fact fix the problem? You say he is just dodging the problem and I explain he is trying to get the ELECTED representative held accountable. Not some unelected bot that just serves the president. Accountable to the voters, that is the key to success. Sad you just can’t see it, since you appeared to be blinded by hate.

Quit making excuses for his deceptive approach to a "Secure Border".

It is simple, if Rand Paul really wants to be sincere on this issue, remove all requirements that require a "Certification" by the Congress that the Border is secure.

His solution should be simple:

1. Build a complete fence
2. No Amnesty, no legalization that puts them into a possible chance of citizenship or a chance to vote
3. No access to any social benefits
4. Complete usage of E-Verify to keep Illegal Aliens from having access to social benefits, voting, and jobs.

If he was really sincere about solving this problem and not just looking for political gain, these are the kind of policy positions he would be taking.

If he was really a conservative leader, he would have never proposed normalizing/legalizing Illegal Aliens in the first place. What makes his "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" plan if more egrariously wrong, is that he originally offered it up without any teeth with regards to the border, showing us who he really is.

Then, when an uproar was made by conservatives, he puts this false fence provision out there like we are stupid and won't see through his crap.

Sorry, but a Fence provision that builds 100 miles of fence every year based on another "Certification" by a Pro-Amnesty, Pro-Open-Borders congress that the border is secure, is just another slap in the face to conservatives.

It assumes we are stupid, ignorant, and either too lazy or busy to research out what he is saying.

Oh, and one last thing, when you have to pull out the Hate card, you've lost the argument and have resorted to the tactics of the left, trying to employ emotionalism, vs. facts, to sway the reader.