Posted on 03/21/2013 6:22:11 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave a full-throated endorsement on Tuesday for comprehensive immigration reform that would allow undocumented immigrants to become citizens but not expand the employment verification system, putting him at odds with members of his party.
. . . . . . . . ..
But Paul differs from many Republicans, and some Democrats, on employment verification. Paul singled out E-Verify, an already-existing federal effort to check employment status. It's considered necessary by many to ensure businesses aren't hiring workers they shouldn't, but it's also criticized as cumbersome for employers and too likely to give false positives that would keep citizens and legal immigrant workers from being hired.
"My plan will not, though -- and this is where I disagree with some in the bipartisan group -- impose a national ID card," he said. "It will also not have mandatory E-Verify. I don't mind if there's E-Verify, maybe related to the tax code somehow, but I don't like the idea of making every business owner a policeman."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/rand-paul-pathway-to-citizenship_n_2906587.html
Most likely the moron "teachers" have no idea that it is a Revolutionary War Flag!
“I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.
Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.
I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.
Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.”
Directly from his Senatorial web page rather than the Huffington Post. Waht next? New York Times editorial page?
Your PDS is going to give you an ulcer.
Whatever Rand wants to do is fine with me as long as illegal workers pay back taxes as a condition of citizenship.
No. He’s not. But SoCon-RINO is doing his best to paint him that way.
Thanks with keeping on this issue re: Rand.
I think there’s a real risk of Congress moving on it this spring, and thus making 2016 too late for stopping it, but this is absolutely critical to our future, including our future elections.
It’s good for Rand to be exposed on it early and often, before he gets any real momentum with Freepers.
(BTW, I’m fine with Rand’s voice as a Senator, just as long as we have enough Senators and Representatives to override his vote on this..)
“Weasel words.”
That they are. If you have to parse them, as folks here are doing with the energy of dervishes, then they’re weasel words. The native tongue of the politician.
Which, it sounds like Rand wants to do away with but you want to keep because you oppose Rand’s plan?
Sound about right?
Big mistake.
The only one “twisting” here is you.
Rand wants MILITARY bases on the border to help seal it. He wants bennies cut off to those who NEVER SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And jackasses like you have a problem with it...
Nice going Ace. Don’t do us any more favors.
The confusion and disagreement right here at Free Republic as to what Rand said and what Rand meant shows that his Clinton-like word parsing has accomplished his goal of obfuscating his true agenda.
He doesn't support "a path to citizenship", he just supports a plan that eventually allows illegals to apply for citizenship.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
Also, as has been pointed out to the point of idiocy... RAND IS NOT RON.
Their positions are vastly different on a number of issues.
Using an association fallacy to wage an Alinsky attack against Rand is just stupid and transparent.
The ‘Pathway to Citizenship’ has been defined and is practiced for immigrants from every part of the world, except for the felonous illegals who sneak across the porous border with Mexico.
That Pathway, begins in the home country, with a request to be allowed to immigrate. Why in hell do we have to make exceptions for those coming in from the south? Send ‘em all home and make them get in line on THEIR side of the border!
“He just supports a plan that eventually allows illegals to apply for citizenship.”
That’s nonsense. Illegals can apply for citizenship now.
His plan is strictly about securing the border and fixing the guest worker program. All else would stay as it is now.
Because we have millions of unemployed Americans.
Yeah... Especially that part where we wants the MILITARY on the border...
Oh... wait...
The problem with all of this, of course, is that we’ll never get anything to fix this problem, so we’ll be stuck with the status quo of open borders that allow illegals across just about whenever they want. It has 20 million in the country and more will be able to come whenever they want.
That is the status quo.
I despise the status quo. You despise the status quo. We want it fixed, but the opponents really don’t. They want to keep it the way it is.
That means we lose. Nothing at all getting done equals the status quo, loved by democrat politicians and unscrupulous hirers of illegal labor, not to mention drug runners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.