Replies

The debate kicked off Monday, but Paul noted Tuesday on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that all of the proposals extend amnesty far more widely than the Securing America’s Future Act sponsored in the House last month by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Rep. Rául Labrador (R-Idaho), and others. Unlike the proposals discussed so far in the Senate, the Goodlatte bill offers work visas — but not a path to citizenship — for the 690,000 young adult illegal immigrants currently enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

I didn't care much for Rand Paul when he was first elected to the Senate, as he seemed like a capital "L" Libertarian rather than a conservative. Some Libertarians are worse than Democrats and establishment Republicans on immigration.

However, over the years Rand Paul has become much more of a Constitutional Conservative who has more often than not come around to the right side of most issues.

On DACA, I would just as soon not see any compromise to allow them to stay, but the House Bill that Paul is offering to sponsor is actually an improvement over what the President offered. It promises legal residency to about 700K anchor babies, as opposed to a path to citizenship for 1.8 million. That's the most we should offer the Democrats in exchange for a border wall, an end to chain migration, and an end to the lottery. If we're stuck with DACA anchor babies because of a need for political compromises, so be it, but we shouldn't expand DACA nor should these people ever be given citizenship or the vote - that just invites future illegals to come here in the hope of getting the same.