Rand Paul Press Release on Immigration (6/12)

[Brian4Liberty]

From Rand Paul's website:



Jun 12, 2014

I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country. If we do nothing, 12 million more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform-smart reform that starts with border security.

Characterizing that position as "amnesty" is simply untrue.

What we have now is a lawless border. Current policy is a beacon for more illegal immigrants. The Obama administration's lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration-unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border security.

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight's comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.

My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn't get around the law.

My "Trust but Verify" plan will ensure that our border is secure. Under my plan, national security and border security will move as the first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to establish that the border is truly secure. No other reform could go forward until this happened.

In addition to increased border security, our nation needs to modernize our visa system. We need to know who comes and goes on travel, student, and other temporary visas. There must be a workable system to ensure that visitors don't use travel visas as a way to enter the country then disappear. This will address the problem of visa over-stayers.

National security has to be a cornerstone to any border security and visa reform initiative. Our nation needs to look back at the September 11th Commission Report and study the recommendations regarding terrorists' use of visas to commit acts of violence against America. The 9/11 hijackers used visas to enter the country and to stay here while planning attacks.

Strong border security includes using cutting edge technology. Satellites, physical barriers, screening to bar criminals and terrorists from entry, increased patrols on the border-and yes, surveillance drones-all should be part of a comprehensive plan to physically protect the border. My plan is to take specific measures at the border and then have the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office produce a report to Congress on the progress of border security.

My plan takes border security a step further than anybody else in Congress. Under my plan, Congress will vote every year on border security. If Congress votes that the border is not secure, elements of immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed. If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years, every element of immigration reform will be stopped.

Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Throughout history, our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor for the home country, yet they have assimilated into what we know today as America. That idea, and the American Dream, must be protected and preserved.

Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.

I do not support amnesty, which is why I don't support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.

I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves. However, our current system is broken, and we cannot move towards reform until our border is truly and fully secure.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1173

[Brian4Liberty]

In addition to increased border security, our nation needs to modernize our visa system. We need to know who comes and goes on travel, student, and other temporary visas. There must be a workable system to ensure that visitors don't use travel visas as a way to enter the country then disappear. This will address the problem of visa over-stayers.

That is a reasonable modification, update or amendment to the existing system. Just as the word "amnesty" has become toxic, so has the word "reform". Perhaps "amend" is a better word to use.

[Carlybee]

Rather than immigration reform why not call it immigration enforcement?

[Brian4Liberty]

Another source for Rand's article, for those who wish to comment directly at the website:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/12/Op-Ed-Secure-the-Border

[thoughtomator]

My "Trust but Verify" plan

LOLgasmic

[thoughtomator]

Rather than immigration reform why not call it immigration enforcement?

Rhetorical strategery. Enables him to neatly deflect what would otherwise be his 2016 opponents' (GOP and Dem) main line of attack. Dems have their base worked up into a frenzy on immigration recently.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rather than immigration reform why not call it immigration enforcement?

Good question. Unfortunately, it seems that the only option for a President who disobeys and ignores the law is impeachment. Our Congress doesn't seem to have the stomach for that. Rome 2.0.

[Carlybee]

Good question. Unfortunately, it seems that the only option for a President who disobeys and ignores the law is impeachment. Our Congress doesn't seem to have the stomach for that. Rome 2.0.


The word reform is perceived as amnesty no matter how it's spun

[Brian4Liberty]

The word reform is perceived as amnesty no matter how it's spun

Of course. Because it originated with the progressives.

[Southron]

I just have one question. Is giving visas to all the illegal immigrants currently here not the definition of amnesty?

[Brian4Liberty]

I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves.

I could propose amendments to the legal immigration process. And I guarantee that they would not come from crony corporatists such as the US Chamber of Commerce and Mark Zuckerberg.

1 - The number of visas should be tied to the unemployment and welfare rate. When unemployment and welfare dependency is high, the number of work visas should be lessened. When economic conditions are booming, the number should be raised. During a high-unemployment recession, they should be very limited.

2 - The argument for people with specialized and specific skills is a valid one. Some specialties may be hard to find, and it is also very dependent upon region and specific jobs. When there is a special person needed, a company should be able to get a Visa. To limit abuse, the number of Visas should be limited for each employer. Every employer should be able to hire one or a few specialized, hard to find people. But no one employer should be able to hire hundreds or thousands of them.

3 - The wait for citizenship should be a long one, based upon a true desire to put down roots in this nation. There should be no public assistance such as welfare, foodstamps, Medicaid, unemployment payments, etc. for a person during that waiting period, once again, to ensure that the potential new citizen is self-sufficient.

4 - There should be no taxpayer funded aid at all for those who have "line jumped" via immigrating illegally.

[Brett85]

I just have one question. Is giving visas to all the illegal immigrants currently here not the definition of amnesty?

Ask Ted Cruz.

[Valli6]

I just have one question. Is giving visas to all the illegal immigrants currently here not the definition of amnesty?

My impression from other statements Rand has made, is that work visas (temporary, renewable, but not permanent) would only be given to people who already have steady work, a home, and have been successfully pulling there own weight. This suggests to me that the door is open to deport others - people fraudulently using benefits, criminals (real ones), etc., - this would have to be defined - or reasserted.

Honestly, one of the things that really bothers me about "immigration reform" is that no one speaks of who will be deported. I want to be assured that truly "bad" persons will be deported, and I think many others need to hear this also.

Now, I guess it wouldn't make sense for Rand to begin a conversation about reforming immigration with talk of who we want to deport (sounds all negative), but I try to pay close attention to the nuances he uses in his statements.

He has ruled out "amnesty" but I have not heard him rule out deportations - in fact his website states:

"Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated."
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12
In other words - enforce current laws - which is all most of us want.

Once Rand gets a real discussion going with positive statements about reform, he can define immigration reform as conservatives see it - not as the amnesty that democrats have pushed. Later, the democrats will have to do the compromising in regards to the necessary deportations.

[jct74]

here's a WND article with some statement from Rand's office

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/rand-paul-denies-hes-pro-amnesty/

[RonPaulMall]

I just have one question. Is giving visas to all the illegal immigrants currently here not the definition of amnesty?

Depends on the type of Visa. If it is just some kind of special 3 year worker Visa or something, then no. If it is is permanent residency or a Visa that leads to permanent residency, then yes, that is Amnesty. More than Amnesty really- it is essentially open borders because it signals to everybody in the world that there is no point bothering with US immigration rules. If you want to move to America, just apply for a Travel Visa, come over here, and you will be allowed to stay.

The devil is in the details and if Rand wants to stop the bleeding on this issue he really has to be clear and specific otherwise people are going to assume the worst. And it's not like this is some overly complex issue either.

My suggestion for a plan would be this:

-First, secure the borders. Nothing moves forward before this is accomplished. I'm not sure if Rand is advocating this or not. The way I read it he seems to be suggesting the two things happen concurrently with yearly voting in Congress that would either keep whatever system he's advocating in place or temporarily end it depending on how the votes go. This strikes me as politically problematic as you'd be telling the 11 million they have whatever status it is Rand wants to confer on them, then what, next year it is stripped away and deportations start if the vote doesn't go right? An entitlement once granted is very hard to take away. Better to secure the border first, and then when and only when it is secure, will Congress act to implement the second part of the reform.

-The special status for the 11 million (and however many millions flood in through the borders in the meantime) should be a two, maybe three year tops special work visa. This allows us to identify them and allows them to get their affairs in order. After the work visa is up, they go back to their home country and either wait in line, or (and we should leave this decision totally up to the home country) be shuttled to the front of the line ahead of everybody else in their home country that followed the rules. Again, I don't really know where Rand stands on this issue. He's said things in the past that sounded a lot like Amnesty (permanent residency) and other times been more ambiguous.

-That offers and elegant solution for what the media conceives of "immigration reform" but of course it isn't really any sort of actual immigration reform at all. It's just securing the border and deciding what to do with illegals. So once we get that out of the way I'd suggest we get in to actual immigration reform, and here my suggesting would be to move towards the Australian model.

[Peace&Freedom]

Depends on the type of Visa. If it is just some kind of special 3 year worker Visa or something, then no. If it is is permanent residency or a Visa that leads to permanent residency, then yes, that is Amnesty. More than Amnesty really- it is essentially open borders because it signals to everybody in the world that there is no point bothering with US immigration rules. If you want to move to America, just apply for a Travel Visa, come over here, and you will be allowed to stay.

Exactly. There is already a pathway to citizenship in the US, called the naturalization process. Immigrants follow the process, thus enter into contract to become Americans, and they obtain citizenship status. The immigration reform debate seems to focus on the government taking on unilateral obligations to solve the problem, including doling out benefits to all under some schema sooner or later, with no attention given to the individual responsibility of the immigrants to resolve it. Any 'reform' not conditioned on the immigrants completing some kind of legal procedure on their side to actually become Americans, is amnesty.

[RonPaulMall]

Exactly. There is already a pathway to citizenship in the US, called the naturalization process. Immigrants follow the process, thus enter into contract to become Americans, and they obtain citizenship status. The immigration reform debate seems to focus on the government taking on unilateral obligations to solve the problem, including doling out benefits to all under some schema sooner or later, with no attention given to the individual responsibility of the immigrants to resolve it. Any 'reform' not conditioned on the immigrants completing some kind of legal procedure on their side to actually become Americans, is amnesty.

Yep, and the thing is, even after this press release, we are still no closer to understanding what Rand's position is. He starts off the press release by saying it is "untrue" to characterize his position as amnesty, but then just rambles on about his plan to secure the border and throws in something about reforming the visa system. What does that have to do with amnesty? He starts off by saying his position on amnesty is being misrepresented, but nowhere in that press release does he explain what his position on amnesty actually is or how people are misrepresenting it.

[Brett85]

Yep, and the thing is, even after this press release, we are still no closer to understanding what Rand's position is. He starts off the press release by saying it is "untrue" to characterize his position as amnesty, but then just rambles on about his plan to secure the border and throws in something about reforming the visa system. What does that have to do with amnesty? He starts off by saying his position on amnesty is being misrepresented, but nowhere in that press release does he explain what his position on amnesty actually is or how people are misrepresenting it.

His position is the same as it's always been. He supports Ted Cruz's position of giving work permits to the illegal immigrants who are here, after the border is secure.

[RonPaulMall]

His position is the same as it's always been. He supports Ted Cruz's position of giving work permits to the illegal immigrants who are here, after the border is secure.

What is the nature of these "work permits"? How long do they last? At what point do the workers have to return to their home country? What about the illegal immigrants who are not workers (students, retirees, stay at home mom's, ect)?

And more to the point, why isn't any of this discussed in the press release? He starts off by saying his view has been wrongly characterized as amnesty, but then goes on to discuss his views on everything but the amnesty issue in his press release.

[Valli6]

here's a WND article with some statement from Rand's office

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/rand-paul-denies-hes-pro-amnesty/
WTF? A couple different media sources are just flagrantly lying - posting headlines that he's pushing for amnesty!

Are these sources intentionally misrepresenting Rand Paul's views on immigration?
The bulk of people commenting on the story at other sites, remain clueless!

There seems to be some kind of PTSD with this issue from the decades of lying!
No one believes anything positve can be done about immigration reform from a conservative standpoint.
They complain, they want a fix, but any attempt at taking action will not be trusted.
What to do? :confused:

[RonPaulMall]

WTF? A couple different media sources are just flagrantly lying - posting headlines that he's pushing for amnesty!

Are these sources intentionally misrepresenting Rand Paul's views on immigration?
The bulk of people commenting on the story at other sites, remain clueless!

There seems to be some kind of PTSD with this issue from the decades of lying!
No one believes anything positve can be done about immigration reform from a conservative standpoint.
They complain, they want a fix, but any attempt at taking action will not be trusted.
What to do? :confused:

I think the "what to do?" part is obvious. Rand needs to clearly explain what his position is in regards to amnesty. He says in the press release he's being unfairly accused of being for amnesty, but then explains what his views are in regards to everything other than the amnesty issue. How do you think people are going to interpret that? Like you say, the voters have been lied to for decades on this issue, so if a politician is evasive or vague, they are going to assume the worst.

[RandallFan]

An entry-exit system implies that non violent immigrants who overstay and become illegal aliens get deported. Once the system is in place and they are deporting the relative few who overstay it encourages all visitors to leave on time.

Norquist was boasting about Ellmers winning and saying immigration was not a big deal. Ellmers is a woman and an incumbent. They are hard to beat.

Grover supports Renee Ellmers, Thad Cochran and Paul Ryan and calls himself fiscally conservative.

[samforpaul]

Edit.

[Brett85]

What is the nature of these "work permits"? How long do they last? At what point do the workers have to return to their home country? What about the illegal immigrants who are not workers (students, retirees, stay at home mom's, ect)?

And more to the point, why isn't any of this discussed in the press release? He starts off by saying his view has been wrongly characterized as amnesty, but then goes on to discuss his views on everything but the amnesty issue in his press release.

I think Rand is just in favor of allowing them to stay and work as long as they want to. People might call that "amnesty," but good luck winning a Presidential election calling for the mass deportation of 12 million illegal immigrants. Romney did absolutely awful among Hispanics, and he didn't even call for deportation, but simply "self deportation."