Rand Paul: I won’t vote for spending bill that funds #Amnesty

[NACBA]

By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, said Tuesday that he plans to vote against a government spending measure if it provides funding for President Obama’s plan to grant temporary legal status for more than 4 million illegal immigrants in the country.

“I won’t vote for the spending bill if it includes money for the executive amnesty,” he told radio host Laura Ingraham.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3LKt0Lm3R
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Mr.NoSmile]

It'll get passed anyway. The GOP won't risk another image issue by being the cause of another potential government shutdown.

[William Tell]

Good, I have been seeing to many comments around the internet saying Rand is for open borders. He needs to squelch that notion.

[Brett85]

Good, I have been seeing to many comments around the internet saying Rand is for open borders. He needs to squelch that notion.

I can say that the sky is red, and that wouldn't make the sky red. The people who claim that he's for open borders are stupid and would never vote for him anyway. This won't make any difference to them. Rand has consistently advocated the exact opposite of open borders. He's consistently said that he doesn't support giving any type of legal status to illegal immigrants until the border is secure. So the people who claim that he supports "open borders" are irrational and illogical and should just be ignored and forgotten about.

[William Tell]

I can say that the sky is red, and that wouldn't make the sky red. The people who claim that he's for open borders are stupid and would never vote for him anyway. This won't make any difference to them. Rand has consistently advocating the exact opposite of open borders. He's consistently said that he doesn't support giving any type of legal status to illegal immigrants until the border is secure. So the people who claim that he supports "open borders" are irrational and illogical and should just be ignored and forgotten about.

The truth is not the issue here, it is perception. Some of these people support liberty candidates in their states, so you are wrong, Rand has been losing potential voters over this.

[Brett85]

The truth is not the issue here, it is perception. Some of these people support liberty candidates in their states, so you are wrong, Rand has been losing potential voters over this.

Losing potential voters over what? He's never made any kind of statement that even comes close to resembling support for open borders. He's been the staunchest advocate for secure borders in the entire Senate, even saying that Congress should have to vote on whether the border is secure or not. There's absolutely nothing he's said that should give a single person any indication that he supports "open borders." It's just as asinine as if someone came out and said that Rand supports the NSA surveillance program.

[William Tell]

Losing potential voters over what?

Over not fighting the false narrative, like I said:

Good, I have been seeing to many comments around the internet saying Rand is for open borders. He needs to squelch that notion.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

There have been True Conservative™-types that have been pushing a false internet meme that Paul supports amnesty for the longest time now. As with Rubin going on about whatever, it usually feels as if they're making it up to attack him because they do not like his foreign policy, more than anything else. They certainly can't point to any actual pro-amnesty votes in the U.S. Senate that Paul has made, so they're forced to cling to ancient articles in which Paul gives a cookie-cutter statement about supporting some form of immigration reform. It's a sad, pathetic routine from these (usually) Cruzbots.

[Brett85]

There have been True Conservative™-types that have been pushing a false internet meme that Paul supports amnesty for the longest time now. As with Rubin going on about whatever, it usually feels as if they're making it up to attack him because they do not like his foreign policy, more than anything else. They certainly can't point to any actual pro-amnesty votes in the U.S. Senate that Paul has made, so they're forced to cling to ancient articles in which Paul gives a cookie-cutter statement about supporting some form of immigration reform. It's a sad, pathetic routine from these (usually) Cruzbots.

Even if he supports "amnesty," that has nothing to do with supporting "open borders." You can be in favor of amnesty for those already here illegally but also be in favor of securing the border and not allowing any additional illegals in. The Senate immigration bill, although it wasn't good, contained some additional border security. There literally isn't a single U.S Senator or member of Congress who supports completely open borders, that we shouldn't even have any border patrol at all on the border. There aren't any anarchists in Congress. The claim that Rand supports "open borders" is simply an outright lie, and people who make that claim know that they're lying.

[William Tell]

Even if he supports "amnesty," that has nothing to do with supporting "open borders." You can be in favor of amnesty for those already here illegally but also be in favor of securing the border and not allowing any additional illegals in. The Senate immigration bill, although it wasn't good, contained some additional border security. There literally isn't a single U.S Senator or member of Congress who supports completely open borders, that we shouldn't even have any border patrol at all on the border. There aren't any anarchists in Congress. The claim that Rand supports "open borders" is simply an outright lie, and people who make that claim know that they're lying.

The issues of the border and immigration are tied to each other very closely in the minds of most voters. Although what you are saying is technically true, it doesn't matter because its splitting hairs in the eyes of so many people.

[Brett85]

I just view amnesty and border security as two completely different issues. Most of those who support some form of amnesty also support border security. I'm generally conservative on the immigration issue, but yet even I don't really think it makes sense to just have a mass deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants. But yet I take a hardcore conservative stance on the issue of border security, supporting the militarization of both our southern and northern borders.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The truth is not the issue here, it is perception. Some of these people support liberty candidates in their states, so you are wrong, Rand has been losing potential voters over this.

Steve Deace routinely has callers on the air that trash Rand on this issue, as does Deace himself.

[Bastiat's The Law]

For those unaware how Rand is percieved.



"Hour 2: Rand Paul says the GOP should not confront the president on his executive amnesty plan until next year. Is that smart or just an excuse? You make the call."

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/upl...ur2_120314.mp3

[Rudeman]

I don't listen to Deace, but that phrasing alone is absurd. What does he expect Republicans to do this year? The Democrats still control the Senate. It is either a short term funding bill until the GOP (assuming they would do anything differently) has power or a government shutdown. Those are the only 2 options.

I think having a shutdown just before you take power is stupid politically (strictly from a political pov, personally I have no problem with a shutdown). I think Rand is very smart politically and while some moves people get upset with, Rand usually has solid political reasoning (for instance the declaration of war issue).

[Millennial Conservatarian]

There have been True Conservative™-types that have been pushing a false internet meme that Paul supports amnesty for the longest time now. As with Rubin going on about whatever, it usually feels as if they're making it up to attack him because they do not like his foreign policy, more than anything else. They certainly can't point to any actual pro-amnesty votes in the U.S. Senate that Paul has made, so they're forced to cling to ancient articles in which Paul gives a cookie-cutter statement about supporting some form of immigration reform. It's a sad, pathetic routine from these (usually) Cruzbots.

Well in fairness, to the low-info, illiterate, inbred senior citizens who LOVE Ted Cruz (and probably think Huckabee would be a good VP pick for him, somehow), anything less than declaring martial law and going door to door rounding up illegal aliens is "Amnesty".

[erowe1]

How do you fund amnesty?

I'd like him to say, "I will not vote for a spending bill that funds deportation."

[RandallFan]

Ingraham likes Rand and says he is pro amnesty. Mofo Politics likes Rand and says he is pro amnesty. Ingraham even trashed Cruz and Lee for supporting H1B visas so she is not a Cruzbot.

I support Rand because Cruz is as bad because some of these morons think handing out 12 million work permits constitutionally via congress is a good policy and that illegals are crossing the border for citizenship not work.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/?s=rand%2C+amnesty

This is from Mofo Politics: Rand supporter:

November 5, 2014 Rand Paul promised to help Mitch McConnell pass amnesty


October 12, 2014 Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on amnesty

“They anticipate amnesty, which I’m afraid is coming…”


September 17, 2014 Laura Ingraham: Rand Paul had it right the first time, ISIS flip-flop a “mistake”

“He blinked, which, I think was a mistake…”

• June 22, 2014 Laura Ingraham: Rand Paul is almost as bad as Jeb Bush on amnesty
  
  “He’s not completely where Jeb is, but almost!”
  
  
  Jun 11, 2014

May 20, 2014 Grover Norquist tries to weasel out of Laura Ingraham’s questions about amnesty

“Oh my God. You’re whining. You’re whining. You’re whining!”

Brat would not have made 50% if all he did was bash Cantor on fiscal issues.

Jun 11, 2014

Immigration

Rand Paul on Immigration Reform: ‘Amnesty Is a Word That’s Trapped Us’

Mr. Paul appeared on the call with antitax crusader Grover Norquist. It was hosted by Partnership for a New American Economy, the pro-immigration reform group launched and funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Mr. Paul cited the bank bailouts, National Security Agency spying programs and “corporate welfare” as other reasons for Mr. Cantor’s defeat. He also said it was a mistake for Mr. Cantor to air negative TV ads blasting Mr. Brat when no one in the district knew who he was.

• June 29, 2013 Rand Paul mocks amnesty opponents: “Do you want us to put them in concentration camps?”
  
  “It is hard to get welfare. Are some of them on welfare? Maybe…”
  
  
  April 27, 2013 Bill Kristol warns Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan could be worse than Obamacare: “I am now against this bill”
  
  “More than health care even, this is sort of, once you do it, there’s no going back. So, I am now against this bill…”

April 23, 2013 Heartache: Rand Paul says he doesn’t like Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan but might vote for it anyway

“I haven’t made a final conclusion on it– I’m going to try to make the bill a lot better…”

• April 18, 2013 David Vitter rejects Marbo Rubio’s amnesty plan: “I don’t think this bill can be fixed”
  
  “That is a big mistake we’ve made before, we can’t make it again…”

April 1, 2013 Ted Cruz rejects Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan: “Profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants”

“Any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally– I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants…”


March 31, 2013 Jeff Flake takes a break from shoving amnesty down our throats to surrender on gay marriage

“It’s inevitable…”






January 30, 2013 Rand Paul kinda sorta opposes Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan

“You can’t have open borders and a welfare state…”

• January 30, 2013 David Vitter on Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan: “I just think he’s nuts”
  
  “I love and respect Marco. I just think he’s amazingly naive…”

November 10, 2012 Michael Savage mocks Sean Hannity’s flip-flop on amnesty

But before we get to that, did you know 10 trillion identities are stolen each year? Our friends at Lifelock can prevent identify theft.
Do you live in a home, apartment, or dwelling of any kind? If so, visit blinds.com. Don’t forget to enter the promo code: HANNITY.

June 17, 2012
RINO wimp Mitt Romney: No, I won’t overturn Obama’s Amnesty plan

• June 16, 2012 Stupid moron Mike Huckabee endorses Obama’s Amnesty plan: “I tried to pass a similar measure”

[RonPaulMall]

Losing potential voters over what? He's never made any kind of statement that even comes close to resembling support for open borders. He's been the staunchest advocate for secure borders in the entire Senate, even saying that Congress should have to vote on whether the border is secure or not. There's absolutely nothing he's said that should give a single person any indication that he supports "open borders." It's just as asinine as if someone came out and said that Rand supports the NSA surveillance program.

Sorry, but you are just wrong. I know plenty of Republicans that are open to Rand whose biggest issue with him is his position on amnesty. Rand's comments on the issue have been a jumbled mess and this is an issue he needs to really clean up on if he wants to win the primary. A strong statement stand against executive amnesty is a great start. But until Rand clarifies his position on legislative amnesty, he's losing voters that are otherwise open to him.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Rand Paul has been FAR too wishy washy on the issue of amnesty and immigration as a whole. His pathetic "outreach" to minority voters has sent him spinning one fuzzy position after another. He is not the guy who questioned the Civil Rights act, politics turned him into a game player and made him increasingly inconsistent.

The position of any "conservative" worth the title should be clear: no amnesty, border security, mass deportations,repeal the 14th amendment. The idea that the state can't deport at least a huge percentage of them is ridiculous. You're telling me Eisenhower managed to deport illegals but modern America can't? It's a complete myth that deportation couldn't be done, maybe not for all 11 million, but for a lot of them.

[RandallFan]

I have a bigger problem with Rand's legal immigration position. I think 1 million is enough.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-...1417330&page=5

PAUL: Yes. The reason -- and I've had this conversation with Senator Schumer before -- is that the reason it has failed is that the Senate bill that he proposed actually limited work visas and, I think, creates an incentive for more illegal immigration.

I'm for very expansive work visas. If you want to come to our country or if you're one of the 11 million who are here, I'm for giving you a work visa.

There is a debate, though, over citizenship and how quickly. I don't think the House is ready for citizenship.

So, really, the question to Democrats is will you go halfway?

Are you willing to try to bring the 11 million people who are here, bring them out of the shadows, give them an existence, try to have -- be more humane and try to get them a better situation for them?
That could happen tomorrow. The problem is, is the sticking point going to be we have to have immediate voting privileges for those who came here illegally?

In this particular interview, he's not even ruling out voting for illegals. 12 million more Democrats scares the heck out of gun owners and conservatives.

It's a complete myth that deportation couldn't be done, maybe not for all 11 million, but for a lot of them.

They are not even deporting public charges, or identity thieves. They aren't even deporting some of dreamers who have killed people. Some Republicans are proposing even fewer of them get deported.

[erowe1]

He is not the guy who questioned the Civil Rights act

I don't see anything here that's incompatible with what he said about the CRA.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Legal immigration is another thing. The PC Republican position has been "we're against illegal immigration, if they come here legally that's fine!" No, it's not. Immigration policy was changed radically in the mid 1960s. Since then there's been a huge change in the demographics of who's been allowed to come here, an ever-increasing flow of illegal immigrants due to a functionally open border and nonstop increases in net immigration.

I would love it for a GOP member to be brave enough to say that the disastrous immigration reforms enacted since 1965 should be repealed, that the demographics of who comes to this country matter and that there needs to be a moratorium on net immigration for the foreseeable future. It'll never happen because the right has allowed the left to control the dialectic and the narrative, so it would be political suicide.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't see anything here that's incompatible with what he said about the CRA.

That was a broader comment about who Rand has become since his election. He wouldn't dare say that he thinks the 1964 Civil Rights act went too far today. I wish he would, but it would never happen now. He might think it, but it's never something he'd say in public. When he runs for President, it's going to come up and you're going to see him distance himself from those comments faster than Usain Bolt.

[mosquitobite]

I can say that the sky is red, and that wouldn't make the sky red. The people who claim that he's for open borders are stupid and would never vote for him anyway. This won't make any difference to them. Rand has consistently advocated the exact opposite of open borders. He's consistently said that he doesn't support giving any type of legal status to illegal immigrants until the border is secure. So the people who claim that he supports "open borders" are irrational and illogical and should just be ignored and forgotten about.

Do you live in a red state? Because I'm with WT, I hear people say they don't like Rand because he's soft on the immigration issue.

[erowe1]

Steve Deace routinely has callers on the air that trash Rand on this issue, as does Deace himself.

Who?

[mosquitobite]

Who?

Huckabee's secret lover: https://www.facebook.com/stevedeace

[RandallFan]

The biggest problem I have is he is doing it because his consultants or pollsters told him to. Maybe he believed all the BS 2013 immigration polls that Bloomberg and Murdoch put out.

Also, it makes Rand look like he is being bought by big money. I don't think that is the case. I think Rand thinks it is some sort of act of political wizardry to come up with some halfass amnesty bill.

Cruz is as bad as Paul but he wasn't stupid enough to pal around with La Raza offshoots and Grover Norquist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/us...anted=all&_r=0

Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.

“The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Mr. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.

Mr. Cruz said recent polling indicated that people outside Washington support some reform, including legal status without citizenship. He said he was against naturalization because it rewarded lawbreakers and was unfair to legal immigrants. It also perpetuates illegal crossings, he added.

Cruz is just as bad. I actually prefer Rand on immigration because I think Rand would get more pushback from the neocons and police state Republicans. The problem with Bush is they GOP rolled over because of him being there on 911.

[William Tell]

Dave Brat's win, and the Texas general election results, show that being for a secure border, and anti amnesty is popular.

It is laughable to think you will gain any votes by coming off as weak on those issues.

[Krugminator2]

Rand Paul has been FAR too wishy washy on the issue of amnesty and immigration as a whole. His pathetic "outreach" to minority voters has sent him spinning one fuzzy position after another. He is not the guy who questioned the Civil Rights act, politics turned him into a game player and made him increasingly inconsistent.

The position of any "conservative" worth the title should be clear: no amnesty, border security, mass deportations,repeal the 14th amendment. The idea that the state can't deport at least a huge percentage of them is ridiculous. You're telling me Eisenhower managed to deport illegals but modern America can't? It's a complete myth that deportation couldn't be done, maybe not for all 11 million, but for a lot of them.

Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him wishy washy. Immigration doesn't have an easy answer. There are issues with making sure people don't get welfare and people aren't incentivized to come here illegally in the future because of amnesty. I get that. But it sure as hell has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. I am not going to speculate on why you brought that up. I could guess why you brought it up but I am not going to say it. I am against the public accommodation part of the Civil Rights Act but I am in favor of making easier to immigrate here. One has nothing to do with the other.


Immigrants who work make the country better off and raise the average standard of living. That isn't just my opinion. That is something every remotely free market economist from Ludwig Von Mises to Milton Friedman on down to Larry Kudlow agrees with.

If people want to make the case that immigrants change the culture for the worse or whatever. Fine. Immigration is an issue where there can be legitimate disagreement. But I don't get why people have to impugn someone else's motives. I am solidly with Grover Norquist and libertarian economists on this issue. And isn't some sellout position. Being for a free market in labor is the libertarian position. It will also create the most economic growth in the long term all else being equal.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him wishy washy. Immigration doesn't have an easy answer. There are issues with making sure people don't get welfare and people aren't incentivized to come here illegally in the future because of amnesty. I get that. But it sure as hell has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. I am not going to speculate on why you brought that up. I could guess why you brought it up but I am not going to say it. I am against the public accommodation part of the Civil Rights Act but I am in favor of making easier to immigrate here. One has nothing to do with the other.


Immigrants who work make the country better off and raise the average standard of living. That isn't just my opinion. That is something every remotely free market economist from Ludwig Von Mises to Milton Friedman on down to Larry Kudlow agrees with.

If people want to make the case that immigrants change the culture for the worse or whatever. Fine. Immigration is an issue where there can be legitimate disagreement. But I don't get why people have to impugn someone else's motives. I am solidly with Grover Norquist and libertarian economists on this issue. And isn't some sellout position. Being for a free market in labor is the libertarian position. It will also create the most economic growth in the long term all else being equal.

I do wish you would just say what you think of me and my opinions instead of beating around the bush. Don't worry, being painted with the scarlet R doesn't send me into fits of hysterics like it does to some.

Again, the comment regarding the CRA was a broader comment about who Rand Paul's principles and who he has presented himself as since being elected. He has been on a fruitless crusade to appeal to minority voters, and it's made his once seemingly principled positions very fuzzy. If you want proof, it will soon abound when the Presidential race gets underway. See what happens when he runs for President and his opinions on the 1964 CRA comes up. I guarantee you he won't be talking about property rights, limitations of federal power and freedom of association allowing people to disassociate. I don't know what spin he'll put on it, but he spin he will.

I'm fully aware of what the doctrinaire libertarian position is on the economics of immigration. My political and social philosophy, however, goes far beyond economics. You stand with Norquist, I stand with Hoppe. In the nightmare that is American democracy, "free immigration" is tantamount to forced integration. Open borders can't coexist with a welfare state; further, it can't coexist with democracy. The benefit of slightly better economic outcome does not--in any sense-- outweigh the social and cultural decay caused by a massive influx of poor, uneducated Hispanics. It really is incredible that libertarians think that open borders is a win for the movement. All open immigration will bring is even more big government, political pandering to possible voters and a cultural shift detrimental to what liberties we have remaining in this country. Libertarians seem largely incapable of seeing what mass immigration will do to negative liberty; namely it will erode it even further.

Open borders are a function of big government; the border is unsecured only because of the massive federal government we toil under. If power was decentralized to the states, or even further to the localities and the property owners, you better believe there wouldn't be an open border down south. It is centralized state power that has allowed open illegal immigration to occur. The only way to defend open borders is to create some "right of movement" which is a positive liberty wholly opposed to propertarian conceptions of freedom. If libertarians want to preserve what little negative liberty still exists, we have to reconsider the doctrinaire approach that the movement has been peddling.