ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship

Rate this Entry

The likely 2016 presidential candidate and darling of the libertarian right backs a path to citizenship. The number of opponents of CIR gets smaller. But he is backing an approach with benchmarks tied to progress on border security.

Submit "Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship" to Facebook Submit "Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship" to Twitter Submit "Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship" to Google Submit "Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship" to StumbleUpon Submit "Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship" to Reddit Submit "Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship" to Digg Submit "Rand Paul Backs Path to Citizenship" to

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. CIR2013's Avatar
    GOBAMA 2013 YES WE CAN!!!
  2. Jack's Avatar

    "Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants."

    A fallacious straw man argument is a great start because it signals your BS antenna for all that will follow.

    "My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line," Paul said. "But what we have now is de facto amnesty."

    If a plan is not amnesty, that speaks for itself. Whenever you you hear "My plan is not amnesty" you can bet that it basically is.

    If what we have now is amnesty (de facto), then how is his plan not amnesty?

    "It will also not have mandatory e-Verify. I don't mind if there's e-Verify that's maybe related to the tax code somehow. But I don't like the idea of making every business owner a policeman."

    How would that tax code E-verify work? He needs to explain but the word "somehow" indicates he's not sure how. "Doesn't mind" indicates that he's perfectly OK with no verification system at all. The only enforcement he appears to be for is "border security" which everyone knows does nothing for the substantial percentage of unlawfully present aliens who entered legally and is typically a pretext for mass legalization. At least Paul doesn't put certification AFTER mass legalization like Rubio. "Border security" with nothing else puts Rand on par with, e.g., Jorge Castaneda! Even Democrats try to show interest (however fake) in employment verification and Paul thinks what he said today is going to fly with Republican primary voters?

    "The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration."

    Does he know that most Americans do not want that?

    "If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you."

    So he's for unlimited immigration.

    "A bipartisan panel would determine number of visas per year."

    Or is he?

    "Some say to generalize about any ethnic group is be a racist."

    But I'm gonna take my chances with some benevolent generalizing/pandering and even a "Seinfeld" reference. You have to read it to believe it:

  3. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    "If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you."

    So he's for unlimited immigration.

    Just like most libertarians, he thinks that imposing arbitrary limits on immigration is impractical. There is a lot of wisdom in that position.
  4. RR's Avatar
    So the same people who fought so hard last year to maintain status quo and keep arbitrary limits as they are, now are pointing to the wisdom in not having arbitrary limits?

    Can anyone spell "hypocrisy"??
  5. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    RR, ever heard of expression "road to hell is paved with good intentions"? If so, do you understand what it means?
  6. RR's Avatar
    LNLW, I understand the expression, but explain to me what your "context" is.

    Which "good intentions" are you referring to? Last year's intention to keep one group of people under the yoke of an in-built bias and discrimination because of "arbitrary limits"? Or the current intention to decry the use of "arbitrary limits" that might or might not be placed on providing relief to a much larger group of people with, shall we say, questionable intent in following the law?

    Which one is it?? Spell it out.
  7. Amused's Avatar
    LNLW back on the high horse (you know the one with no legs?) :-)
    Why don't we use the principal that was being applied to country quotas? No retrospective application...apply any benefit only to new people. Those waiting forever...can just keep suffering forever...lest someone else be made to wait an extra day!!
    How exactly does legalizing 11 million people not stretch USCIS to a breaking point and delay those already waiting in line? And how does that fit in with the LNLW principle of "do no harm"?
  8. Rajani's Avatar
    Hi Greg, Will appreciate if you could kindly give an update on, Nurse Bill/Schedule A, after your visit to DC.
  9. George Chell's Avatar
  10. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    "shall we say, questionable intent in following the law"

    Yes, because their buddies have been inviting them to join on H1B, but they decided to come illegally. Your whole premise is wrong. I know more people on H1 who got caught driving drunk then illegals who got a speeding ticket. The fact that legal avenues to immigrate were available to one group but not the other does not make it ok for the so called legals ones to feel superior. Talk about a high horse with no legs...
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: