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.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-to-endorse-path-to-citizenship-89052.html
"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...
Posted by: Legal and no longer waiting | March 23, 2013 at 09:08 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/brookings-survey-ten-americans-back-immigration-reform/story?id=18778169
Posted by: George Chell | March 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Hi Greg, Will appreciate if you could kindly give an update on, Nurse Bill/Schedule A, after your visit to DC.
Posted by: Rajani | March 21, 2013 at 09:57 AM
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"?
Posted by: Amused | March 21, 2013 at 12:44 AM
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.
Posted by: RR | March 20, 2013 at 04:16 PM
RR, ever heard of expression "road to hell is paved with good intentions"? If so, do you understand what it means?
Posted by: Legal and no longer waiting | March 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM
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"??
Posted by: RR | March 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM
"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.
Posted by: Legal and no longer waiting | March 20, 2013 at 08:11 AM
"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:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/19/text-of-rand-pauls-immigration-speech/
Posted by: Jack | March 20, 2013 at 12:36 AM
GOBAMA 2013 YES WE CAN!!!
Posted by: CIR2013 | March 19, 2013 at 01:43 PM