42 votes

The Rand Paul Evolution: Rand Paul calls for 'path to citizenship' for illegals

Politico: Rand Paul calls for 'path to citizenship' for illegals: Call it the Rand Paul Evolution. He’ll push to loosen marijuana penalties, legalize undocumented immigrants and pursue a less aggressive American foreign policy.

In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said he’ll return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party. He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives. And he believes his ideas — along with pushing for less U.S. military intervention in conflicts overseas — could help the GOP broaden its tent and appeal to crucial voting blocs that handed Democrats big wins in the West Coast, the Northeast and along the Great Lakes.

“We have three big regions where we’re not competitive,” Paul said. “And we have to be competitive in those regions.”

Paul, 49, was elected on the tea party wave that fueled GOP landslide victories in 2010, often declaring on the campaign trail that he had a “message” from the tea party: “We have come to take our government back.”

But two years later, the tea party agenda has stalled in Congress, and House Republicans who ran on that purity platform in 2010 began to tout bipartisan compromises with Democrats in 2012. Nationally, the GOP recognizes it has a demographic problem from New England to the Southwest it needs to correct ahead of the 2014 midterm elections and the next White House race in 2016.

Continue reading at Politico:


Related: Rand Paul Discussed on Morning Joe

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You're not the only one.

You're not the only one. Well stated. I have nothing but contempt for Rand's treason to his dad but he is right on this.


Please tell me you're not entertaining the thought of amnesty!

I live in Southern California, and to say that we have an illegal immigration problem would be the understatement of the year. Entire cities have been taken over. Entire schools consist of illegal immigrants (I'm not exaggerating, my wife is a teacher so I hear all the stories.) They abuse every public service and demand to be catered to. More than half the people I talk to on the phone at my job only speak Spanish. It's gotten so bad the interpreting service asks you to press 2 for Spanish, 3 for any other language. There are even businesses that answer the phone in Spanish!

Look, I could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to make is this: If you support amnesty in any way, shape, or form, I will be done with you. This is a deal breaker for a lot of people. Keep that in mind.

Doing nothing is what keeps the problem going.

The Democrats will never allow for those people to be deported. So, which would you rather have? Either nothing happens and they keep coming until they take over your entire state, or, would you rather those already there who aren't leaving anyway to be given a path to legality in return for keeping any more illegals from coming in?


The whole issue is obviously divisive as hell, but I'm so-so on both sides. I hate the idea of amnesty because we've tried that before and it failed. I hate the idea of open borders while we have all the free stuff available here in this country to lure people in.

I think I'd be ok with what Rand is proposing IF and ONLY IF we bring the troops home and secure the border legitimately. Then I could see a path to citizenship. There's just no way I see massive round-ups of illegals happening to fix the problem, and stopping the influx from across the border, financed by drugs, seems like the most sensible place to start.

Eric Hoffer

Hmmm... I've heard this... somewhere before...

OH YEAH... "You GOTSTA vote for Romney, unless you want four more years of Obozo."

Now I remember!


Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Make sense.


It's sad to see libertarians

It's sad to see libertarians using "ITZ TEH LAW!" as an argument. Illegals who are committing violent crimes and violating the rights of others should be deported. If someone wants to come here to work and make a better life for their family, I really don't care. Making those people legal (and ending the Drug War while we're at it) solves most of the worst effects of illegal immigration. And the fact that there's an arbitrary law on the books in DC that says they can't cross an imaginary line doesn't really sway me. We didn't have such laws for most of this country's history. It would be one thing if we had a system where it was quick and easy for someone to move here if they desired, after being checked out for criminal history, contagious disease, etc. That's not the system we have. And I live in Los Angeles, so don't even try the "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE" argument on me

Illegals very presence

violates our rights. Get it straight.

In order for that to be true,

In order for that to be true, you have to believe that our rights come from arbitrary laws passed by the federal government. I'm sorry, but I think that is pure BS

Not at all

I believe that we have the right to form nations,make and enforce our own laws and protect ourselves from foreign invasion.

The word invasion does not

The word invasion does not mean what you think it means. You don't have the right to control the use of private property, the movement of free people, who people can and can't hire, etc which is what the laws you support do. If you or whoever want to buy land somewhere and dictate who can and can't move there, I say go for it. But I will not agree that you have the right to extend that control over everyone else in (and out of) the country

Invasion is aggression

Our borders are public,not private property.

Liberty wants non-aggression,yet:

Violating our national sovereignty is aggression.
Violating our immigration laws is aggression.
Refusal to learn our common language is agggression.
Working off the books is aggression.
Creating disturbances in our public schools is aggression.
Overburdening our hospitals is aggression.
Insisting that the citizens of our nation pay for education of non-citizens is aggression.
Coming here in violation of our immigration laws to give birth so that the child will be eligible for welfare benefits is aggression.

Saying that American citizens should leave our homeland and go to Europe,Asia,Africa and India because your race "owns" this continent is aggression.

I thought libertarians were against aggression.

The border is a line. It

The border is a line. It isn't property because it has no width. Property has dimensions.

"Violating our national sovereignty is aggression."

Meaningless. If the law is not designed to prevent or punish real, actual aggression, then it's not a just law. Which is also my response to your next point. You could use these same arguments against any victimless crime.

"Refusal to learn our common language is agggression."

By itself it isn't. It's completely possible to survive without knowing English here, and without government support or use of force against other people. My great grandmother (who was Italian) never learned English and she got by fine (my great grandfather supported the family) without welfare or anything like that. I do support making English the official language of government functions, but I have no desire to inject that mandate onto private affairs. And you do realize most Hispanics speak English, even if it's not their first language and/or perfect?

"Working off the books is aggression."

What? I'm a libertarian, I don't think government has a right to micromanage business affairs, and I don't think the income or payroll taxes should exist. Call it what you want, but this is an Orwellian use of the term "aggression"

"Creating disturbances in our public schools is aggression."

Define "disturbances?" Kids who disrupt and cause trouble should be dealt with regardless of whether they're immigrants, or what their race is. If you mean "they don't know English" then I would say that there are far greater issues with public schools, especially considering those in places without large numbers of immigrants aren't exactly thriving. Way too many administrators, powerful teachers unions, bad methods, no competition, etc are far bigger problems. And you can educate non-English speakers without burdening everyone else as long as you do it right.

"Overburdening our hospitals is aggression."

That overburdening wouldn't have anything to do with CON laws, licensing laws, and various regulations and mandates that restrict the health care industry? Funny how in every other industry, supply expands to meet demand

"Insisting that the citizens of our nation pay for education of non-citizens is aggression."

It's also aggression when citizens do it to other citizens. Same thing with your next point

"Saying that American citizens should leave our homeland and go to Europe,Asia,Africa and India because your race "owns" this continent is aggression."

Nowhere near a majority of Hispanics think this. Again, do you actually know Hispanics or do you stereotype them based on random Internet ramblings of paranoid nutjobs?


But only addressing the property issue.

Property has one dimension: That which you say it is.

Property is defined by that which you, or a people controls and uses force to do so. It is a way of saying, "Touch that and I will engage in violence against you."

So that line can be as arbitrary as you want it. If it's in the sand, or if it's a grey zone a few thousand miles long, it's still a property line.

I'm trying not to engage in the other arguments for now, but I wanted to address this point. Property is held only through force.

Eric Hoffer

We have the right to protect ourselves and our children

In my New England state,public school teachers,union members,were discovered teaching English who could not pass tests in English themselves. They could not adequately speak,read or write in the English language,yet somehow,they were teaching English in our public schools.

I hope everyone here who is so "libertarian" on this subject does some research on the Reconquista movement and on the Liberation Theology movement,in addition to the devastation illegal aliens and their offspring cause to our schools (our American children have to suffer in classes with illegal aliens who don't speak the language,who leave for months at a time then come back and for whom the classes are interrupted and slowed down to accomodate them),also hospitals,welfare systems(meant for our own needy) are overburdened to the breaking point by the illegals who get a free pass on everything.

The "Reconquista" bullshit is

The "Reconquista" bullshit is also hilarious to me. How many Mexicans do you know in New England? You are aware that Hispanics aren't a monolithic group are you? The only people who think Mexicans immigrants are all a part of a secret plot to give the West back to Mexico are paranoid, xenophobic, racist, or some combination of the above.

In my area

we have loads of Dominicans and Guatamalians.

Our Capitol city recently elected an ethnic Dominican as Mayor.

Our State Educational Board of Regents recently passed a policy decision that illegals can go to our state college and university if they pass high school. Of course, if their parents are below poverty because they work under the table, guess who pays for the illegal's college educations?

This decision by the Board of Regents is a policy decision. Our state legislature did not vote on this. Yet it has the force of law. How can that be,it's policy not law,yet it is.

The Reconquista movement is real.

Ok, so you're from Rhode

Ok, so you're from Rhode Island? As I suspected, over a quarter of your Hispanic population is Puerto Rican. And I highly doubt everyone else is an illegal. And btw, white New Englanders have made their own bed. Vermont is nearly 100% white and went almost 70% for Obama. And let's not get started on Massachusetts.

Once again, illegals are a scapegoat for the underlying issue; public benefits and welfare. How about making people in general pay their way through college? And rely on donations and endowments to fund grants and scholarships, as private universities do? It would also bring the cost of education down tremendously. Why do you think education suffers from so much inflation, just like every other industry the government is heavily involved in? If you look at the actual statistics, the overwhelming majority of welfare doesn't go to illegal immigrants. So why are you so upset of that small portion, but silent on the rest of it?

Your last line just made me laugh. You're sitting here talking about Dominicans and Guatemalans, and then in the next breath you're talking about the Reconquista? HAHAHAHAHA Do you even know what the word means or refers to? It strictly refers to the idea of Mexico retaking the states lost in the Mexican-American War. In case you're unaware, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala aren't apart of Mexico, and if you were to ask, I seriously doubt Dominicans, Guatemalans, Puerto Ricans, etc living in the northeast care for the idea of Mexico retaking the southwest. This is seriously laughable. Latino is not a monolithic term. Hispanic groups are different, and can be quite antagonistic towards one another

I think you are very naive

or somehow having illegal aliens here benefits you greatly.

So instead of refuting any of

So instead of refuting any of the actual points I make, you resort to ad hominem attacks? Why am I not surprised?

I almost forgot the taxes

When the Board of Regents made the decision,one of them said that if this means raising taxes,so be it. In a New England state that is already one of the most highly taxed states in the nation. That's how much these "public servants" cared about us,the citizens of this state and nation.




Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

You make my point by linking

You make my point by linking to a youtube video with 12,000 views. Again, if you actually know and talk to Mexicans, I don't think you'll get the impression that the vast majority of them are plotting to return the West to Mexico. Hispanics are already the largest ethnic group in New Mexico, as well as large portions of Texas, California, and Arizona. What exactly are they waiting for?

What state do you live in? I

What state do you live in? I ask because generally speaking, Puerto Ricans are the largest Latino group in New England, and they're all US citizens who are free to move here regardless of immigration laws. So chances are a large portion of these people you're talking about are US citizens, not to mention those from other countries who are legal immigrants.

I agree that people have a right to protect themselves. How is that relevant? Just as libertarians don't think all drug users should be locked up because some commit violent crimes, I also don't think all illegal immigrants should be deported because some commit violent crimes. Those who come here to work and don't hurt others (which is a solid majority) shouldn't be blamed for what others do.

For everything you mentioned, illegal immigrants are merely the scapegoats for the underlying problem. Whether its public education, welfare, government health care, etc. And in reality, illegal immigrants consume welfare at a lower rate than native-born households. Which goes back to my point about scapegoating. This country is going broke. And it's not because of illegal immigrants. Social Security, Medicare, and the military are the three largest items in the budget. Illegal immigrants aren't getting much of that money.

My fellow liberty lover,

illegal aliens should not be getting any welfare money. I do think you need to do more research and think about this situation more.

I can't say I disagree. Then

I can't say I disagree. Then again, I don't think anyone should be getting welfare money. And I also realize that welfare to illegals is a drop in the bucket compared to the real titans that are draining our budget and pile up the debt

Note: Liberation theology for you "libertarians"

It's a Communist movement. Like that Libertarians? Do you?

I found out about it listening to one of my local talk shows one day. The talk show host was interviewing a local Catholic priest who was all for the illegal aliens. At the very end of the interview,the priest said something like 'well you know,it's Liberation Theology.

I had never heard of it so I looked it up online and what I found really shocked me. For anybody who is Christian,this movement replaces God with government. It really twists up vocabulary,such as the traditional meaning of social justice with the communistic version. Very widespread in Africa and Latin America.

Liberty lovers, I implore you to research this for yourselves and your children and their children and their children...

Catholics? They missed that

Catholics? They missed that boat long ago. The illegals tend to be attracted to highly evangelical protestant denominations.

Not here.

This is supposedly the most Catholic state in the country.

Do you seriously think most

Do you seriously think most immigrants are communist? You realize that there's a reason they left their home countries? Now, it is true that most immigrants do like socialism (not communism) and government to some extent. In case you haven't noticed, however, so do most white Americans. How do you think our country got in the mess we're in? I can assure you it's primarily not because of the damn Mexicans. Also, libertarians don't believe in ascribing collective guilt based on shallow things like nationality, ethnicity, race, etc that end up punishing people regardless of their individual beliefs and characteristics.