Rand Paul on Amnesty: “Imagine 12 Million New Taxpayers”


Read his lips

Read his lips

Except of course they’re not actually taxpayers. A taxpayer provides a net gain. Someone who takes more out of the system than he pays into the system is not a taxpayer.

In his prepared text for a speech he is delivering today at National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, Sen. Rand Paul (R.-Ky.) said to illegal aliens who want to live and work in the United States: “[W]e will find a place for you.”

Paul also said he envisioned today’s illegal aliens becoming additional “taxpayers.” “Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers,” said Paul.

Ann Coulter already said this one best.

It’s as if he’s talking to someone who has never been to America and is unfamiliar with its tax system.

By “paying taxes,” Rubio means “filing a tax return and getting a payment back from the government in the form of the earned income tax credit.” Another term for what Rubio calls “paying taxes” is “receiving welfare” — which newly legalized illegals will start receiving right away under Rubio’s plan. The only tax they’ll pay is the same tax they pay now: sales tax.

The Heritage study already found that the 12 million new taxpayers would be a burden on the system in the trillions. They will pay some taxes, but get far more back in benefits.

“In order to bring conservatives to this cause however, those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure,” said Paul. “But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion.”

Nobody who wants to legalize millions of illegal aliens wants to secure the borders. Let’s just accept that as a fact. The two are not ideologically compatible. It’s like announcing that you want to surrender to China but you support a strong national defense.

The rest is full of Rubioisms.

“Paul said that his plan would first secure the border and then grant work visas to illegal aliens.

“The first part of my plan–border security–must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished,” said Paul. “This is what I call, Trust but Verify.”

“Conservatives are wary of amnesty. My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line,” said Paul. :But what we have now is de facto amnesty. The solution doesn’t have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period.”

Great. De facto amnesty. The ultimate dishonest Rubioism.

But how exactly is this a middle ground? If you’re legalizing illegal aliens, then you’re granting them amnesty and spare us the back of the line and paying taxes nonsense.

The real question is path to citizenship. Last time around Rand had it in his prepared remarks but left it out during his speech, but eventually sort of admitted he supported it.

Really I prefer McCain on amnesty to Rubio and Rand since he at least says what he means openly without any of the hedging or word games. It’s better to have someone come right out and tell you he wants amnesty, than to have someone make you spend an hour parsing his remarks.

 Senator Rand Paul, a conservative Republican whose vote is being courted by supporters of a broad U.S. immigration bill, said on Sunday he is open to voting for the measure but wants changes, including tougher border security requirements.

UPDATE: Here’s the speech.

“We’re not talking about criminals we’re talking about immigrant workers caught up in a failed government visa program.”

Really?

They got caught up in a failed visa program that involved illegally crossing the border?

My plan will not impose a national ID card or mandatory E-Verify, forcing businesses to become policemen.

So again, no internal enforcement.

  • onecornpone

    ROTFLMAO!!! … voted on by congress THAT is rich!

    Another one bites the dust!

  • GSR

    The American people, native born Americans that is, are not represented much anymore unless you are a Democrat/govt. using contituency.
    The USA is being transformed into the United Nations, where anyone who isn’t a native born, Caucasian American, will have extra, “supra” rights.

    • EarlyBird

      This is not about white vs. non-white, Bubba. The best thing that has happened to this country in the past 20 years is the massive influx of Asians, who tend to raise happy, productive children in solid, two parent homes, who are polite, respectful, eager to get educated and hard working.

      • truebearing

        For Obama and dozens of race-obsessed ethnic organisations it certainly is about white vs non-white. I cite the NAACP and La Raza for starters.
        Now it’s your turn to respond without acknowledging the truth.

        • EarlyBird

          Oh, I’ll acknowlege the truth: There are indeed race-obsessed organizations, and some are involved in the illegal immigration debate like La Raza, and who talk about “re-conquista” and so on.
          That fact somehow disproves my point, that the influx of many non-white immigrants such as Asians has benefitted the nation? Bubba’s concern is about white people, and his sense that non-white immigrants are ruining the country. I not only don’t buy the concept in general, but pointed to a massive and obvious exception to his fears.

          • chicagorefugee

            Ah, so on this subject you’re in favor of unilateral disarmament, as it were? We should simply ignore the large (and growing) number of people who hate pale-skinned people for strictly racial reasons? Yeah, I’m sure that’ll work out well …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEqa90XpPw0

      • chicagorefugee

        Oh yes, I’m so grateful that my child will be spared the burden of admission to the highly rated university that his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents have been paying taxes to support in favor of Asian students who arrived within the last decade! Because we all know what a hell-hole this country was before the 1965 immigration “reform.”

  • NAHALKIDES

    It’s a great pity that Rand Paul, like so many others of the Libertarian bent, favors open-borders policies that would destroy this nation. Scratch one more possible candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination from the list.

  • nickR

    RHINOS like McCain, Rubio, and now Paul (amnesty kooks), need to be targeted at election time and voted out of office. That is the only way they understand when we say…NO AMNESTY!

    • EarlyBird

      So what do we do with the 11 million illegals here in the country?

      • truebearing

        Send them to your house for food and money.

        • EarlyBird

          I share your anger with illegals too, Truebearing, but anger is not a solution. Nor are fantasies about “no amnesty!”

  • Jsjk

    I can only hope that these treacherous amnesty advocates are speedily voted out of office. What a disgrace and disappointment Rubio has been!

  • EarlyBird

    More fantasies from Danny Greenfield.
    Again: we can NOT simply round up 11+ illegal aliens and “send them back home.” It is physically, fiscally, politically, morally and probably constitutionally IMPOSSIBLE. So let’s drop this fantasy and accept reality: we must have some form of “amnesty” no matter what we call it, OR just decide NOT to fix immigration at all.
    We can not have both. We can not scream “no amnesty!” AND scream “fix immigration!” Its like trying to have a two state solution AND the “right of return.” It’s impossible.
    Like a hole in the side of boat, we first fix the hole (secure the border) then figure out how to deal with the water that is in the boat. We scoop some out it out, and accept that we’ll have some in the boat.

    • Naresh Krishnamoorti

      This is called an ignoratio elenchi. You’re arguing against a point that Greenfield is not arguing. What Greenfield is saying is that you should not REWARD illegals by giving them a pathway to citizenship. Let the illegals stay and work here legally, as long as they commit no other crimes, but forever bar them from US citizenship.

      • truebearing

        And his implied argument is non sequitur. Given his premise, that sending illegals back is impossible — which I don’t necessarily buy — it still does not follow that giving the criminals amnesty is the only recourse.

        • EarlyBird

          Converting illegals’ status to “legal” and allowing them to stay here (pathway to citizenship or not) is amnesty, and it’s what Greenfield is against.
          And so the question is begged: if not “amnesty” – or whatever we want to call it – and given the obviously immense hurdles of physically deporting even an 1/8th of the population here, what are we really demanding when we demand that Washington fix immigration?

          • chicagorefugee

            Build the fence. Close the border. Implement E-verify. Enforce employer sanctions for hiring illegals up to and including jail time. Abolish birthright citizenship – we are the ONLY first-world country in the world who hasn’t. Cut off all welfare benefits for illegals. Crack down – hard – on identity theft. Enforce the “public charge” qualification for residency again. Stop chain migration. Cut off funds to “sanctuary cities.” End bilingual public services. Close the gov’t website that “connects” immigrants to “services.” STOP ADVERTISING US FOOD STAMPS IN MEXICO!

      • EarlyBird

        Sorry, Naresh. Allowing illegals to stay and work her legally IS amnesty, and it’s what Greenfield is against. Full citizenship is going even beyond amnesty.

        • Naresh Krishnamoorti

          Not necessarily. You can have a long-term guest worker program, as you have in places like Dubai, without issuing green cards or providing the full range of government benefits. But, in any case, Greenfield is arguing against citizenship in this piece.

          • EarlyBird

            I am very much on-board with guest worker programs without granting green cards or paths to citizenship, etc.
            But Greenfield is not, and calls ANYTHING short of immediate deportation “amnesty.” And in fairness, he’s right. To not prosecute people for breaking the law IS “amnesty.”
            But because there is no other practical way to fix the problem, I’m for all sorts of amnesty short of granting green cards and citizenship to illegals, to fix their status and bring the system above board and towards sanity.
            But by refusing amnesty of any kind, Danny Greenfield objectively is NOT for fixing the problem but for maintaining the status quo.

    • rbla

      So the government can track hundreds of millions of citizens phone records but can’t find 11 million illegal aliens? But it is not necessary to ’round them up’. Just make it more uncomfortable and economically unfeasible to stay (no welfare for the kiddies, heavy penalties for employers etc.) and many will leave on their own thereby making the problem more manageable. Yes, sealing the border is essential.

      • EarlyBird

        We agree here:
        “But it is not necessary to ’round them up’. Just make it more uncomfortable and economically unfeasible to stay (no welfare for the kiddies, heavy penalties for employers etc.) and many will leave on their own…”
        For Lil’ Danny Greenfield, anything short of rounding them up is “amnesty.”

  • ssohara

    I like Rand Paul the best of the politicians named… I tend to agree with him more than I disagree with him, so this article is a disappointment. It is looking more and more like Cruz is a better option than any of the others bandied around as potential 2016 candidates. I will never vote for Rubio. Re. Paul – I’m still on the fence. I’m not a one-issue voter and Paul has stood up for enough that I believe in that I might be willing to give him a chance – particularly if Cruz is not in the running.

  • ssohara

    BTW, I don’t have a problem with immigrants. My parents were immigrants. However, they were legal immigrants. I do think that given the reality of jihad, we need to be much more careful who we let into the country. Also, we really need to enforce the border and keep track of who gets in the country. And we need to assimilate them into the American culture instead of allowing multi-culturalism to enable formation of ghettos of various third-world cultures that are not compatible with a free society.

    BTW, the reason I am still open to Rand Paul, aside from his stand on other issues that I agree with – I read somewhere that he was touting a guest-worker program for the illegals in the country rather than green-cards, citizenship, etc. Which would mean – if they don’t have jobs, they can’t stay? I also think he is against giving them benefits? Not sure though… and if it turns out that he is just Rubio-lite, I’ll have a hard time supporting him. I really like Cruz, Lee, etc. right now. There are also some great GOP governors. None of them is perfect, but I definitely will not be voting for someone like Rubio.

  • MJUdall

    Instead of saying “imagine 12 million new taxpayers” they should be saying “imagine 12 million new jobs.” What is this idiot thinking. Never liked him. And I knew it was only a matter of time before his mask was removed.

    • chicagorefugee

      Imagine 12 million new welfare & food stamp recipients! Much more likely than 12 million new tax payers.

  • truebearing

    Paul is thinking with his ideology instead of his brain. Rubio is thinking with his ambition and ethnic bias instead of his brain. Will a conservative with a fully functioning brain, unconstipated by ideology, not blinded by ego, and capable of outwitting the media, please stand up!

    • trinity

      Interestingly, the pro-Amnesty crowd is calling those who are against Amnesty, “Elitists”. That is the new buzz-word.

  • ohyehbelievit

    Paul is apparently stupider than he looks and that tough to do!

  • CowboyUp

    I’d rather imagine the federal government spending less. I guess a less bloated, powerful, and intrusive government is out of the question.

  • quillerm

    Imagine not 12, but 30 Million low income or government dependent Immigrants that either make to little to pay taxes or are dependent on Government for their basic needs, including Medical care. These are not well educated Immigrants with degrees, they are basically farm workers, and border line illiterates from impoverished Third World Nations. If the US Needed millions of farm workers this would make sense, but we are in a economic crisis, with average REAL Unemployment at nearly 12%. Add another 30 Million and that number goes to 30% with taxpayers getting hit to pay for their benefits. This is a win for democrats who know that welfare recipients, criminals, and the poorly educated or indoctrinated, are their Voting base.

  • http://forumsforjustice.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3997&postcount=13 Forums4Justice

    Rand Paul wants to eliminate E-Verify, the most-effective tool, we, the people have, to prevent illegal immigration #DontStandWithRand

    If illegal immigrants couldn’t get a job, or collect entitlements, they wouldn’t cross our border, except to visit.

    Mandating, and ENFORCING, E-Verify, as it currently exists, for all jobs, and any entitlement, with harsh prosecutions of any offending employer, as well as the offending illegal immigrant, will do more to stop illegal immigration, than any futile attempt to secure the border, and also do it much faster, and at far less expense. At the same time, a mandatory, and ENFORCED, E-Verify could immediately provide jobs for millions of Americans

    Eight million illegal immigrants, are continuing to break our laws, by using false, or stolen, SS numbers, to work in, non-agriculture, on-the-books, American jobs. Only 6% of employers are presently using E-Verify. … E-Verify has a 99.71% accuracy rate (per recent Congressional testimony) … For every illegal immigrant working, an American isn’t…

    Simply put, E-Verify is, by far, the single most-effective tool we, the people have, to prevent illegal immigration.

    E-VERIFY NOW!! Full Name? Birthdate? Social Security Number?
    It can’t get any easier than that.

    Critics say the government often is too fixated on high-technology solutions. C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a former Homeland Security official who now runs a lobbying firm, said federal officials should instead focus their limited resources on making it harder for illegal immigrants to work in the United States, an approach that would serve as an effective deterrent.

    “Where are you going to get the biggest bang for the buck?” Mr. Verdery said.
    “Enforcement of the workplace is probably the best area to invest more dollars.”

    • trinity

      When I started my job search in the early 90′s after college, to work you needed a SSN or a Green Card to even apply. The information given was verified before an offer was given. Under Clinton, that disappeared. Hence the problems we have today and those 20 million illegals who now work here under the table.

  • http://forumsforjustice.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3997&postcount=13 Forums4Justice

    The 1986 Reagan Amnesty was projected to provide citizenship to the, between
    1.1, and 1.3, million illegal aliens thought to be in our United States at the time ….
    Almost 3.5 million illegal aliens received citizenship.

    In addition, based on the Reagan 1986 amnesty, for each person who received amnesty,
    Chain Migration added 5 more, poverty-level, immigrants.

    Amnesty for an alleged 11 million, mostly poverty-level illegal immigrants, would add another 55 million poverty-level legal immigrants over the next two decades.

    Is poverty-level population growth good for the national interest?
    Do we really want millions of poverty-level illegal immigrants to receive amnesty?
    Aren’t our entitlement programs overburdened enough already?

    End Chain Migration. Stop burdening American taxpayers with the poor from other countries. Stop weakening our America.

  • gregzotta

    There will not be 12 million new taxpayers and it is probably more than 12 million and will be more to come if this amnesty bill passes.Amnesty only exacerbates the problem. Furthermore, most of the illegal immigrants are low wage, low skilled workers who would be eligible for tax credits under our current tax system. In essence they will be getting paid by actual taxpayers. The illegal immigrants have violated immigration law and should not be rewarded for bad behavior. Why not enforce current immigration laws? If we are going to pick and choose which laws should be enforced then what would happen if a majority of the American people decided to not follow tax law? Could those people get a break; would the politicians look the other way and not enforce tax law like they are doing now regarding immigration laws? I think not.

  • cynthia curran

    The 1986 Reagan Amnesty was projected to provide citizenship to the, between
    1.1, and 1.3, million illegal aliens thought to be in our United States at the time ….
    Almost 3.5 million illegal aliens received citizenship.

    In addition, based on the Reagan 1986 amnesty, for each person who received amnesty,
    Chain Migration added 5 more, poverty-level, immigrants.

    Amnesty for an alleged 11 million, mostly poverty-level illegal immigrants, would add another 55 million poverty-level legal immigrants over the next two decades.

    Is poverty-level population growth good for the national interest?
    Do we really want millions of poverty-level illegal immigrants to receive amnesty?
    Aren’t our entitlement programs overburdened enough already?

    End Chain Migration. Stop burdening American taxpayers with the poor from other countries. Stop weakening our America.

    True, California is the perfect example, the Reagan act in the long term lead to Hispanics being the largest welfare group in the state. Some Republicans don’t believe it I’ve seen the figures at 50 percent and Texas while less on welfare than California biggest group also is Mexicans and Central American at 53 percent.
    Also, Reagan’s legalization lead to many whites leaving La which were not as politcally liberal around 1990 the Valley area and even some beach areas had whites that were not as Democratic as today. Same thing happen to a lesser degree in Orange County and San Diego County of changing the populations more Hisapnic and changing the politcal preferance of whites.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cynthia-Curran/100002510899902 Cynthia Curran

    Basically, I don’t like Paul, too much libertarian. The only thing I agree with the man is to do the social issues state by state. Liberal people get gay married while conservative states don’t. He is not that great on foreign policy, granted the Bush years didn’t have a great foreign policy either. He will always try to sneak guest worker programs, so native born folks in Kentucky will be unable to get a maid’s job or a fast food job.