The most bizarre argument that advocates of amnesty are making is that we have "de facto amnesty" now. And since we have de facto amnesty now, we should just have the real thing and get it over with.
The most bizarre argument that advocates of amnesty are making is that we have "de facto amnesty" now. The argument goes that since we have de facto amnesty now, we should just have the real thing and get it over with.
Marco Rubio and Rand Paul have gone around repeating it.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) responded Thursday to critics on the right who say the immigration reform he supports will be catastrophic to the Republican Party and, more importantly, the country.
“I’ve got a news flash for those who want to call people names on amnesty: What we have now is de facto amnesty,” he said during an appearance on Fox News.
Sen. Paul’s comments were prompted by Fox anchor Bill Hemmer saying said that the Republican senator’s immigration speech on Tuesday has made him a “ripe target” for conservative critics, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
A lack of proper enforcement is not de facto amnesty. Amnesty is legalization. What Rubio and Rand Paul call de facto amnesty is the difference between not arresting a drug dealer and legalizing heroin.
There's a big difference between not fully enforcing the law and legalizing a crime.
It's a huge difference. The most obvious issue is financial. Legalizing 11 million illegal aliens from populations that are heavily dependent on government services will add a lot of money to the deficit and the national debt, it will further overburden Medicare and Medicaid and add millions of voters who will vote to protect their entitlements.
If you're going to bend on amnesty, then you might as well go all the way and bend on entitlements spending.
What is really strange about Rand Paul making the de facto amnesty argument is that unlike Rubio he doesn't even support employment enforcement. All he supports is border enforcement which is not going to do anything about illegal aliens in the country.
Rubio can at least argue that the Gang of 8 proposal will keep illegal aliens from being able to work and either force them to legalize or leave. Rand Paul can't make that argument. So his de facto amnesty claim is gibberish.
Rubio's de facto amnesty claim is based on the idea that his immigration reform proposal will end the employment of illegals. Rand Paul can't make that argument so he can't even argue de facto amnesty. His only proposal is to legalize the illegal aliens in the country with no penalties for the supposed de facto amnesty employers.
Rubio's de facto amnesty argument was dishonest, but Rand Paul's doesn't even make any sense.