Rand Paul: 'we aren't going to deport' 11 Million Illegal Immigrants


The junior senator from Kentucky and early candidate for the GOP's 2016 presidential nomination is unveiling his immigration plan today at a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The Associated Press has a preview:

He says his party must adopt a new face toward Hispanics and says conservatives must be part of it.

"Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation," Paul says.

"Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport" the millions already here, he says.

In the first installment of his new weekly column in the Washington Times, Sen. Paul fleshes out some details:

Under my plan for comprehensive reform the US would begin with prioritizing Visas for immigrants with advanced degrees, the so-called STEM Visas and an immediate expansion of the work Visa program. These reforms would happen immediately.

But, as a matter of both national security and immigration policy, it is absolutely essential that we both secure our border and modernize our visa system so we know who comes and who goes on travel, student and other temporary visas. And it is vital all other reforms be conditioned on this goal being met.Only after wrestling down the jackalope of border security (at least to the satisfaction of Congress), would Paul begin normalizing unauthorized immigrants (by giving them temporary visas, and putting them in a long line) at the rate of 2 million per year.

Brian Doherty discussed Rand Paul's evolving views on immigration in May 2011 and November 2012.

We'll have other critiques of Paul's new plan later; my brief take is that it illustrates the folly of the whole "comprehensive" approach: When you have to cram every policy concern and cultural anxiety into a single unholy enchilada of "reform," you're bound to encounter stuff you can't swallow. For me, that includes the types of surveillance-state bells and whistles necessary to track each and every human entering the country (and that includes us, kemosabe). When you have a prohibition problem, you might want to first look to which ridiculous laws need to be relaxed, not tightened.

NEXT: Libertarian Politics More Popular Than Ever

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hit me up on email. I taking bets on what new handle Slappy has come up with.

  2. “Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport” the millions already here…

    Who’s this we? You have a bleeding heart, amnesty-loving mouse in your pocket?

    1. You figure out a way to deport 11 million people.

      1. Send them all notices they won the Mexican (or Honduran, Guatemalan, etc) Lottery but have to go home to claim the prize.

      2. We could always gerrymander the borders around them. Sure, we might accidentally find a few legit Americans and the cities they live in suddenly inside the expanded Mexico, but it’s the price of purging our country of job stealers and benefit grabbers.

      3. Easy peasy

  3. When you have a prohibition problem, you might want to first look to which ridiculous laws need to be relaxed, not tightened.


    The solution to the negative consequences of legislation is always more legislation! Have all that work creating and implementing that legislation be for nothing? How fair is that to the people who did the work? Seriously! All for naught? What a monumental insult to their good intentions!

  4. OT but related: Rand’s introduced a bill that would (mostly) require warrant’s for domestic drone activity. Interestingly, there is an exception for:

    (3) HIGH RISK- The use of a drone to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization, when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines credible intelligence indicates there is such a risk.

    1. He’s gotta toss a bone to the GOP old guard and the Democrat new guard. Baby steps, man.

      1. Isn’t it pretty much the same thing he filibustered against? Drone striking people without due process? How is this any more restrictive than the President claiming this power? If this evidence was open to review and attention, that would be one thing. But nothing here would keep the Secretary from being as secretive and expansive as the President.

  5. It’s a pretty short conversation as far as I’m concerned:
    1. Redo the current citizenship requirements so it’s actually possible for someone to become a citizen in less than 5 years and not get buried in lawyer fees and paperwork
    2. Sign up our current illegals for the new citizenship program
    3. No “???”, just profit.

    1. Full disclosure: I’ve extremely biased against our current system ever since my legal-resident friend got kicked out for a paperwork error.

    2. Why offer citizenship to people who just want to work here? The process of obtaining legal residency should be entirely separate from application for citizenship.

      1. I agree. There should be a quick and easy way to get some sort of legal status. Citizenship is an entirely different matter.

      2. It’s called a guest worker visa, and it’s the obvious solution to everyone except the unions (who started the whole mess).

        1. Agreed. Drop all limits on guest worker visas and the problem solves itself. You don’t even have to worry about deporting people to put them at the back of the line or whatever. They will willingly go home during the off season or for vacation if they know it will not be hard to get back in when their job starts up again. You don’t have to address green cards or citizenship to solve this problem. You just have to change a few statutory numbers.

      3. If they’re paying income taxes, why shouldn’t they be considered citizens?

        1. What does paying taxes have to do with citizenship? I pay taxes in states and countries where I’m not a citizen all the time.

      4. Legal residency is itself a strange concept. The idea that people are prohibited from going to certain places on Earth based on the place on the Earth where they were born seems very antiquated.

  6. I don’t understand all this nonsense about prioritizing for immigrants who exhibit a specific behavior, like go to college. That makes no sense.

    1. It is skill-based. Women’s studies degrees don’t come with visas.

      1. In other words, you may only enter if you do what I want you to do.

        1. Financial self-support is not an unreasonable requirement.

          1. But having a degree has little to do with being self sufficient. I’m much more interested in whether they have a job lined up. Eliminating limits on worker visas of all kinds is the solution to this problem.

          2. “Financial self-support is not an unreasonable requirement.”

            Why? What’s it to you?

  7. con-ser-va-tive (adj.):

    1. Wanting to make immigration harder.

    2. Wanting to make immigration easier.

  8. Where it not entitlements would immigration even be an issue? Of course, if I remember correctly, this current hysteria over immigration began with the perceived desperate need to keep the multitude of terrorists who were flooding in across the border out.

  9. “…wrestling down the jackalope of border security…”

    An interesting turn of phrase, and not included anywhere in the linked article.

    But hey, jackalopes.

    1. Yeah, I think there’s a missing close blockquote between “met.” and “Only”.

      Either that, or Rand Paul refers to himself in the third person in his own columns.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.