Rand Paul: Don't Call My Plan 'Pathway To Citizenship'

Rand Paul: Don't Call My Plan 'Pathway To Citizenship'
|

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supports allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, receive legal status and eventually apply to become citizens. But he would rather not use the term "pathway to citizenship," he said Tuesday.

"I think we're trapped. The immigration debate has been trapped and it's been polarized by two terms: path to citizenship and amnesty," Rand told reporters on a conference call. "Everybody who doesn't want anything to move forward calls every proposal that somebody else wants 'pathway to citizenship' or 'you're granting amnesty.' Can't we have reform and just not call it by some names that discourage the progress from going forward?"

Paul gave an address earlier Tuesday to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce where he laid out his desired plan for immigration reform. A number of news outlets, including this one, reported that Paul had endorsed the idea of a pathway to citizenship, although not using the term specifically. His office insisted later that he had been misinterpreted: he did not want any special avenue for people to become citizens, although his plan would allow them to do so.

But within several hours, Paul had summed up one of the major struggles in talking about immigration reform. Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform, including fellow Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they were pleased with his announcement. But opponents of reform efforts, such as anti-immigration expansion group NumbersUSA, lept at the chance to try to take Paul down.

"Pathway to citizenship" means different things to different groups, and Paul seemed displeased with being pigeonholed. Sounding frustrated, he told a few reporters after a Republican Caucus lunch Tuesday that they weren't being helpful by always asking about a "pathway to citizenship" or "amnesty."

"I know it's your job to ask questions, but if you make everything about -- sort of the confusion this morning, the reporter put out a big blast saying I'm for a pathway to citizenship," he said, specifically referencing the Associated Press, which stood by its analysis. "By doing that, they may think they're advancing the debate but they're actually pushing the debate backwards."

Discussing immigration reform as defined by those two terms won't be helpful, he said.

"I think there's a way to get through this, but it's like everything else: terminology sometimes is an impediment," he said.

At the same time, Paul said he's "not for any type of law that says you can never be a citizen" or requiring undocumented immigrants to return to their native country before applying to return. He said they should not be naturalized ahead of anyone who has already applied to immigrate legally, but that's a relatively common line among pathway-to-citizenship supporters as well.

Those working on a Senate immigration bill certainly seemed to think Paul had indicated support for such a pathway. Graham, a member of the so-called "gang of eight" working on a bill, said he and Paul had spoken "briefly" about a pathway to citizenship, but not extensively. The South Carolina senator is a strong supporter of a path to citizenship and argues no immigration bill will go into law without one. He said he was glad to see Paul seemingly agree.

"The fact that he embraces it as a logical solution to a tough problem is very positive for the party, very positive, I think, for solving the problem overall," Graham told reporters. "It was welcome news."

It wasn't taken that way by NumbersUSA, which quickly sent a message to its 13,000 Kentucky members asking them to call Paul's office to ask him to stop supporting "amnesty." Roy Beck, the group's president, called Paul's position "far more radical and pro-illegal-immigration than anything proposed by Pres. Obama or the Gang of Eight."

"Rand Paul outlined his amnesty with enough ambiguity to give some hope that Kentuckians can rescue him -- and the country -- from disastrous leadership on this issue," the group wrote. "Help Sen. Paul know what his own constituents think of his plan."

Paul himself seemed to see the controversy coming. He even predicted it in an ad-libbed line of his speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

"Conservatives, myself included, are wary of amnesty. In fact, if you read the news already I think I'm already being accused of it and I hadn't given my speech yet," he said. "Amnesty is kind of -- who wants to make the definition? But I say what we have now is de facto amnesty. The solution doesn't have to be amnesty or deportation."

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Controversial Immigration Laws
The Template: California Proposition 187 (1994)(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
California's Proposition 187 was submitted to the voters with the full support of then Republican governor Pete Wilson. It essentially blamed undocumented immigrants for the poor performance of the state economy in the early 1990s. The law called for cutting off benefits to undocumented immigrants: prohibiting their access to health care, public education, and other social services in California. It also required state authorities to report anyone who they suspected was undocumented. Status: The law passed with the support of 55 percent of the voters in 1994 but declared unconstitutional 1997. The law was killed in 1999 when a new governor, Democrat Gray Davis, refused to appeal a judicial decision that struck down most of the law. Even though short-lived, the legislation paved the way for harsher immigration laws to come. On the other hand, the strong reaction from the Hispanic community and immigration advocates propelled a drive for naturalization of legal residents and created as many as one million new voters. (credit:alamy)
The Worst: Arizona SB 1070 (02 of07)
Open Image Modal
The Arizona Act made it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be within the state lines of Arizona without legal documents allowing their presence in the U.S. This law has been widely criticized as xenophobic and for encouraging racial profiling. It requires state authorities to inquire about an individual's immigration status during an arrest when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is undocumented. The law would allow police to detain anyone who they believe was in the country illegally. Status: The law was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. But it has generated a swirl of controversy and questions about its constitutionality. A federal judge issued a ruling that blocked what critics saw as some of the law's harshest provisions. House: 35-31 (4/12/2011) (credit:MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)
Following Arizona's Footsteps: Georgia HB 87(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
The controversy over Arizona's immigration law was followed by heated debate over Georgia's own law. HB 87 required government agencies and private companies to check the immigration status of applicants. This law also limited some government benefits to people who could prove their legal status. Status: Although a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law considered too extreme, it went into effect on July 1st. 2011.House: 113-56 Senate: 39-17 (credit:AP)
Verifying Authorized Workers: Pennsylvania HB 1502 (04 of07)
Open Image Modal
This bill, which was approved in 2010, bans contractors and subcontractors employ undocumented workers from having state construction contracts. The bill also protects employees who report construction sites that hire illegal workers. To ensure that contractors hire legal workers, the law requires employers to use the identification verification system E-verify, based on a compilation of legally issued Social Security numbers.Status: Approved on June 8th 2010. House: 188-6 (07/08/2010)Flickr photo by DonkeyHotey (credit:Flickr:DonkeyHotey)
A Spin Off of Arizona: Utah HB 497(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
Many states tried to emulate Arizona's SB 1070 law. However, most state legislatures voted against the proposals. Utah's legislature managed to approve an immigration law based on a different argument. Taking into consideration the criticism of racial profiling in Arizona, Utah required ID cards for "guest workers" and their families. In order to get such a card workers must pay a fee and have clean records. The fees go up to $2,500 for immigrants who entered the country illegally and $1,000 for immigrants who entered the country legally but were not complying with federal immigration law, according to the LA Times.Status: Law went into effect on 03/15/2011House: 59-15 (03/04/2011)Senate: 22-5 (03/04/2011) (credit:AP)
The Most Comprehensive: Florida HB-1C (06 of07)
Open Image Modal
Florida's immigration law prohibits any restrictions on the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it unlawful for undocumented immigrants within the state to apply for work or work as an independent contractor. It forbids employers from hiring immigrants if they are aware of their illegal status and requires work applicants to go through the E-verify system in order to check their Social Security number. Status: effective since October 1st, 2010 (credit:Getty)
The Hot Seat: Alabama HB 56(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
The new immigration law in Alabama is considered the toughest in the land, even harder than Arizona's SB 1070. It prohibits law enforcement officers from releasing an arrested person before his or her immigration status is determined. It does not allow undocumented immigrants to receive any state benefit, and prohibits them from enrolling in public colleges, applying for work or soliciting work in a public space. The law also prohibits landlords from renting property to undocumented immigrants, and employers from hiring them. It requires residents to prove they are citizens before they become eligible to vote. The law asked every school in the state to submit an annual report with the number of presumed undocumented students, but this part, along with others, were suspended by federal courts. Status: Approved June 2nd, 2011 House: 73-28 (04/05/2011)Senate: 23-11 (05/05/2011)Flickr photo by longislandwins (credit:Flickr:longislandwins)