There seems to be some confusion going around in regards to Rand Paul and Israel. The claim is that Rand Paul dislikes Israel and would hurt them as President.
That myth largely originated when Paul proposed ending all foreign aid in his first budget plan. Foreign aid is something he philosophically opposes.
As usual, the media was responsible for changing the narrative. Instead of reporting that Paul wanted to end all foreign aid, they wrote headlines that indicated he specifically targeted Israel for cuts. That never happened. Paul has since modified his approach, focusing on first ending aid to countries that hate us.
There is also the wrong assumption that Israel would be hurt if foreign aid was cut off. In fact, it would make Israel stronger. That is what Benjamin Netanyahu once told the U.S. Congress:
“I know about voter fraud and that there have to be rules
and states have the ability to do it,” Paul said. “But I’ve also said
Republicans should be emphasizing the good things we’re trying to do to try to
help minorities vote instead of the things many minorities feel is directed at
them, rightly or wrongly. … So So I do object to overemphasizing something that
is turning people off.”
What he is saying makes a lot of sense. Republicans must
first assure minorities that, in spite of the narrative of the Democratic
party, they are not racist.
If minorities are brainwashed to think that Voter ID is
racist, they won't even listen to you. That is why it should not be
overemphasized. Rather, Republicans can focus on bringing minorities into the
party, show them what they actually believe, and then they will have no problem
with Voter ID.
The myth that Rand Paul opposes Voter ID is totally untrue.
He just has a smarter strategy for enacting it, one that will also help grow
the GOP.
However, that is not the case. Rather, the media once again spread false information in order to promote their narrative.
Rand Paul specifically struck back against both articles. Breitbart took immigration reform to mean amnesty, but that was not what Paul was referring to. As he explained in his rebuttal:
I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12
million more illegal immigrants into our country. If we do nothing, 12 million
more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform–smart reform
that starts with border security.
Characterizing that position as “amnesty” is simply untrue.
What we have now is a lawless border. Current policy is a
beacon for more illegal immigrants. The Obama administration’s lawless
executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage
more illegal immigration–unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border
security.
I am for immigration reform because what we have now is
untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform
bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform
that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not
the president.
My plan will not give the president the authority to simply
declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to
ensure the president doesn’t get around the law.
My “Trust but Verify” plan will ensure that our border is
secure. Under my plan, national security and border security will move as the
first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to
establish that the border is truly secure. No other reform could go forward
until this happened.
In addition to increased border security, our nation needs
to modernize our visa system. We need to know who comes and goes on travel,
student, and other temporary visas. There must be a workable system to ensure
that visitors don’t use travel visas as a way to enter the country then
disappear. This will address the problem of visa over-stayers.
National security has to be a cornerstone to any border
security and visa reform initiative. Our nation needs to look back at the
September 11th Commission Report and study the recommendations regarding
terrorists’ use of visas to commit acts of violence against America. The 9/11
hijackers used visas to enter the country and to stay here while planning
attacks.
Strong border security includes using cutting edge
technology. Satellites, physical barriers, screening to bar criminals and
terrorists from entry, increased patrols on the border–and yes, surveillance
drones–all should be part of a comprehensive plan to physically protect the
border. My plan is to take specific measures at the border and then have the
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Office produce a report to
Congress on the progress of border security.
My plan takes border security a step further than anybody
else in Congress. Under my plan, Congress will vote every year on border
security. If Congress votes that the border is not secure, elements of
immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed.
If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years, every element
of immigration reform will be stopped.
Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Throughout history,
our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor
for the home country, yet they have assimilated into what we know today as
America. That idea, and the American Dream, must be protected and preserved.
Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism
here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who
want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a
libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to
this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work,
make the American Dream a reality.
I do not support amnesty, which is why I don’t support our
current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.
I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace
immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been
enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves.
However, our current system is broken, and we cannot move towards reform until
our border is truly and fully secure.
The Washington Post article was simply wrong, intentional or not. They erroneously reported that Paul supported a pathway to citizenship in an immigration speech he made, and they admitted that they got it wrong:
Correction: An earlier version of this story inaccurately reported that Sen. Rand Paul had called in his speech for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. His speech did not include a reference to a path for citizenship, and the story has been corrected.
To get a clear picture of where Rand stands on immigration, we can take a look at the amendments he offered to the Gang of 8 bill:
