New Immigration Fight: Semantics
Rand Paul objects to AP's 'path to citizenship' description of his plan
By John Johnson, Newser Staff
Posted Mar 19, 2013 6:23 PM CDT
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in a file photo.   (AP Photo/Aron Heller, FILE)

(Newser) – Rand Paul is OK with illegal immigrants being able to obtain citizenship eventually, and he would even make it easier by tweaking current rules and not requiring them to return to their home country first. But he doesn't want anyone to call that a "path to citizenship," a phrase AP used in a headline last night, along with "pathway to citizenship" in its text. The AP used the language after looking at an advance copy of a speech Paul gave today to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and it stands by the terminology, reports Politico. Paul points out that he never used the word "citizenship" in his speech. “I think the whole debate on immigration is trapped in a couple of words: path to citizenship and amnesty,” he tells the Post Politics blog of the Washington Post. “Can’t we just have reform and not refer to them by names?” The blog adds later: "Paul’s advisers say there is little difference between the current law and what Paul is proposing, at least when it comes to citizenship."

Others weighing in:

  • Benjy Sarlin, Talking Points Memo: "The plan Paul laid out in his afternoon call sounded identical in principle to plans put forward by a group of bipartisan senators and by the White House, both of which contain a so-called 'path to citizenship' that would allow illegal immigrants here today to obtain green cards (after meeting certain conditions) and eventually naturalize."
  • Erick Erickson, RedState: "Feel free to disagree with Senator Paul if you must. Just don’t claim he’s pursuing a path to citizenship he never even mentioned."
  • Kevin Robillard, Politico: "In a conference call that Paul held with reporters later in the day, it became clear that differences between the senator’s plan and the conventional definition of a path to citizenship were few, if they existed at all."
  • Erica Werner in the AP's latest story: Paul said "the nation's illegal immigrants should be able to become citizens eventually, but amid a furor from conservative activists on the explosive issue he quickly sought to make clear that, while they would not be sent home, they couldn't get in line in front of anyone else."
  • Paul himself on his plan: "Basically what I want to do is to expand the worker visa program, have border security and then as far as how people become citizens, there already is a process for how people become citizens. The main difference is I wouldn’t have people be forced to go home. You’d just get in line. But you get in the same line everyone is in."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
New Immigration Fight: Semantics is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 30 comments
Mar 20, 2013 9:08 AM CDT
A rose by any other name will smell as sweet.
Mar 20, 2013 7:43 AM CDT
“Can’t we just have reform and not refer to them by names?” So pretty much what he is saying is that he wants to appeal to a group he wouldnt poll well with but at the same time he wants to play grab a$$ with his republican and teabagger buddies. In his mind this is a compromise. The problem with the political system these days is either party cant admit they were wrong and have changed their minds on an issue and say what they really are thinking.
Mar 19, 2013 11:00 PM CDT
Clean up Mexico, end the drug war, and have special forces take out the cartel leaders. We wouldn't have this problem in the first place, if Mexicans had a country worth living in. The people need to demand this of those which they elect.