The Corner

Senate Rejects Rand Paul’s Border-Security Amendment

The Senate on Wednesday voted 61–37 to table an amendment to the immigration-reform bill that would have significantly strengthened the bill’s border-security and enforcement requirements. The so-called Trust but Verify amendment, offered by Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.), would have given Congress, and not the Department of Homeland Security, the ultimate authority to determine if the border is effectively secure. It also included enhanced security measures, such as requiring a double-layer fence to be completed within five years, as well as a number of other triggers that must be implemented before illegal immigrants could be awarded legal status. “We desperately need immigration reform—but part of fixing the system is fixing our broken borders,” Paul said before the vote.

Gang of Eight member (and Paul’s potential primary opponent in 2016) Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) joined every Democrat and six other Republicans to defeat the amendement. A similar coalition of Senators has helped defeat a number of attempts to strengthen the border-security measures in the bill, and to ensure that those measures must be implemented before legal status is granted. Prior to the vote, Paul appeared to take a subtle dig at Rubio and other Republicans supporting the bill.

“Recently, the authors of this bill made clear that legalization will not be made contingent on border security,” he said. “Most conservatives believe just the opposite: That legalization absolutely must depend on securing the border first. ’Trust but Verify’ does exactly that. It makes documentation of undocumented workers contingent on border security.”


Andrew StilesAndrew Stiles is a political reporter for National Review Online. He previously worked at the Washington Free Beacon, and was an intern at The Hill newspaper. Stiles is a 2009 ...

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More