Into the Rubio-Cruz scuffle on immigration wades Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), maybe the only senator less consistent than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). He’s a libertarianish conservative and has heavily courted Silicon Valley, for whom legal immigration is an economic necessity. When push came to shove, however, Paul voted against the Gang of Eight.

Now he declares, “Without question both [Marco] Rubio and Cruz have been for amnesty, so it’s kind of a silly debate. The amendment that Cruz put forward at the time — no one understood it to be a poison pill, it was not advocated or put forward as a poison pill, it was an advocacy for legalization and normalization.”

But wait, Paul was pretty close to the Gang of Eight bill himself. In 2013, he gave a speech in which he urged:

America’s strength has always been that we are a melting pot with room for those who dare to dream. I’ve seen firsthand what it is like for new immigrants in Texas.
I’ve never met a new immigrant looking for a free lunch.
The question is: How do we now reflect this in our 21st century immigration policy?
It is absolutely vital for both the success of our immigration policy and for the purposes of national security that we finally secure our borders.
Not to stop most immigrants from coming-we welcome them and in fact should seek to increase legal immigration.
The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

It was Cruz’s position (a huge expansion of visas for high-skilled workers) as well, but apparently no longer is. (It’s not clear whether Rubio wants to increase legal immigration or just replace family reunification slots with ones based on economic skills.)

But Paul did not stop there in 2013:

In order to bring conservatives to this cause however, those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure. But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion. The first part of my plan — border security — must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished.
This is what I call, Trust but Verify.
With this in place, I believe conservatives will accept what needs to come next, an issue that must be addressed: what becomes of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States?
My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work. A bipartisan panel would determine number of visas per year. High tech visas would also be expanded and have a priority. Special entrepreneurial visas would also be issued. Fairness is key in any meaningful immigration reform, but this fairness would cut both ways:
The modernization of our visa system and border security would allow us to accurately track immigration.
It would also enable us to let more people in and allow us to admit we are not going to deport the millions of people who are currently here illegally.
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers. 12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Conservatives, myself included, are wary of amnesty. My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line.
But what we have now is de facto amnesty.

Rubio could have given the speech, and the Gang of Eight pretty much did what Paul wanted. Paul, however, refused to vote for it after his amendment was rejected that would have required a congressional vote certifying the border was secure before embarking on legalization.

In truth, the anti-amnesty crowd has always been peddling a fantasy, namely that everyone in favor of one plan or another is “pro-amnesty” and they are not. Both parts of that are wrong.

First, there is and was in 2013 no one advocating real amnesty, which is defined as suffering no penalty. The Gang of 8 had all sorts of requirements and penalties before people could get on the path to legalization and ultimately citizenship — pay back-taxes, pay a fine, be working, etc.

The second part of the “No amnesty!” crowd’s message — that they are not for “amnesty” — applies to Donald Trump, the only one who is committed (horrifyingly, as many of us think) to rounding up people and ejecting them by force if need be. (Their American-born kids, too!) If you are not ultimately willing to do that, but instead advocate “having a conversation” about those who remain or “providing a means to regularize them,” you are in the same boat as immigration reformers. You are just arguing about legalization vs. path to citizenship and the terms of that process.

The current discussion — including Cruz’s ridiculous wordsmithing — is the result of refusing to be honest about this. If you want to define “amnesty” as anything that lets anyone who illegally stay, then only Trump is for “No amnesty!” If you define amnesty as citizenship, then Jeb Bush — whose book and position call for something short of citizenship — is not for amnesty and is in exactly the same position as many of the non-Trump candidates (although they won’t admit it). Cruz wants to ingratiate himself with Trump’s anti-immigrant hard-liners, but his record doesn’t allow it. Paul wants to hit Cruz for dishonesty, but by Gang of Eight opponents’ standards, he was for “amnesty,” too.

Frankly, the non-Trump candidates should be candid: The Trump solution is ridiculous, inhumane and will never happen. Then they can quibble about legalization vs. citizenship, how long it should take, how you decide whether the border is secure and everything else. At least Rubio and Bush admit what they are for, while Trump is brutally honest (wrong, but honest). The rest are frauds on this topic.