Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject: To the Ron Paul Campaign--Where do you Stand?
With the increased internet attention on Ron Paul, I'm concerned that too many people support what they THINK he stands for without knowing his REAL position.
So I penned an inquiry to his campaign, hoping after several tries to get a response.
Should I receive a response, I'll share it with ALIPAC people.
==============================================
Ladies and Gentlemen of the "Ron Paul for President" campaign:
I attended a March forum in Glendale, AZ where Congressman Paul's representative spoke; her name was Penny (I've forgotten her last name). When I questioned her on specifics of the congressman's immigration votes, she both denied them as well as gave useless replies. It was obvious that she wasn't prepared for questions on immigration votes that evening.
As an anti-illegal migration activist and a lifetime border-state resident, the immigration issue is my top priority. Until the problem is stopped, anything done to resolve our other problems (education, health care, taxes, jobs, economy, crime and national security) are futile and worthless.
I've read Congressman Paul's 6-Point program, and what's there sounds good. What isn't there give me pause, big-time. I've sought answers via attendance at speeches, radio broadcasts and review of the website, all to no aviail. Several fellow activists have asked me to pen questions, and I'm "blind-copying" them on this inquiry (as well as any response I receive).
(1) Employer Sanctions. Congressman Paul doesn't mention actions against employers who hire illegal aliens, which are current laws in effect. Nor does he mention even making the current Basic Pilot Program mandatory instead of voluntary. Indeed, he voted in 2003 AGAINST HR 2359, which would have extended the then-pilot program for 5 years.
What would he do to end the active magnet that brings illegal aliens to the US, often with the advance aid of employers? Or would he give business and employers a free pass?
(2) Border Fence. Congressman Paul doesn't mention building a security fence on the border to prevent illegal crossings. Illegal migration isn't the only thing to be stopped; drug traffic and human smugglers (the "non lettuce-picker" variety) cross the border as well.
Congressman Paul voted AGAINST the HR4437 Hunter Amendment, which provided 800-plus miles of security fence on the US-Mexico border. It appears that he opposes building a border fence. It's not only a requirement to most Americans; it's also common sense. A strong & secure fence should automatic for preventing entry. Military bases have fences, pools have them, the White House has them. And they have REAL fences, not "virtual fences."
3. Military on the Border. Because the Bush Administration refuses to enforce immigration laws and secure our borders, the areas have become hotbeds of violence for what little enforcement exists. Clearly, our military must be deployed there to stop the violence and constant incursions.
Yet Congressman Paul has voted FOUR TIMES against militarizing the border, most recently in 2005 with NO on Amendment 206 to HR 1815, in 2004 with a NO vote on the Goode Amendment to HR 4200, in 2003 with a NO vote on the Goode Amendment to HR 1588, in 2002 with a NO vote on Amendment 479 to HR 4546, and in 1999 by a NO vote on the Trafficant Amendment to HR 1401.
When I presented this question at the March forum, the only response "Penny" could offer was that Congressman Paul doesn't believe border patrolling is the best use of our military, but that's largely irrelevant. What other option beside military presence and enforcement does Congressman Paul offer for reversing the degenerated situation on the Southwest border?
It may not be the BEST use of the military, but it's the only one currently available since the Border Patrol is overwhelmed and will continue to be until illegal migration is stopped.
Congressman Paul frequently cites his refusal to vote for any legislation not authorized by the Constitution, but securing the US states against invasion is specifically authorized by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.
(4) Border Security. In his website statement, Congressman Paul advocates "Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country," but excludes two of the most powerful tools to achieve it: border fence and military presence. He also omits action against employers who lure illegal aliens to the US for taxpayer-subsidized cheap labor.
What does Congressman Paul include in "whatever it takes" that he WILL do to secure our borders and stop illegal migration? By his giving the "Top 3" a free pass, what's left? By themselves, ending welfare programs to illegal aliens and anchor-baby citizenship won't do the job.
(5) Amnesty. His website statement "No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws." sounds promising, but suggests that Congressman Paul objects to the sheer volume (10-20 million) rather than the amnesty principle itself.
Congressman Paul voted YES on "Section 245(i) amnesty" plans for illegal aliens:
In 2002, voted YES on HR 365. This amnesty passed Congress.
In 2001, voted YES on HR 1885, extending an illegal alien amnesty for 4 months
In 1997, voted NO on ending the Section 245(i) amnesty.
The 245(i) amnesty allowed illegal aliens with "sponsorship" by a family member or employer to pay a "fee" (sound familiar) and remain in the US until their petition for legalization was addressed. The backlog at the time would have allowed them to stay for years or even decades and evade the advance security screening done by US embassies in their home countries.
Estimates for these 245(i) amnesties that Congressman Paul supported were 200,000 - 400,000. Considering his consistent support for these 245(i) amnesties, it is the principle or the numbers that generate his current opposition to illegal alien amnesty?
During the Q-A session following her speech, "Penny" not only refused to explain why Congressman Paul voted FOR amnesty, she TWICE denied that he'd voted for them. So she was no help.
During his recent appearance on The Terry Anderson Show, Congressman Paul's answer was that he didn't remember what a 245(i) amnesty was. That answer flunks what I call The Judge Judy Test ("If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true.")
Congressman Paul (aka in Congress as Dr. No) has voted NO on so many measures that the few upon which he votes YES should be firmly in his memory. That he "doesn't remember" convinced no one on the radio broadcast; I'm offering another opportunity for him to explain his votes.
(5) Suspicion of accomodating business' demand for cheap labor. Review of the following votes (along with his careful omission of employer sanctions & mandatory Basic Pilot verification) suggests that Congressman Paul will do all possible to enable businesses to bring in cheap labor from abroad rather than hire Americans:
In 2006, co-sponsoring HR 793 with a loophole that would TRIPLE the number of H2-B (unskilled non-agricultural) visas present in the US.
In 1998, voting YES on HR 3736, allowing 150,000 more H-1B workers into the US
In 1998, voting NO on an alternate bill to HR 3736 that would have prevented hiring temporary foreign H-1Bs to replace Americans laid off.
Whether entry-level, unskilled ("jobs Americans won't do") or high-tech jobs that "we can't find qualified Americans" to do, Congress' accomodating business demands has enabled business to post invisible signs "No American Need Apply."
While Congressman Paul's recent votes have shown improvement, I suspect that at heart his Libertarian principles really support allowing business to bring in all the cheap labor they want, as easily and as quickly as they want.
(6) "Immigration Reform." His website urges "Pass true immigration reform" and securing the border "...before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."
In both cases, Congressman Paul cites the need for "immigration reform," but he doesn't cite what that includes. What principles of current immigration law would he change and/or eliminate?
Americans won't accept border security and immigration law enforcement in exchange for amnesty. Border security and enforcement are specified in the Constitution; we won't be coerced into accepting "reform" baloney to achieve what the Constitution provides.
(7) What he DOESN'T say. Nowhere does he state an objective of "stopping illegal migration." Nor does he mention proactive measures of interception of illegal aliens or expediting their deportation. I have to ask if Congressman Paul really does want to stop illegal migration or just "know who they are and where they are" no matter how great their numbers.
You'll have to pardon my skepticism, but the woods are full of candidates pandering to anti-illegal migration Americans; we've become a force to be reckoned with rather than just dismissing. It's incumbent on us to ask ALL the pertinent questions on any viable candidate.
That I've even taken the effort to assemble this "laundry list" means I consider Congressman Paul to be viable. I wouldn't even bother with candidates like Mitt Romney, Rudi Guiliani or John McCain because there's no doubt where they stand.
I made the effort to learn at the March forum, but Penny was no help at all. Nor was Congressman Paul himself much help on his recent appearance on The Terry Anderson Show.
I agree with him on most issues. He just needs to strengthen his position against illegal immigration. He does, however, have a better record against illegal immigration than most politicians in Congress.
I particularly like his stance on the IRS. A lot of people may not know, but he was in the film for a short clip "America: Freedom to Fascism" http://www.freedomtofascism.com
He also appeals to the younger crowd because he was against the Iraq war from the start and he is openly against any censorship of the internet that the powers at be are working on behind our backs.
Ron Paul is also a huge Constitutionalist. He has so many no votes because of this. He is also highly principled, a man with integrity. He will not be just another politician. I think these qualities are sorely needed right now in our nation, or we are going to lose this fight for our sovereignty. Illegal immigration is a part of this issue, but not the main gist of the issue itself. We must fight to retain this nation's right to govern herself! Also, he is strongly against the IRS, who we know is currently out of control.
I suspect the answer to your first question is that Paul would do the job of the Executive branch and enforce the laws of the land, including the currently NOT enforced immigration laws.
That said, I really want to hear a response from him on these other issues. Please do let us know what you hear. _________________ Any responsible president would CLOSE THE BORDERS!!
Joined: Feb 28, 2007 Posts: 2586 Location: San Diego, CA
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: To the Ron Paul Campaign--Where do you Stand?
ILiveinArizona wrote:
(5) Suspicion of accomodating business' demand for cheap labor. Review of the following votes (along with his careful omission of employer sanctions & mandatory Basic Pilot verification) suggests that Congressman Paul will do all possible to enable businesses to bring in cheap labor from abroad rather than hire Americans
Wow, we are being tough on Ron today aren't we
But, you actually raise a number of very valid concerns. With regard to the above I would say i have to agree in light on comments Ron has made on the issue. From what I gather, Ron would be OK with amnesty as long as we end welfare -- which is a typical libertarian view. That is unacceptable in my book, and one of the reasons I am not a libertarian.
I want a patriot. A cultural conservative. Tom and Duncan fit the description. Ron's main concern is the gov'ts role over this or that. While I respect his devotion to the constitution, he seems to fail to realise we will not have a constitution if we allow Third Worlders to overwhelm our nation because we are not bonded by language, culture, and history. Tom understands this VERY well and that is why he is my guy.
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: Troops on the Border
We do need troops on the border to stop both illegal aliens and illegal drugs from entering this country. Ron Paul is wrong to oppose troops on the border.
I am still looking at the candidates, but I keep going back to Duncan Hunter. He's a common sense type of guy with a personality that tells me he would work well with others without going against his American principals. He would be strong in foreign affairs and a good military leader. And I like the fact that he would rip up the trade agreement we have with China and start all over.
Unless someone better comes along, Hunter's my man.
Joined: Jun 19, 2007 Posts: 1079 Location: Ron Paul Land
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:35 am Post subject:
Well, I think Ron Paul is a very strong candidate... and one that you MUST consider because Tancredo and Hunter will not endure. I don't say that because I don't like them, I say that because their funding and such just won't be up there.. eventually they will fall off. Personally, I DIG Tancredo...
But Ron Paul is a man of principle, he is wise to the NAFTA-NAU and all those shenanigans..
That is where he stands and the platform he is running on.
Listen.. When the dust settles, you MUST pick Ron Paul IF your choice of Tancredo and Hunter fall thru.. Why, Guliani LOVES amnesty and had a sanctuary city, he is also "in" on the NAU, as well as thompson..
Joined: Jun 19, 2007 Posts: 1079 Location: Ron Paul Land
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:39 am Post subject:
** another point: Ron Paul has been trying to get legislation thru that would end birthright citizenship.
Also, you are not seeing "why" he thinks troops should not be on the border. Don't resort to demogoguery. Federal Troops is not in line with the constitution.. But that doesn't mean he doens't agree with national guards on the borders, as well as actually keeping his word and supplying the proper funding..
Ask questions on his forum:
ronpaulforums.com
If you really want to know about him. there are some very strong anti-illegal followers there, as well as me... and I think you will get the answers you want.
This forum is NOT the place to go to find info on Ron Paul... seriously.
See, there are 'reasons' why he choose to vote yes on a bill, or no on a bill, and many of the forum posters know why... and they will tell you.
No disrespect to tancredofan but he is very critical without possible looking at "why" ron paul votes a certain way.
Last edited by BrightNail on Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jun 01, 2006 Posts: 12995 Location: North Carolina
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:42 am Post subject:
tinybobidaho wrote:
Quote:
I am still looking at the candidates, but I keep going back to Duncan Hunter. He's a common sense type of guy with a personality that tells me he would work well with others without going against his American principals. He would be strong in foreign affairs and a good military leader. And I like the fact that he would rip up the trade agreement we have with China and start all over.
Unless someone better comes along, Hunter's my man.
Almost a ditto!
I've done a thorough search on all three candidates and have arrived at my choice - DUNCAN HUNTER!
Hunter is heads and shoulders above Tancredo and Paul in my opinion. However, I will support Tancredo or Paul should Hunter not make it to the primaries. If Hunter is still around during the primaries - he gets my vote hands down.
Joined: Jun 19, 2007 Posts: 1079 Location: Ron Paul Land
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:48 am Post subject:
Here is what I found:
**********************************
explanation:
From The Office of Ron Paul: Regarding the extension of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, contained in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (HR 1885).
Rest assured, I am against general amnesty for illegal aliens. Many have suggested that section 244(i) grants "amnesty" to illegal aliens, but this is not true. In fact, it only applies to that group of people who meet the following criteria: they are eleligilble for permanent residency status have lived in this country since Dec. 2000 their application is based on a family relationship that existed prior to Aug. 15, 2001 or on an application for labor certification that was processed before Aug. 15, 2001.
This bill will also allow those who are "waiting in line" for their application to be processed to remain in this country, provided they have a sponsor. In addition, they will be required to pay a penalty of $1000 before they can reapply.
Other provisions of HR 1885 will go a long way toward addressing your concerns regarding border control and security. For example this bill provides for at least 200 additional INS inspectors. and at least 200 additional investigators. It requires the establishment of a government-wide, electronic data-sharing system on persons with terrorist ties, that federal officials could use to determine whether to grant visa application or permit an individual to enter the U.S. In addition, the Justice Dept. will be required to establish a system to electronically track all foreign visa students in the United States. Finally, it would prohibit the issuance of temporary visas to citizens of nations considered to be state sponsors of terrorism, unless it has been determined that the alien does not pose a threat to the safety of American or U.S. national security.
What has not been discussed in the current debate regarding immigration reform is that, rather than luring immigrants to a land of opportunity, our present welfare states draws those from other jurisdictions who come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments. Genuine immigration reform can only result from elimination of the current welfare state and a renewed embracement of the constitutional principles under which transfer payments were the exception rather than the rule. Such a renewal will not only attract the industrious, but will deter those migrants merely looking for a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.
It is an outrage for our government to invite people over here for the express purpose of providing them with taxpayer-funded assistance. Rest assured, I believe that immigrants should not receive any form of welfare or public assistance, and this is why I am cosponsoring HR 190, which would revoke the automatic citizenship, and thus right to welfare benefits, currently granted to the children of illegal immigrants.
I don't agree with Paul. We could have stopped the drug trade (or at least slowed it to a crawl) long ago if the will would have been there. Geez, our borders can be controlled! Build Duncan Hunter's double layered fence across our 2000-mile Southern border and you'll cut illegal immigration and the drug trade drastically. The fence supposedly reduced the drug trade across the San Diego border by 90% (heck, I'd settle for 75% at this point ). Of course the fence alone won't do it, but it's a critical part of the equation.
Joined: Jun 01, 2006 Posts: 12995 Location: North Carolina
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:08 am Post subject:
BrightNail wrote:
Quote:
Rest assured, I believe that immigrants should not receive any form of welfare or public assistance, and this is why I am cosponsoring HR 190, which would revoke the automatic citizenship, and thus right to welfare benefits, currently granted to the children of illegal immigrants.
If that's so, why hasn't he signed as a cosponsor to H.R.1940 that would do away with birth right citizenship for anchor babies? Hunter and Tancredo have signed on as cosponsors.
H.R.190 does not revoke automatic citizenship. The title of H.R. 190 is Social Security for Americans only Act of 2007. It does absolutely nothing in dealing with anchor babies.
* Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
* Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
* Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
**********
**********
Also, there is speculation that Tom agrees with NAFTA on some principles, as he has many ties to neos in the party. He also agrees with a pre-emptive strike. Not good.
Duncan Hunter was a sponsor of the Military Commission Act. The piece of legislation that stripped away your habeas corpus rights.
It seems Ron Paul is interested more in stopping the cause rather than the symptoms.
Joined: Feb 28, 2007 Posts: 2586 Location: San Diego, CA
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:21 am Post subject:
Here is a link to a video of Paul adressing immigration that I posted on a different thread. Listen closely, then tell me if you are convinced that he is against a guest worker program/amnesty.
To me, Paul only objects to giving illegals welfare benefits. Afterall, some of their work-ethic is "more American than some of us."
I never thought I would roll my eyes at Paul, but that comment disgusts me as well as the auplause he received by his supporters. Sure some illegals work harder than some Americans, but hard work isn't really an indicator of how American you are....as if Americans have a monopoly on hard work or something. Your DEVOTION to this nation measures how American you are. Hard workers come from everywhere, patriotism to this nation resides here. It reminds me of calling illegals yearning for B of A credit cards or consumer products very American. Paul needs to get right with the social/cultural aspects that Tom Tancredo adresses. My support of Ron is wearing thin.
Joined: Jun 19, 2007 Posts: 1079 Location: Ron Paul Land
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:42 am Post subject:
BearFlagRepublic wrote:
Here is a link to a video of Paul adressing immigration that I posted on a different thread. Listen closely, then tell me if you are convinced that he is against a guest worker program/amnesty.
To me, Paul only objects to giving illegals welfare benefits. Afterall, some of their work-ethic is "more American than some of us."
I never thought I would roll my eyes at Paul, but that comment disgusts me as well as the auplause he received by his supporters. Sure some illegals work harder than some Americans, but hard work isn't really an indicator of how American you are....as if Americans have a monopoly on hard work or something. Your DEVOTION to this nation measures how American you are. Hard workers come from everywhere, patriotism to this nation resides here. It reminds me of calling illegals yearning for B of A credit cards or consumer products very American. Paul needs to get right with the social/cultural aspects that Tom Tancredo adresses. My support of Ron is wearing thin.
Well, I think he was saying this because there 'are' illegal immigrants in the armed forces.
I think it might precede the introduction of those other bills by Tancredo/Hunter.. not sure.
Also, as I mentioned earlier I believe Ron Paul is trying to address the 'problems', not the symptoms. Did you read his "views" on illegal immigration.
Also, there is no doubt that Ron Paul is not as 'crazed' (in this good) about illegal immigration in that he is not a one trick pony. He is very strong on most points. Plus, he is a constituionalist... if you believe in what America was and was envisioned to be, then you need to take a listen to him.
Like I said previously.. I dig Tancredo, but pre-emptive military strikes, and not being strong on other issues is not a good enough reason for me to want him over Paul. We need to consider the whole package.
Joined: Jun 01, 2006 Posts: 12995 Location: North Carolina
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:47 am Post subject:
BrightNail wrote:
Quote:
Well, I think he was saying this because there 'are' illegal immigrants in the armed forces.
Illegal immigrants aren't currently being enlisted in the military service. Not knowingly anyway. If Paul knows of an illegal immigrant in the military, than he should report him or her for fraud because they provided fake documents and lied on their application.
Joined: Jun 19, 2007 Posts: 1079 Location: Ron Paul Land
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:52 am Post subject:
MW wrote:
BrightNail wrote:
Quote:
Well, I think he was saying this because there 'are' illegal immigrants in the armed forces.
Illegal immigrants aren't currently being enlisted in the military service. Not knowingly anyway. If Paul knows of an illegal immigrant in the military, than he should report him or her for fraud because they provided fake documents and lied on their application.
There was a piece in the Los Angeles today (or yesterday) that featured a man that died who was not "legal" while in Iraq serving in the Army ... perhaps he doesn't mean illegal, but rather not 'legal'.
Joined: Jun 01, 2006 Posts: 12995 Location: North Carolina
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:55 am Post subject:
Quote:
In 2006, several versions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) were introduced. The MCA created rules for the detainment, interrogation and trials of detainees in the War on Terror. It was eventually passed and was signed by President George W. Bush. Note: This page covers the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and its aftermath. It is a sub-article of the main Congresspedia article on War on Terror detainee legislati...
Okay, I must have been looking at one of the other so-called versions. However, it's a mute point with me because I actually support the bill. Our interrogation units should not have their hands tied when American lives may depend on the results of the interrogation.
All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Next
Page 1 of 8
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Contribute/Join
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
). Of course the fence alone won't do it, but it's a critical part of the equation.