Thread: Ron Paul on Immigration

Can we at least all agree on one thing:

Just say NO to Ghuliani, Huckabee, McCain and the Democrats?

Originally Posted by kniggit

Originally Posted by MW

Forgive me for not responding, nntrixie, but I've come to the conclusion that your mind is closed to any concerns, opinions, or suggestions I may have. Plus, I find some of your arguments nonsensical.

And that is the exact same I feel about you MW. Your mind has been closed on Paul since the beginning, you have a pre-determined notion on him and anything said would bounce right off of you without you giving it a nanosecond of thought.

Like someone else said earlier in this thread, you have given your opinion of Dr Paul ad nauseum, why don't you just leave the Ron Paul threads alone if you have nothing new to say or positive.

I don't think MW's mind has been closed on Paul, I know MW feels very strongly about having Hunter for pres. MW has only presented all the info possible so we can make logical choices. We all have our "stubborness" when it comes to the candidates we like. We've more than proven that with discussions on the flip flop head.

I read this article a few days ago and was very disappointed in Dr. Paul's stance. I've emailed his staff asking for clarification on the employer enforcement issue, and why Dr. Paul would say that a fence isn't necessary. I'm hoping he said he is against the fence because maybe he feels we wouldn't need one if we have the border properly secured. But again, I want clarification on this from his staff.

As far as dismantling DHS, I'm all for it. They are just another useless alphabet agency, and they haven't done a damn thing to secure or make us safer since 9/11. The human skull is a joke.

Sippy, if you take away all the incentives for illegals to be here, the border isn't going to be as great of a problem. As far as the fence, it's not much good anyway unless it's manned. So you're actually paying for two things. Bringing the border patrol back from Iraq like he wants to do, helps by securing our own borders.

I just now heard that Ron Paul is kicking butt in New Hampshire. His polls are in the double digits. Yahoo!!!

kniggit wrote:

And that is the exact same I feel about you MW. Your mind has been closed on Paul since the beginning, you have a pre-determined notion on him and anything said would bounce right off of you without you giving it a nanosecond of thought.

That's fine, you certainly have the right to your opinion. As for Paul, you have no idea of the extensive and exhaustive reserach I've done on him. Heck, I feel like I know more about Ron Paul than Paul himself knows. I've read all his writings and researched all his immigration votes, and I've definitely listend to everything his supporters have had to say. However, I firmly believe it's Paul's position on the war that has drawn a majority of his supporters to him, not illegal immigration and/or border security.

I agree on DHS - I don't know what he would do - but putting everything under one umbrella with one 'czar' is a scary thing - I thought so at the time.

The fence - I know no one seems to want to think about it - but there is room for doubt as to its efficacy - as far as it's being built and maintained by the ones now in charge.

WE have to look at all angles and not just focus on one word, one bill, one idea. WE have to ask the questions and be willing to actually think about things - not just accept rhetoric that sounds good. That's been our problem.

I will have to check on Ron Paul's idea about employers, but again, if we simply enforce the laws we have on the books, it won't be necessary to punish the employers - as attractive as that sounds right now. If it will achieve the same purpose of forcing the illegals to leave, why isn't that enough?

You know if the American people really wanted to punish the employers, we could do that ourselves - we don't need the government to do it. We buy their products. They are in business and they hire illegals because we give them our money.

Without all the bennies here for the illegals, you won't have as many people here working in the first place. If they can't educate their kids, or become an automatic citizen, or milk our emergency rooms, they won't come here to work. If you take away everything, they have no reason to come here. As far as the E-verify, it's already a law. I assume that will still go on.

However, I firmly believe it's Paul's position on the war that has drawn a majority of his supporters to him, not illegal immigration and/or border security

See thats a spot where I think you are very wrong. I think it's his position on a wasteful government that has drawn most of his support.

I did jury duty for the first time a couple of years ago, and as being a contractor who gets paid for production, I was appalled at the amount time wasted and how many people did diddly squat all day long. After hearing Dr Paul's positions I was impressed. His position on nation building is also something that I whole heartedly agree with, there is no reason for us meddling in the politics in countries a half a world away.

I understand your position but it seems like you are of the opinion that anyone who supports Paul is insane.

I agree, Knigget. The Iraq War is only part of it. People are fed up all across the board with everything. All the candidates spout change, but you can't have change by doing the same old things all over again. Now change is what Paul wants to do. That's something you can sink your teeth into. It doesn't matter who claims to be stiffer on illegal immigration if the country as a whole doesn't change it's way of doing business. Even Mitt Romney only wants to put a band aid on the big wound in this country.

tiny wrote:

As far as the E-verify, it's already a law. I assume that will still go on.

Did you not read what I wrote on this early, tiny? The E-verify requirement is not law in any state except Arizona. The program is only voluntary. The SAVE Act legislation that has been introduced would make it law (phase-in), however, the bill may not ever see the U.S. House or Senate floor. By the way, Ron Paul, was not one of the 128 U.S. House Reps that signed on as a cosponsor. Well, at least he's consistent on not wanting to go after the employers. FYI: Paul also voted against an extension of the voluntary E-verify program.

So once agan, E-verify is not law except in Arizona.

Kniggit wrote:

I understand your position but it seems like you are of the opinion that anyone who supports Paul is insane.

Not once have I said or implied that Paul supporters are insane. I may have implied that they are misguided, but never insane.

Did Ron Paul's vote kill the bill to make e-verify mandatory?

There is already laws on the books concerning a person's qualifications to work in the US. It is funny that that same law worked for many, many years.

Again, the government is well aware of many instances of fraudulent use of ID - yet they do nothing. Why do we need some new law like 'e verify' to do what they can do easily but refuse to do?

As to the SAVE act - it sounds good - but why vote in new laws when the government won't enforce the ones we have?

Do we know all the facets of the SAVE act?

We shouldn't simply assume because it is touted to be something to stop illegal immigration that it is. It may be - may not be. We do know our government doesn't enforce what we already have - which would solve a huge percentage of our problems.

Why slam someone for not voting for another law that is very likely to not be enforced?[/b]