Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    How can you folks possibly ignore Rep. Paul's less than optimal voting record regarding illegal immigration, especially border security?

    Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006

    Rep. Paul is a cosponsor of H.R. 793, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the timing of issuance of H-2B visas during a fiscal year. Specifically, H.R. 793 would split the H-2B visa cap so no more than 33,000 visas are made available for the first six months the fiscal year, and another 33,000 visas would be available in the second half of the year. HOWEVER, H.R. 793 exempts from the annual cap aliens granted an H-2B visa within three years prior to approval of an H-2B petition, thus potentially TRIPLING the number of H-2B workers in the United States at any one time. Although timing the issuance of H-2B visas is a common-sense approach that would help prevent the situation that occurred in FY 2004 and FY 2005 when the 66,000 annual cap on H-2B (low-skill) nonimmigrant visas was hit within the first quarter of the year, H.R. 793 would ultimately harm American workers by creating exemptions which potentially could triple the number of H-2B workers in the U.S. at any given time.
    Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998

    Rep. Paul helped the House pass H.R.3736. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Rep. Paul voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.
    Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers

    Before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), Rep. Paul had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Rep. Paul opposed that protection. The substitute also would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Rep. Paul voted against that. The protections for American workers fell 33 votes short of passing.
    Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. Specifically, it mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. As well, it includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.
    .

    Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted against the Obey amendment ( H. Amdt. 144) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Obey amendment provided $100 million to fund grants under the REAL ID Act to assist States in conforming with minimum drivers’ license standards. The Obey amendment passed by a vote of 226-198
    Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.
    Voted against bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House against H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This legislation would set federal standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses and require proof of "legal presence" in order to obtain a driver's license. This would make illegal aliens ineligible for drivers' licenses. As well, H.R. 418 would tie the driver's license expiration date of a temporary visa holder to the expiration date of their visa so that those who enter the country legally as visa holders, but become illegal aliens by overstaying their visas will not have a valid driver's license after the date of the expiration of their visa. In addition, H.R. 418 includes provisions to broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens, and to complete construction of the San Diego border fence. H.R. 418 would deter illegal immigration by making it more difficult for illegal aliens to enter and to remain in the United States. It also would reduce significantly the risk that terrorists will be able to game our asylum system or avoid removal because of loopholes in our immigration laws. H.R. 418 was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 261-161.
    Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004

    Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.
    Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003

    Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.
    Voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003

    Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.
    Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control efforts in 2002

    Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 232-183.
    Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in 2002

    Rep. Paul voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.

    Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty. The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137 (a two-thirds majority was needed in order to pass).
    Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001

    Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants. The vote on the four-month extension represented a compromise of the White House push for a longer extension. Even though the four month extension was better than a year-long or permanent extension, it still would have resulted in at least 200,000 more people being added to the country through illegal immigration. Rep. Paul was part of a 336-43 majority voting in favor of the four-month extension of Section 245(i). It did not become law, though.
    Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997

    Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. The controversial experimental program was supposed to “sunset” late in 1997 and be automatically taken off the books. But the Senate voted to permanently continue the pro-illegal immigration program by attaching it to an appropriations bill. House leaders, though, refused to include the program in the House appropriations bill. That meant the issue would be decided in a joint Senate/House Conference Committee. Representatives wanting to make sure that House Conferees fought the Senate stance, brought a “Motion to Instruct” to the floor. The motion -- if passed -- would make it clear that the House wanted the Conferees to kill the Section 245(i) program. Immigration lawyers lobbied the House vigorously to keep what to them was a lucrative program. Rep. Paul was part of a 268 to 153 House majority that refused to “instruct” the Conferees to kill the program. Despite the vote, House Conferees worked hard to kill the program and succeeded.
    Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

    Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate
    Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

    Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.
    Voted against authorizing the use of troops on the border in 1999

    Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.
    Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997

    Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. The controversial experimental program was supposed to “sunset” late in 1997 and be automatically taken off the books. But the Senate voted to permanently continue the pro-illegal immigration program by attaching it to an appropriations bill. House leaders, though, refused to include the program in the House appropriations bill. That meant the issue would be decided in a joint Senate/House Conference Committee. Representatives wanting to make sure that House Conferees fought the Senate stance, brought a “Motion to Instruct” to the floor. The motion -- if passed -- would make it clear that the House wanted the Conferees to kill the Section 245(i) program. Immigration lawyers lobbied the House vigorously to keep what to them was a lucrative program. Rep. Paul was part of a 268 to 153 House majority that refused to “instruct” the Conferees to kill the program. Despite the vote, House Conferees worked hard to kill the program and succeeded.
    I'm sorry, but Rep. Paul has voted for amnesty before, what makes anyone think he wouldn't do it again? Furthermore, his voting record is extremely weak on border security. For goodness sake, he even voted againt Rep. Hunter's Amendment to H.R. 4437 (House enforcement bill), which was designed to shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens.

    Moreover, I've got some serious concerns about Rep. Paul where this nations security is concerned, especially with our ongoing terrorist threat and troubles with countries like China, Korea, Iran, etc. In other words, I just don't know if he has the guts to do what may some day become necessary in this ever increasing hostile world we live in.

    In my opinion, anyone that would favor Rep. Paul over Rep. Duncan Hunter hasn't done their homework. I see Paul as a distant third behind Hunter and Tancredo.

    Like I've said before, many think of Tancredo as an extremist and one pony show. Furthermore, his deferrement from military service due to depression would be another strike against him. I admire and appreciate everything he's done and is doing for our cause, but I don't like his chances of becoming president. With that said though, should it come down to Paul or Tancredo, I'll go with Tancredo.

    Bottom line, I think we should unite behind Rep. Duncan Hunter in 2008!

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Hmmm, he's not so hot on border security is he. Okay, I still have until '08 to research things.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,021
    Duncan Hunter is more electable.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Neese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sanctuary City
    Posts
    2,231
    I'm with you MW...Paul is weak on defense, which probably means that he will never fully secure our borders, in my opinion, opposes capital punishment, and opposes the Patriot Act. Things aren't looking too good with terrorism these days, and I wouldn't want to risk it. I think he is a good candidate for the people who are Anti-Federal reserve and anti-tax. He is pro-life, and believes that Congress does not have the authority to ban/regulate drugs. He also endorses US withdrawl from the UN...I have to agree there. Interesting man but won't get my vote.

  5. #15
    Senior Member nittygritty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,251
    Duncan Hunter so far has my vote, I to think he is the most electable right now. I really don't think Tancredo will make a run for 2008, he said he would only run if someone else who thinks as he does didn't come forward. Duncan Hunter came forward, I am thinking Tancredo will help Hunter instead. Wouldn't mind having both of them up there with one as Vice President, boy, that would be just to good to be true I guess!
    Build the dam fence post haste!

  6. #16
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    nittygritty wrote:

    Wouldn't mind having both of them up there with one as Vice President, boy, that would be just to good to be true I guess!
    That would certainly be what I'd call a "dream team," but I"m afraid you're right - it would probably be too much to ask for.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    How can you folks possibly ignore Rep. Paul's less than optimal voting record regarding illegal immigration, especially border security?

    Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006

    Rep. Paul is a cosponsor of H.R. 793, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the timing of issuance of H-2B visas during a fiscal year. Specifically, H.R. 793 would split the H-2B visa cap so no more than 33,000 visas are made available for the first six months the fiscal year, and another 33,000 visas would be available in the second half of the year. HOWEVER, H.R. 793 exempts from the annual cap aliens granted an H-2B visa within three years prior to approval of an H-2B petition, thus potentially TRIPLING the number of H-2B workers in the United States at any one time. Although timing the issuance of H-2B visas is a common-sense approach that would help prevent the situation that occurred in FY 2004 and FY 2005 when the 66,000 annual cap on H-2B (low-skill) nonimmigrant visas was hit within the first quarter of the year, H.R. 793 would ultimately harm American workers by creating exemptions which potentially could triple the number of H-2B workers in the U.S. at any given time.
    [quote:h0gfcfmu]Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998

    Rep. Paul helped the House pass H.R.3736. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Rep. Paul voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.
    Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers

    Before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), Rep. Paul had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Rep. Paul opposed that protection. The substitute also would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Rep. Paul voted against that. The protections for American workers fell 33 votes short of passing.
    Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. Specifically, it mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. As well, it includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.
    .

    Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted against the Obey amendment ( H. Amdt. 144) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Obey amendment provided $100 million to fund grants under the REAL ID Act to assist States in conforming with minimum drivers’ license standards. The Obey amendment passed by a vote of 226-198
    Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.
    Voted against bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005

    Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House against H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This legislation would set federal standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses and require proof of "legal presence" in order to obtain a driver's license. This would make illegal aliens ineligible for drivers' licenses. As well, H.R. 418 would tie the driver's license expiration date of a temporary visa holder to the expiration date of their visa so that those who enter the country legally as visa holders, but become illegal aliens by overstaying their visas will not have a valid driver's license after the date of the expiration of their visa. In addition, H.R. 418 includes provisions to broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens, and to complete construction of the San Diego border fence. H.R. 418 would deter illegal immigration by making it more difficult for illegal aliens to enter and to remain in the United States. It also would reduce significantly the risk that terrorists will be able to game our asylum system or avoid removal because of loopholes in our immigration laws. H.R. 418 was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 261-161.
    Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004

    Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.
    Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003

    Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.
    Voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003

    Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.
    Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control efforts in 2002

    Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 232-183.
    Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in 2002

    Rep. Paul voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.

    Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty. The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137 (a two-thirds majority was needed in order to pass).
    Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001

    Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants. The vote on the four-month extension represented a compromise of the White House push for a longer extension. Even though the four month extension was better than a year-long or permanent extension, it still would have resulted in at least 200,000 more people being added to the country through illegal immigration. Rep. Paul was part of a 336-43 majority voting in favor of the four-month extension of Section 245(i). It did not become law, though.
    Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997

    Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. The controversial experimental program was supposed to “sunset” late in 1997 and be automatically taken off the books. But the Senate voted to permanently continue the pro-illegal immigration program by attaching it to an appropriations bill. House leaders, though, refused to include the program in the House appropriations bill. That meant the issue would be decided in a joint Senate/House Conference Committee. Representatives wanting to make sure that House Conferees fought the Senate stance, brought a “Motion to Instruct” to the floor. The motion -- if passed -- would make it clear that the House wanted the Conferees to kill the Section 245(i) program. Immigration lawyers lobbied the House vigorously to keep what to them was a lucrative program. Rep. Paul was part of a 268 to 153 House majority that refused to “instruct” the Conferees to kill the program. Despite the vote, House Conferees worked hard to kill the program and succeeded.
    Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

    Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate
    Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

    Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.
    Voted against authorizing the use of troops on the border in 1999

    Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.
    Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997

    Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. The controversial experimental program was supposed to “sunset” late in 1997 and be automatically taken off the books. But the Senate voted to permanently continue the pro-illegal immigration program by attaching it to an appropriations bill. House leaders, though, refused to include the program in the House appropriations bill. That meant the issue would be decided in a joint Senate/House Conference Committee. Representatives wanting to make sure that House Conferees fought the Senate stance, brought a “Motion to Instruct” to the floor. The motion -- if passed -- would make it clear that the House wanted the Conferees to kill the Section 245(i) program. Immigration lawyers lobbied the House vigorously to keep what to them was a lucrative program. Rep. Paul was part of a 268 to 153 House majority that refused to “instruct” the Conferees to kill the program. Despite the vote, House Conferees worked hard to kill the program and succeeded.
    I'm sorry, but Rep. Paul has voted for amnesty before, what makes anyone think he wouldn't do it again? Furthermore, his voting record is extremely weak on border security. For goodness sake, he even voted againt Rep. Hunter's Amendment to H.R. 4437 (House enforcement bill), which was designed to shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens.

    Moreover, I've got some serious concerns about Rep. Paul where this nations security is concerned, especially with our ongoing terrorist threat and troubles with countries like China, Korea, Iran, etc. In other words, I just don't know if he has the guts to do what may some day become necessary in this ever increasing hostile world we live in.

    In my opinion, anyone that would favor Rep. Paul over Rep. Duncan Hunter hasn't done their homework. I see Paul as a distant third behind Hunter and Tancredo.

    Like I've said before, many think of Tancredo as an extremist and one pony show. Furthermore, his deferrement from military service due to depression would be another strike against him. I admire and appreciate everything he's done and is doing for our cause, but I don't like his chances of becoming president. With that said though, should it come down to Paul or Tancredo, I'll go with Tancredo.

    Bottom line, I think we should unite behind Rep. Duncan Hunter in 2008! [/quote:h0gfcfmu]
    I think that some of his votes may be misconstrued. Often, as in the case of tighter controls on IDs, his vote has more to do with the long term impact of such federal powers on actual citizens than it does with support for illegal aliens. This particularly hits home with people like me who, for religious reasons, have no SSN. In the name of tightening controls on illegal aliens, everything from working for certain companies to obtaining a drivers license has become almost impossible for such real American citizens who simply refuse to participate in the entirely voluntary Social Security entrapment scam.

    Ron Paul votes "by the book," which is to say that he makes his votes based upon whether there is constitutional justification for a given federal power and whether a given law or regulation would tend to infringe the rights of real Americans in the name of greater security. And I would ask you to look at whether past laws meant to reduce the number of illegal aliens have actually done what they're supposed to do or whether they have saddled American citizens with more hassles. for example, what has the I-9 done for us? What has the requirement for an SSN to obtain a drivers license done for us? What have increasingly strict banking laws done for us? As best I can tell, we are employing vastly more illegal aliens than ever in the nation's history, our roads are flooded with uninsured illegals, and the banks down here in Texas are knee-deep in Spanish-speaking customers who are almost certianly illegal aliens.

    So you must understand that not every provision ostensibly aimed at curbing illegal immigration is a good idea, and many of them are specifically BAD ideas.

    On the issue of visas, don't you think that it would be wise to separate the issue from that of illegal immigration? For example, in the run-up to Y2K, we had to import tens of thousands of software engineers to get our infrastructure compliant before the critical date. There are occasional exigencies that require such influxes of foreign labor. Besides, I really don't have a problem with some tens of thousands of visa workers here annually. Heck, I have had to use countless visas to do work overseas myself. Work visas do not necessarily equate to eventual citizenship or even a desire for citizenship. I know a number of people here right now on work visas who will complete their jobs and go back to their home countries. That's the nature of my business, but many people don't understand that. They simply leap to the conclusion fostered by sensationalist hype that work visas constitute a threat.

    What we need to focus on is enforcement against illegal aliens. Once we have a handle on that, we can have a national debate on what (if any) numbers look good for the various work visas and for legal immigration.

  8. #18
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    CrocketsGhost, your points are well made, but there are a lot of other issues that trouble me regarding Rep. Paul that you failed to discuss. However, when compared to everyone but Rep. Duncan Hunter and Rep. Tancredo - I would support Rep. Paul.

    So you see, I'm not really bad mouthing or demeaning him, I've just pointed out what I thought were some weaknesses that shouldn't be overlooked.

    Can we agree that Rep. Duncan Hunter would be a better choice for securing our borders and fighting illegal immigration?

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #19
    Senior Member Darlene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,200
    What good is fighting illegal alien amnesty or a fence if the North American Union is implemented? They both become obsolete if we have no borders and become one big country with people moving back and forth at will. As far as some of the other bills he opposed for drivers license's it was probably because he is against the Real ID, which these programs want implemented.

    Many on this board are against the Real ID, I used to think it was the only way they could tell who was in the country legally, until I learned more about it. I now don't think that was their intention at all, it is just the beginning of a way to track us, as they say "the camels nose under the tent."

    I don't know what his intentions were with the cameras on the border, but that proved to be a big boondoggle also, as most of them didn't work and never did. It was a waste of a lot of money and they are suggesting it again as a virtual security perimeter.

    Probably he was against the military on the border because of "posse comitatus act" and he is a constitutionalist. The military reserve that our President supposedly put on the border turned out to be a big joke, didn't it! They were never really on the border, there were never 6,000 of them and they were unarmed and useless.

    As far as the Patriot Act, I am against it anyway. The Government spies on us enough without an act of Congress, so why give them more tools.

    Do you really think they care? They do what they want, when they want. As for some of the other bills he voted for, they are eight years old, if I changed my mind about some things in two years, I can give him the benefit of a doubt that he changed his also. After all he did get a B+ for 2006, the same as Hunter. I also would have to look into all of their records both past and present, on just exactly where they do stand now and in the past on certain subjects like the trade bills and outsourcing our jobs.

    I like Duncan Hunter and Tancredo also and don't want some Johnny come lately to the cause. I have a lot of studying to do, but I also don't think Tancredo wants to truly run. He will only do so if no one else picks up the flag. Lets face it, we are never going to get the dream candidate that would please us all.

    Lets hope we get someone in there that we can get behind, the MSM are already pushing for McCain, Giuliani, Hillary and Obama as their chosen ones. They are also going to try to smear the candidates we like because they were not endorsed by the CFR or the shadow government.



    While not advocating for or against Rep. Ron Paul, I think we should look at all of the candidates we might favor as to the alternative that the MSM is pushing on us. So far all of the mentioned hopeful candidates look a lot better by far.

    It might also be a good idea to have a thread where we can post all of the pro's and con's of these candidates and many of their recent and past activities in one place. Better to evaluate them.

    Here are some of the more recent votes by Rep. Ron Paul, Recent Grades Updated: January 09, 2007

    Check out the links associated with that particular bill as it gives some insight to why he may have voted the way he did. Not all are as they seem in the condensed version.


    2005: Voted against amendment to increase document security Rep. Paul voted against the Obey amendment to H.R. 2360 to provide $100 million to fund grants under the REAL ID Act to assist States in conforming with minimum drivers’ license standards. The Obey amendment passed by a vote of 226-198. 4.5 N/A Link Link


    2005-2006: Cosponsored H.R. 925 to reduce rewards for illegal immigration Rep. Paul was a cosponsor of H.R. 925 to make it harder for illegal aliens to gain government services and to otherwise profit from their illegal activity by prohibiting federal agencies from accepting foreign issued IDs (except for passports). 4 N/A Link Link


    2005-2006: Cosponsored H. Con. Res. 50 to reduce rewards for illegal immigration Rep. Paul was a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 50, a concurrent resolution asking the President to refrain from transmitting the U.S.-Mexico totalization agreement to Congress. The U.S.-Mexico totalization agreement would reward certain illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits and potentially serve as an incentive for illegal immigration. 2 N/A Link Link


    2005: Voted in favor of the Rule that incorporated the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 418 to reduce rewards for illegal immigration Rep. Paul voted in favor of the Rule that incorporated the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 418 to strike both the section of the bill that explicitly recognizes states' ability to issue "driving certificates" that do not comply with the standards, and the provision that permits the Department of Homeland Security to regulate such alternative licenses. The Manager's Amendment passed by a vote of 228-198. 2.5 N/A Link Link


    2005:
    Voted against H.R. 418 to reduce rewards for illegal immigration Rep. Paul voted against "legal presence" requirement that would make illegal aliens ineligible for drivers' licenses. As well, H.R. 418 would tie the driver's license expiration date of a temporary visa holder to the expiration date of their visa so that those who enter the country legally as visa holders, but become illegal aliens by overstaying their visas will not have a valid driver's license after the date of the expiration of their visa. H.R. 418 passed by a vote of 261-161. 9 N/A Link Link


    Total Increase Points: 13.5
    Total Reduction Points: 8.5

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Points: 22

    Check here for the links:

    http://grades.betterimmigration.com/tes ... &VIPID=787

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    CrocketsGhost, your points are well made, but there are a lot of other issues that trouble me regarding Rep. Paul that you failed to discuss. However, when compared to everyone but Rep. Duncan Hunter and Rep. Tancredo - I would support Rep. Paul.

    So you see, I'm not really bad mouthing or demeaning him, I've just pointed out what I thought were some weaknesses that shouldn't be overlooked.

    Can we agree that Rep. Duncan Hunter would be a better choice for securing our borders and fighting illegal immigration?
    Probably, but I would prefer to check out their respective paltform papers once they declare their candidacy and go from there.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •