Thread: Don't Believe The Ron Paul Hype

Ron Paul is not as strong as Tancredo on Illegal Immigration. But for me... a grade of B+ to an A+ is not such a great leap (numbersUSA grades), when you factor in everything else you get from Ron Paul.

Ron Paul prior to 2002 War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY
Just recently
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw


ALL THESE ARE ANSWERED HERE:
www.ronpaul2008.com/articles
or
www.ronpaullibrary.com
The War in Iraq

Ron Paul Taxes

Ron Paul Health Care

Ron Paul Abortion and Stem Cell Research

Ron Paul The September 11 Attacks

Ron Paul Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment

Ron Paul The War on Drugs

Ron Paul The War on Terror

Ron Paul Border Security and Immigration Reform

Ron Paul Freedom and Personal Liberty

Ron Paul The Economy and Monetary Policy

Ron Paul Education

Ron Paul The National ID Card

Ron Paul China

Ron Paul American Independence and Sovereignty **

Ron Paul The Role of Government **

Ron Paul U.S. Foreign Policy **

Ron Paul The Federal Budget and Spending

Ron Paul Social Security

Ron Paul Defending the Constitution

Ron Paul The Draft

Ron Paul Free Trade

Ron Paul Privacy

Ron Paul Property Rights and Eminent Domain

Ron Paul Campaign Finance Reform

Ron Paul Other Topics

***********************************************

Here is something worth nothing. It doesn't directly reflect on Ron Paul's position on illegal immigration, but it does bring to light our nefarious operations via the government and how sometimes things are so obvious, yet the people just go with the flow of what the MSM gives us.

It never was about "terrorism", it was about OIL and nation building: What does the future hold?

___________________



Two weeks after 9/11, Ron Paul gave a speech in the US House calling for Congress to grant the president Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Because Osama bin Laden & his followers were not "a nation", but rather a political group spread across the world, this would allow the president to hire and use others to track bin Laden & his followers down as a group & take them out, rather than go to war with a country. And excerpt of that speech:

"The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.

Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.

Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented. Mr. Speaker, we must seriously consider this option. This answer is a world apart from the potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons or endless bombing of an unseen target. "Marque and reprisal" demands the enemy be seen and precisely targeted with minimal danger to others. It should be considered and, for various reasons, is far superior to any effort that could be carried out by the CIA.

We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That will not be a victory worth celebrating. The wise use of marque and reprisal would negate the need to undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens."

On October 10th, 2001, Ron Paul introduced THE AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001. Rather than try to "kill flies with nukes" and go to war with nations, that bill would have basically made every al Qaeda terrorist, wherever they lived, marked men. It could have precluded us needing to bend over backwards to Moslem countries to prove that we are "not anti-Islam". It could have eliminated the need for the Patriot Act. In short, it could have accomplished what the CIA tried to do with bin Laden but Clinton chickened on years ago -- take out bin Laden & boys with specificity with minimal collateral damage. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to secure our borders.

The AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 died in committee. Instead we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and got the Patriot Act -- and six years later, we still haven't gotten bin Laden.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by nntrixie

We are all defending and cutting down the ONLY THREE CANDIDATES THAT WILLL SAVE US FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION!!

My research has showed that Ron Paul's reason for voting NO on NAFTA was for the wrong reason. His plan for TRUE FREE TRADE would be worst than NAFTA.

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by nntrixie

We are all defending and cutting down the ONLY THREE CANDIDATES THAT WILLL SAVE US FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION!!

My research has showed that Ron Paul's reason for voting NO on NAFTA was for the wrong reason. His plan for TRUE FREE TRADE would be worst than NAFTA.

Nafta
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=484
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=940

Free Trade
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12

I am not sure what Free Trade is - I know NAFTA is neither free nor fair -

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Ron Paul is not as strong as Tancredo on Illegal Immigration. But for me... a grade of B+ to an A+ is not such a great leap (numbersUSA grades), [/b]

RP is against the welfare state, once that's gone no one will be illegal.

RP is against the welfare state, once that's gone no one will be illegal

Do you mean the illegals will all be gone?

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Ron Paul is not as strong as Tancredo on Illegal Immigration. But for me... a grade of B+ to an A+ is not such a great leap (numbersUSA grades), [/b]

RP is against the welfare state, once that's gone no one will be illegal.

nntrixie, yeah - I can't be sure, but I believe he is playing word games.

Ron Paul believes in NO WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS. NONE! He also is against birthright citizenship (put forward an amendment to the constitution), so the assumption is - if you remove the subsidies.. ie.. welfare, amnesties - you remove the lure and you remove the incentive.

I am not sure what once_a_democrate is saying... but it is clearly shown here:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Immigration

there is no secret agenda behind this. The fact is, most illegals come here for all the incentives. also, the more that are here, the more come.

There are a ton of articles, find the one that resonates with you.

nntrixie wrote:

Do you mean the illegals will all be gone?

I believe he means they will be legalized. Paul has already said we can't deport them. Remember, those individuals that pushed for comprehensive immigration reform also made it clear that the bill wasn't amnesty. Well, we all knew better than that.

According to NumbersUSA, Paul has voted on amnesty before.

BrightNail wrote:

There are a ton of articles, find the one that resonates with you.

Personally, I consider an individuals voting record much more important than any articles he may have written. A voting record is a true indicator of what can be expected in the future.

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote:

Do you mean the illegals will all be gone?

I believe he means they will be legalized. Paul has already said we can't deport them. Remember, those individuals that pushed for comprehensive immigration reform also made it clear that the bill wasn't amnesty. Well, we all knew better than that.

According to NumbersUSA, Paul has voted on amnesty before.

BrightNail wrote:

[quote:n1rkwhna]There are a ton of articles, find the one that resonates with you.

Personally, I consider an individuals voting record much more important than any articles he may have written. A voting record is a true indicator of what can be expected in the future. [/quote:n1rkwhna]

I would too. He is rated B+ by NumbersUSA. So yes, go by his voting record. Ron Paul has emphatically said "NO AMNESTY" -- Ron Paul's belief is if you subsidize something, you get more of it. SO HE WOULD NOT GRANT AMNESTY. I am not "sure" how one could construe anything different, but again - look who is saying what. You will see a pattern here.

Dr. Paul believes that if you remove the incentives AND enforce current laws, they will mass deport themselves. His idea is that if you try to round of 15+ million illegals - how on earth are you 'really' gonna do that. Lets be realistic. BUT, if you take away ALL the incentives -- welfare, education, medical (and REPORT those who are ILLEGAL), enforce current laws AND end birthright citizenship -- you will infact get rid of it.

NumbersUSA rates Ron as a B+ on immigration.
FAIR rates him 100% (2003)

There is your voting record.

BrightNail wrote:

NumbersUSA rates Ron as a B+ on immigration.
FAIR rates him 100% (2003)

There is your voting record.

No, that is not his voting record. This is his voting record on the issues that most ALIPAC members consider important:

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

- Voted to nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998.

- Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers.

- Voted against an amendment to reduce funding for the visa waver program.

- Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005.

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

- Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005.

- Voted against bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005.

- Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004.

- Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003.

- Voted against using the military in border control functions in 2003.

- Voted against authorizing the military to assist in border control functions in 2002.

- Voted for Section 245(i), a form of amnesty for illegals in 2002.

- Voted in favor of a four month extension of 245(i) in 2001 (de facto amnesty).

- Voted against authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

- Voted against authorizing troops on the border in 2000.

- Voted against authorizing troops on the border in 1999.

- Voted against killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) in 1997.

That is a voting record. What you provided was his most recent immigration grade per NumbersUSA. All this information is verifiable on NumbersUSA. I'm sure you've seen all this before because other folks and I have posted it.