So, Ron Paul's solution is no fence-----let's just make it easier for them to get here.Quote:
Originally Posted by minnie
And, not going after employers-----I don't want to get my corporate buddies upset with me!!!
Printable View
So, Ron Paul's solution is no fence-----let's just make it easier for them to get here.Quote:
Originally Posted by minnie
And, not going after employers-----I don't want to get my corporate buddies upset with me!!!
Bren, it's more than about the fence. if you don't have boots on the ground to watch the fence, what good is it?
As far as the NAU, Ron Paul is strictly against that and the LOST Treaty and he would pull us out of the UN.
He voted against the Duncan Hunter Fence bill-----which included increased border agents and technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinybobidaho
The Border Patrol can NO way guard the entire border without a fence----no matter how many of them that there are.
I don't know why he voted against the fence, but I do know he wants to bring the border patrol home from Iraq and put them back on the border. If all the bennies were stopped for illegal aliens and we stopped the anchor baby frenzy, there wouldn't be as many coming across the border. Paul is against spending any more federal dollars than is necessary and that could have something to do with the way he voted.
yes, CFR is pro NAU, say no to CFR candidates..Quote:
Originally Posted by minnie
ie. everyone but Paul or Huner...
So you won't be voting in the general election ?Quote:
Originally Posted by GOrwell
I only know my cats, not Aunt Fanny's - but I do know that the stories recently suggest the fence is not doing the job it once did. I believe that to be because those drug and human smugglers know for sure, our BP agents' hands are tied and there will be no reprecussions when they get here.
There is nothing to suggest that is going to change - not with this present group in charge of the fence.
On Ron Paul and his ME policy -
We haven't just been meddling in the ME in the recent past. WE have been over there blowing up things and propping up dispotic, bloody dictators for 50 years.
I have asked for everyone who feels Paul is wrong to think about this.
Mexico has sent millions of its poor and criminals here to this country - deliberately. THey have asked them to drain this country of the monies they make. They have lobbied, cajoled and I hesitate to think what else they have done, our lawmakers and President to allow this to happen and even to give freebies and special privileges to the illegals.
This is no small thing. It has caused the death of Americans, the molestation of children, the maiming of Americans, weakened our healthcare system, our education system, our judicial system. It is putting serious strain on our infrastructure.
I don't know, but I think we can assume they have funded an encouraged such organizations as LaRaza and LULAC - which are working against America and Americans.
I think we can assume they probably own some journalists, some lawmakers and bureacrats.
Now they are actually intereferring in our electorial process - and setting up 'houses' here in America to help the illegals evade immigration.
They are going to get involved in lawsuits in AZ 'to protect the rights of those illegal employees' there.
They have protected the drug smugglers bringing in death with their army and have persuaded our government to persecute BP agents trying to stop this. Their army has fired on our BP and border LE officers to protect drug smugglers.
Do those things make you angry? It does me.
Those things are happening now - and we see it.
No suppose we find they actually were arming some of these criminals to cause chaos in this country? Suppose some of these simple, hardworking people were actually Mexcian army?
Would that make you angry? Angry enough to do something? Then suppose this horror of violence and chaos perpetrated by them had been going on for 50 years resulting the killing and maiming of millions of Americans.
Would you be angry?
Our problems in the ME didn't start with the bombing of the Cole or the marine barracks or even with Saddam Hussein - it goes back much farther.
But for those who don't like his policies - what would be a good policy?
The one we have isn't working - do we continue doing the same thing that we know doesn't work - or do we think maybe we should stop worrying about the rest of the world and begin worrying about America. If we don't, it won't matter what we do in the ME or anywhere else - we'll be lost.
He should be running as an independent.
For those that doubt the fence...did you see Duncan's fence?
http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=19
The triple fence is the one I'm talking about.
I just watched Ron Paul on Bill Moyers and it was a very good interview :lol:
I really deepy admire Dr. Paul and he is a man of integrity.He was upset that Romeny is being attacked because he is a Mormon and said our first amendment is suppose to protect us from such attacks.Your religion or lack of it has nothing to with being President UNLESS you use it in a negative manner to deny others of their civil rights.
He also talked about Fox not including him in the debate and has never been given a reason as to why he is being excluded.Even Fox affiliate stations have no idea why he is being excluded.Ron Paul thinks it is because of who owns Fox News and because of his views which are in conflict with the owners of Fox.
NO, If my only option will be any of those other candidates democ. or repub. I wont neither my friends . We decided not to vote for evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by usanevada
It's a matter of consciense, now that we know who they are, we cannot .
good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by usanevada
I am skeptical of the fence because I think it would be EASY to breach and thus makes it a WASTE of finances when the money could actually be better used on cracking down on employers through having more INS employees.....if we penalize the employers hard enough that will end the problem.
1) Did you see the fence?Quote:
Originally Posted by fj45lvr
2) If a fence is easy to breach, then the absence of a fence ...
I don't think a fence can be used in isolation. I think we have to viable enforcement.
I think workplace verification is the place to start. I think removing the lure of benefits is also important. I think we're going to have to educate children of illegal immigrants until their parents are removed. I think we're going to continue to have hospitals used for primary health care.
The only way we can legitimately remove the strain from our hospitals, schools, and jobs, is to ramp up enforcement.
Although, if illegal immigrants can attend school legally in a district, I should be have fewer residency issues, but oh well.
Remember, also,... the fence isn't so much to stop the hapless gardner running across the border on foot -- but also drug & people smugglers that drive across and harass small ranchers and do all kinds of unethical things.
Duncan's fence would've definitely slowed them down. If you haven't watched the video -- at least view it. It's very short. Even if I can't have Duncan. I want the fence.
Another thing about the fence. The fence never should have been only about illegal immigration. We should know what's happening at our borders. We should also have a way of orienting anyone coming into our country about our laws, expectations, etc.
I would be disappointed if it stopped at just a fence. I don't want to see armed guards sitting on top. I want a welcome entry point. Let the armed guards be in there.
:lol:
Most large centers have a welcome centers (minus fences, of course). Is it too much to ask for a few for entering the country?
There already are LEGAL entry points------but of course, the illegals and possibly terrorists are not using them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ymeoru
nntrixie wrote:
I don't recall seeing two stories (I must have missed one). However, one of the stories I'm sure you're referring too suggested no such thing. All it did was comment on the increased violence directed at the BP agents stationed along the San Diego border. There was absolutely no suggestion made that the fence wasn't doing what it was designed to do. I know you've attempted to make this argument before in order to ramp up your position against the Hunter double-layered fence. However, it didn't work then and it's not going to work now. I'll tell you the same thing now as I did then. The fence is working, that's why there is increased violence around the fence. To read that the fence is not working out of an article that is discussing violence along the San Diego border doesn't work. The article I recall reading said absolutely nothing about the fence not working. I say the increased violence along the border is born out of frustration because the fence and increased security is working along the San Diego border. In my opinion we need the Hunter fence built over the entire length of the border (every last yard). To actually believe that we would be better off with no fence over the Hunter double-layered fence is just not logical, no matter how you want to slice it!Quote:
I only know my cats, not Aunt Fanny's - but I do know that the stories recently suggest the fence is not doing the job it once did. I believe that to be because those drug and human smugglers know for sure, our BP agents' hands are tied and there will be no reprecussions when they get here.
Furthermore, the argument that keeps getting made regarding the need for increased presence along the border for the fence to be effective is as empty as the space between Bush's ears. In other words, building the fence has nothing to do with increasing our BP. The fence is a force multiplier and would enable what BP we do have on the border to perform their job more effectively. Essentially, building the fence serves the same purpose as adding more BP agents along the border. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fence replaces the need for more BP agents because it doesn't. However, it does enable those we do have to be more effective.
They are also saying/doing this because Ron Paul does not want a fence!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
So, now, they are justifying why we really don't need a fence!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
EXACTLY.Quote:
In other words, building the fence has nothing to do with increasing our BP. The fence is a force multiplier and would enable what BP we do have on the border to perform their job more effectively. Essentially, building the fence serves the same purpose as adding more BP agents along the border. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fence replaces the need for more BP agents because it doesn't. However, it does enable those we do have to be more effective.
Folks, the proposed fence would be a double layer fence, with gound censors, and a highway in the middle for BP to drive their vehicles. It would make BP's job a hell of a lot easier. People say it is too costly??? The alternative is to quadruple the size of BP. Hiring and training such an enormous amount of men and women would be extremely costly and time consuming. People need to realise that it is possible for RP to be wrong. And he is about this. Dead wrong.
I'm for the fence and I'm for Ron Paul, I think he is the only viable candidate not associated with the CFR and NAU as others have suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
I've stated this before and because of some I have to restate my view.
If Congress voted to privatize a fence whether Federally or by allowing the States to contract the job with tolls on the roads crossing the border I do not see Ron Paul vetoing that bill! He is for privatization and soveriegnty win win!!
Folks, the proposed fence would be a double layer fence, with gound censors, and a highway in the middle for BP to drive their vehicles. It would make BP's job a hell of a lot easier. People say it is too costly??? The alternative is to quadruple the size of BP. Hiring and training such an enormous amount of men and women would be extremely costly and time consuming. People need to realise that it is possible for RP to be wrong. And he is about this. Dead wrong.
In the first place, 'proposed fence' is one thing - what we may get could be another. Apparently, they haven't designed it yet. The story a little while ago talked about several builders presenting their ideas to the BP and the BP used tools, confiscated from border crossers, and broke through each one in jig time. From that, I'm not getting the 'double layer, etc.'.
They talked about the fence being aesthetically pleasing.
I am not against a fence - if it is used in conjunction with interior enforcement - which we have not gotten. Let's get real here - we haven't.
Read the story about Pilgrim's Pride. The story is immigration had a long, complicated undercover operation there at Pilgrim's - and by george,they arrested 24 people. AND Pilgrim's is totally innocent - had no idea they were working illegals. People that's an insult to our intelligence. That was a whitewash for Pilgrim's. That entire operation, in my opinion, was simply to throw a few to the wolves, so this administration could try to say to the country they were enforcing the law, and the very staunch Republican CEO and his company are totally innocent.
So this is the kind of people we have enforcing the immigration law. YOu must, simply must, realize they are NOT going to do anything that will stop that flow of illegals and with them the drugs.
The stories about the fence in San Diego did not say the fence wasn't working - just not as well as they were finding ways around it and it did state crime was up in San Diego. Remember, that fence is a good fence - I don't think we are going to get that kind of fence.
Now since they are evidently getting around, across, or whatever that good fence that has worked in the past - and a fourth of the assualts agains BP agents has happened there - doesn't that say that we are going to have to have a lot more BP along the fence - anywhere. Remember, this is the good fence.
Now as I say, time will tell, but I am going by the past behavior of those pretending they are going to build this fence - and that makes me ask myself why are they trying to keep our attention on the fence?
I'm afraid the fence is much the same as the raid on Pilgrim's, so much work, and they netted 24 miscreants - out of thousands - thousands. We think these people are going to actually build a fence to work - wake up.
Get angry with me - but I beg you to give it some thought. I'm not saying give up on the fence - just don't put so much emphasis on it. How long has it been since the fence was voted in? How much have they built?
What kind of machinations have they used to keep it from being built?
While we are so concerned about the fence, which I don't think they will ever build - at least one that will work, they are playing games with us like arresting 24 at Pilgrim's - and making a good attempt at absolving Pilgrim's of any wrong doing.
It's all show and tell - and I fear the fence is also. That doesn't mean they won't spend a lot of money and take a lot of American's land - it just means they don't intend it to work - not this administration, anyway.
And I bet all 24 have been released with a court date that they
of course won't show up for
The fence , if built and manned properly would stop 80% of the crossers,
It is intended to shuffle illegals into concentrated areas making
it easier for BP to pick them up
Part of the problem is that even with a fence they need more
deterrent, A wall alone won't do it ,
First crossing , gets you 60 days in jail
2nd crossing ,,,,,,,,,, 5 years in federal prison , and Sheriff Joe
could give them some pointers on building jails and maintaining
costs
As long as we have catch and release and no real penalties
they will keep coming
strumrugar wrote:
I'm adamantly against farming our national security out to private companies just as I'm against hiring mercenaries to fight our wars! However, I have no problems with contracting the building of the fence out.Quote:
If Congress voted to privatize a fence whether Federally or by allowing the States to contract the job with tolls on the roads crossing the border I do not see Ron Paul vetoing that bill! He is for privatization and soveriegnty win win!!
Article IV, Sect. 4, of the U.S. Constitution required that the U.S. Government, not private industry, protect the states from invasion.
usanevada They may have all been released by now - but they should have gotten hundreds. It's a joke -
The fence , if built and manned properly would stop 80% of the crossers,
It is intended to shuffle illegals into concentrated areas making
it easier for BP to pick them up
Theoretically, it would stop a lot - but the 'if built and manned properly' is the key issue here.
Also, we have seen from the story about Pilgrim's the government is not serious about interior enforcement. Until that happens, they will keep coming and yes, we can slow it down, but we need them gone.
While everyone is discussing a fence, we should be able to admit to ourselves the government doesn't want to build it - not this administration, anyway. While that is happening, we have anchor babies being born on a hourly basis, we have more and more anchor babies reaching adulthood - voting age, we have more and more illegal advocates getting into politics on every level of government - from school boards to congress.
We could stop every single illegal entry from now on - and the ones already here are enough to sink this country.
We have to attack them where they feel most. THE POCKET.
Stop buying Pilgrim, go to the supermarquet and ask for any brand which is not Pilgrim. Then they will start noticing we are not fools .
I just did a little digging and Ron Paul said, although he doesn't like the 700 mile fence, he voted for it because the bill got rid of amnesty. He's against amnesty. Just thought I would clear that part up.
"I just did a little digging and Ron Paul said, although he doesn't like the 700 mile fence"
This alone puts him on my "watch" list , without the fence, the double fence we will never be able to stop illegals , not in a million years
Besides , a fence goes against his open borders leanings
This alone puts him on my "watch" list , without the fence, the double fence we will never be able to stop illegals , not in a million years
Besides , a fence goes against his open borders leanings
A true question, other than the fact he has decided libertarian leanings, where has he advocated open borders? I really want to know.
The fence alone will not save this country - it just won't. Yes, it would be a very good tool - but it would not be necessary if our government simply enforced the laws on the books.
We have lived beside Mexico for many years without a fence - but with laws that would be enforced if need be and Mexico knew this.
Ask yourself how those laws are being used now? Is raids netting 2 - 10 - 24 at a time, taking months and lots of money, is going to get the job done?
As yourself if e-verify is going to get the job done. Pilgrim's supposedly uses it - and if you hear them tell it, they had no idea they were employing illegals. I fear e-verify is simply a gimmick to make sure employers can say they didn't 'knowingly' hire illegals. Get real. A company who hires thousands, tens of thousands of hispanics 'doesn't know it is working illegals'. That's insulting.
Unless we have some strong interior enforcement, we still have 30M + here - killing and maiming Americans, having babies, getting involved in politics, voting in our elections, draining our social services, helping to destroy our education system. Those 30M and their offsprings and supporters are enough to ruin this country. They don't need any more from across the border.
The need for a fence is offensive to me - it means we have failed to force our government to pay attention to the laws of the country. Now if they don't pay attention to the laws - what makes anyone think they are going to build a fence that will work or man it properly.
Read some of the things about the fence - gutting the funding, deciding on a design, etc., etc. It is a smokescreen - a diversion until after the election and by that time, who knows, we may have the NAU in place - China may hold the deed to the entire country.
Well the double design fence is law , it was signed into law , and no , its not easy to get across
The fact that congress tried to shove amnesty on us promising to increase
enforcement and then refuse to fund the fence speaks volumes
The libertarian party believes the borders can be wide open as long
as there are no magnets , they feel if we take away the bennys they
won't come so you don't need a border
I'm not saying Ron Paul still believes this , but he sure did at one time
And his not liking the fence just makes one wonder
nntrixie wrote:
I don't know why you keep bringing up this tired argument. We've only been over it about 20 times. Once again, no one has suggested that a fence is the sole solution to our immigration problem. :?Quote:
The fence alone will not save this country - it just won't.
Someone provided an interview just yesterday where Paul actually said a border fence is offensive (I believe Calderon has said the same thing) and he doesn't support it. Read the interview, it obvious that he doesn't want to impede access between Mexico and the United States. Paul needs to understand that a border fence will also help our border patrol to catch potential terrorist and smugglers, not only illegals. There is no question that a fence will enhance the capabilities of our border patrol. Anyone that denies that is living in a void somehwere. :wink:Quote:
A true question, other than the fact he has decided libertarian leanings, where has he advocated open borders? I really want to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
But the facts are it would help a bunch
Along with other enforcement
I seriously want to know now, do we know he ever advocated or believed this. Just because he has libertarian leanings and once ran on that ticket doesn't mean that. If he said it, I would like to know.
The thing about his stands, they are not new or radical, and I don't know that I think they are liberatian, exactly, but then I don't know a lot about libertarians. They are almost exactly the Republican beliefs as taught me by my grandparents and parents.
The issue of his advocating open borders bothers me - and I would like to learn more about that.
The double fence is the law - yes. Just a few weeks ago, however, there was a story here talking about the various possible designs for the fence. There were some half dozen and they also mentioned the need for it to be 'aesthetically pleasing'. If the law describes a fence, they either don't know or are ignoring that.
And that is my whole point to the idea of giving the fence some thought. It isn't the fence - it is the intent of those in charge. A fence, like our laws, are only as good as those implementing them.
We have seen no real interior enforcement. They haven't given it a chance. The interior enforcement we have seen is just show and tell.
Unless we do some very strong interior enforcement, the fence won't help - and only a very wishful thinker would believe our government is enforcing our laws on immigration.
One only need to reread the story about the 'investigation' at Pilgrim's to know they aren't serious about interior enforcement.
I'm not saying that Paul now follows all of the libertarian platform
But they do not believe in closed borders
This might make you take a second look
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml
The benefits of open immigration
America has always been a nation of immigrants. Thomas Jefferson emphasized this basic part of the American heritage, taking note of "the natural right which all men have of relinquishing the country in which birth or other accident may have thrown them, and seeking subsistence and happiness wheresoever they may be able, and hope to find them."
The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration,
Studies also show that not only do immigrants not take jobs away from American workers, they also do not drive down wages. Numerous studies have demonstrated that increased immigration has little or no effect on the wages of most American workers, and may even increase wages at upper income levels
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot more but you get the message
this is like something right out of la raza's playbook
I'm not against a fence being built, but if you listen to Paul's stance on illegal immigration, it cuts down the need for fences. If you take away all that draws the illegals in the first place, they won't come. If you get a President who has the guts to stand up and say we're not going to put up with illegal immigration, it makes a big difference to the ones hearing the message. If there's nothing here for them, many will not come. Ron Paul also says to cut off free medical care. When he was asked by Jon Stossel what would happen if they were injured and showed up at a hospital, Paul said we would be compassionate, but they can't get free health care.
" If you take away all that draws the illegals in the first place, they won't come"
If you believe this , I have some swampland for sale in
Vegas , real cheap
" Ron Paul also says to cut off free medical care."
He doesn't or wouldn't have the power to do this , Only congress
could do this
I see the liberatarians might have that idea - but I'm not pushing truly I'm not - as I am very interested in this. Has he said he wants open borders?
I want to be sure he isn't being painted with that brush because he does have liberatarian leanings - and once ran on the ticket.
We have two chances Paul and Hunter to get out a new message - and I hate to see either one of them branded with something that isn't true.
To be honest ,
I'm a Romney supporter and I've seen a lot of stuff going both
ways on all the candidates
I honestly DO NOT believe that Ron Paul is for open borders
but the info and his past are an open record , It troubles me
that he does not support the fence though
I also sympathize with everyone backing Paul but at this
time I don't believe that Hunter or Paul are going to get enough
traction to make either of them electable
I could be wrong
You can't finish 3rd , 4th and 5th in several primaries and get the nom
but only Iowa is done , there are lots to go and Paul has lots of
money
He isn't going anywhere for a while
"I want to be sure he isn't being painted with that brush because he does have liberatarian leanings - and once ran on the ticket."
Of course he is going to be painted with this brush
Its his past , his record , it happened
Just like Romney and his record of enforcement against illegals
and his flip flop on abortion ,
Public stuff and not going away
Well, if he actually said it, proposed it or supported it - yes, it's fair game.
If, however, it is being said because of his, as I said, libertarian leanings, then it's unfair.
As for the fence, I don't know why he didn't want the fence.
He says it's offensive - I agree. Maybe not for the same reasons he does, I don't know his reasons. I think is offensive because it says we can't control our own country and our government is unwilling to enforce the laws. That's offensive to me.
I find it offensive that leaders we know do not want immigration stopped, and have said it, proven it in so many ways, are pretending they are going to build it. That's an insult. That's offensive.
But if you have time, think about the fence - in reality - not in the abstract. Put the idea of this fence into a real picture of the situation as it is and the people who are charged with building it, etc. Then ask yourself if it really is going to do the job WE hope it will do -
A fence in the abstract, built correctly, manned properly-with BP agents allowed to do their job - yes. But if we are honest with ourselves, we know deep down in our hearts, unless we get someone, a lot of someones, different in Washington, that probably is not going to happen.
Without some real strong and immediate interior enforcement to clean people out of this country who shouldn't be here - we are sunk. There are enough here, with enough connections, being funded by not only greedy corporations, our very own government - and the Mexican government, to achieve the loss of sovereignty. That isn't going to be achieved by the little raids they have been doing and a raid by a chicken growing and processing company that nets - 24 - and finds 30 with fraudulent documents and so far, wants to tell us the employer is totally unaware they hired any illegals.
The fence bothers me as I see it as a smokescreen and a diversion from interior enforcement.
He also said this, at the same time........."I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."Quote:
Originally Posted by tinybobidaho
He says that he does not want a fence!!Quote:
Originally Posted by nntrixie
If you notice, he has NO plans for going after employers or holding them acountable.
He thinks that if you stop welfare, foodstamps, etc.----then this alone will stop them from coming. However, this is not true-----as 4 years ago Arizona passed 4 props that took all benefits away from illegals----and they kept on coming and did not leave!! It was not until they went after the jobs, before the illegals began to leave!!
Anyone who doubts this----call and ask Russell Pearce in Arizona.