Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

Originally Posted by MW

agrneydgrl worte:

Also, I have heard him say that we need to bring troops home to put on the border and to build our military up.

Than that would make Ron Paul a hypocrite! As I've already proven, he has voted against sending our military to the border on numerous occasions. Actually, to my knowledge he never has supported placing our active duty military on the border. I certainly can't find a vote of his that supports such an action. If you know different, please provide evidence. Additionally, he supports closing our bases throughout the world and bringing all of our soldiers home. Sorry, anyway you want to look at it - that's not building our military up. If Paul had his way, there would be massive reductions in our military strength.

Or a build up of strength if you consider we may someday need them here.



P.S. Wouldn't a return of sanity to the leadership of our government also add to its strength? We have a government now that lies, cheats, and steals to justify doing as it pleases. That's not the sort of trait that encourages the masses to come running to its aid.


Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.

~Mark Twain

If Paul had his way, there would be massive reductions in our military strength.

I'd sure like to see some proof of THAT statement.

As I've already proven, he has voted against sending our military to the border on numerous occasions.

I don't know the specifics of these votes, but I wonder if Ron Paul voted against these bills because of the tacked-on pork these bills carried? After seeing an attempt to tack on the DREAM Act to a department of defense bill, I have to wonder if there are more details to the story.

He's called 'Dr. No' because he will "never vot[e] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution". We have all seen the amount of garbage that gets appended to a bill for a border fence, have we not?

Most importantly, he understands the economic forces that are driving this open borders mentality and the obstinacy we see in government. If you want to fight the symptoms, vote for someone other than Ron Paul. If you want to remove the tumor, however....

Originally Posted by apropos

As I've already proven, he has voted against sending our military to the border on numerous occasions.

I don't know the specifics of these votes, but I wonder if Ron Paul voted against these bills because of the tacked-on pork these bills carried? After seeing an attempt to tack on the DREAM Act to a department of defense bill, I have to wonder if there are more details to the story.

He's called 'Dr. No' because he will "never vot[e] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution". We have all seen the amount of garbage that gets appended to a bill for a border fence, have we not?

Most importantly, he understands the economic forces that are driving this open borders mentality and the obstinacy we see in government. If you want to fight the symptoms, vote for someone other than Ron Paul. If you want to remove the tumor, however....

"apropos" I tried to point out this very thing the other day! it happens all the time.

The Honorable Ron Paul could also mean that by bringing our troops home they would be protecting our borders but not necessarily be on the border doing the job of the Border Patrol.

Staying in Iraq is like subsidizing illegal immigration here in the U.S. The longer we stay there and in control, the less incentive they have to fix things. Personally, I don't want ONE MORE CENT of my money to go to Iraq.

Agree.

“Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best-trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage, and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.â€

A lot of Ron Paul's economic views are commendable, but some of them are Harry Brownesque in their wackiness, his absurd support for free trade agreements with our sworn enemies-and despotic regimes like the SLORC in Burma-being one of them

I have heard Burma mentioned before. I don't understand how Burma could be that much of a threat.

But we are dealing with Red China - Saudia Arabia is our 'good and great friends' - for goodness sakes. Somehow I don't think Burma would be the tipping point.

Why isn't China our sworn enemy? Why isn't Saudia Arabia our sworn enemy - they have spawned some pretty nasty people.

Why isn't Mexico our sworn enemy - good grief we are sitting here and realizing they are actively invading our country. With either the intent of taking much of it away from us - or at the very least, raping and pillaging this country. They are interferring in our elections, sitting up houses to help illegals stay and continue to break the law. They are putting people in government offices to turn against the American people.

Yet Burma is somehow going to ruin us?

[quote="AuntB"]"Also, I have heard him say that we need to bring troops home to put on the border and to build our military up.""

Yes, some more of Paul's inconsistencies. Why, then has he always voted to NOT put troops on the border?

Please! Look at his record it isn't that good!

Did you know there was a big amnesty in 2002? Ron voted FOR it.

Ron Paul’s Immigration Record

Paul’s Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:

(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:

2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815 2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200 2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588 2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546 2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586 2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205 1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.

(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.

(3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),

(4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - “Enforcement Onlyâ€

Originally Posted by Bren4824

This is a BIGGIE!!

Voted on House floor against Hunter 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.

He doesn't like the idea of a fence. ie: philosophically fencing people out also results in fencing us in. He doesn't think it will be effective at keeping them out or cost effective.

His focus is on ending the subsidies that draw illegals to our country. Medical Care, Welfare, Jobs and Birthright Citizenship to children of illegal aliens. At the same time beefing up border security via manpower.

specsaregood

I'm very leary of a fence.

But it's easy to pick out one part of a bill or one amendment and know why someone voted they way they did.

We have seen just recently that pork can be attached to many thing, perhaps there was something else in the bill that was totally unconstitutional.

I'm not saying that is right - but that's no way to decide how a person does or will work at a certain problem.

He says he will enforce the law -

I won't denigrate Hunter too much on this because he seems steadfast in his opposition to illegal immigration. He did get a fence built in CA.

I think Hunter is totally wrong on the war in Iraq. How can this administration be so unAmerican on the home front and be right in foreign policy. They can't.

The lawmakers came out of the amnesty battle a little flustered, Ithink. They were thwarted in their efforts to get an amnesty through. They heard from the people, time after time after time.

What did they do? Began yelling about a fence - build a fence - build a fence. But wait, we have to design the fence, it must be aesthetically pleasing. Behind our backs, they began striping the bill as soon as it was passed - or maybe before - then they just defunded it.

All this talk abut the fence, and only token, made for TV, enforcement of our laws by the federal government.

The fence was a hoax - not saying it wouldn't be a good thing. But it was a hoax the lawmakers put on the people - they never intended to build one, my opinion, and knew they could drag their feet until they could get something else done behind our backs.