Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

Originally Posted by specsaregood

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.

Besides the illegals..........He doesn't like the idea of keeping out drug dealers, gangbangers, and potential terrorists???

Here's an awesome video of Ron Paul w/Johnny Cash


http://youtube.com/watch?v=deype7HIApo

The fence, alone, would not do the job - it just won't.

It would be a billion dollar boondoggle - without interior enforcement.

If we cut of the employment, cut off the freebies, enforce the law against illegals as we do Americans - traffic laws, etc., many will go home, and others will quit coming.

The drug dealers, terrorists, etc, will then be easier to catch.

Also, illegals in this country provide a cover for drug dealers and terrorists. With fewer illegals, the drug dealers and terrorists will be easier to locate and we will have the monetary resources to do that.

A fence might be a good thing - but without interior enforcement, and without giving the BP the freedom to do their job - it will be an expensive thing that will do little.

Originally Posted by Americanpatriot

Here's an awesome video of Ron Paul w/Johnny Cash


http://youtube.com/watch?v=deype7HIApo

Good video.

Maybe the invasion of America and the lose of our jobs and way of life does play second fiddle to the abandonment of our morals!

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by Bren4824

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.

I think it would be effective at keeping people out -- it has worked for San Diego, well it pushed the probelm into Arizona, but SD is no longer the main crossing point. I think the Fence would also be paid for by money saved on tax payer dollars going to social services, and imprisoning illegals, as well as a toll for legal crossings.

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.

Not sure about the one in bold.
[quote:ekvn8o86]At the same time beefing up border security via manpower.

[/quote:ekvn8o86]
Which man-power? Not US Marines or Army, right?

So, is it Border Patrol? That would be a huge expendature. BP would have to be DRAMATICALLY increased to do the job effectively. Doesn't really jibe with RP's small government posititions -- it would be a massive increase in a federal agency.

National Guard? This would be left up to the states, right? I just don't trust Bill Richardson to seal the border.....I don't even trust Arnold.

At any rate, Paul needs to make it crystal clear his method and plan for "physically securing the border."

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Snip...

Besides the illegals..........He doesn't like the idea of keeping out drug dealers, gangbangers, and potential terrorists???

I'm not comfortable with the topic of illegal drugs. I'm also a little uneasy with Ron Paul's views on the topic.

That said, I think I remember him pointing out that our war on drugs is much like the prohibition on alcohol, and they have both turned out pretty much the same.

Thinking on those lines maybe a new approach could do us more good than harm.

I think it would be effective at keeping people out -- it has worked for San Diego, well it pushed the probelm into Arizona, but SD is no longer the main crossing point.

There is a thread on here now about the violence against border patrol agents in the San Diego area. I believe it said that 1 our of 4 cases of violence against agents has happened in that area.

There have been more than one such stories and about the crime rising in San Diego.

Maybe it worked for a while, but evidently it is no longer working so well.

Without interior enforcement, it will make little difference. If and that's a big if, it keeps them out - we still have 20-30 million here in this country. They are having anchor babies every hour. They are becoming more and more involved in our political process and La Raza, LULAC, etc., are getting more and more politicians and bureaucrats in place to do their bidding.

I don't believe for a moment they intended to build the fence - or to build a fence that would have an effect. That's just my opinion, so they have us focused on fighting for this fence while the illegals are making inroads into our country. Mexico is setting up some kind of 'houses' to help the illegals in their lawbreaking. LaRaza is threatening us - etc. Calderon and Fox are making speeches to interfere with our political process here.

A fence would be good, if backed by BP agents with the freedom to do their jobs, but it is only part of the answer - certainly not the largest part.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

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.

They are our enemies.

FYI, Ron Paul does want to do business with them. See the PTNR issue raised by several posters here.

My point is that we should not trade with regimes that are arrayed against the forces of civilization and humanity.

There is no logical, rational reason to normalize diplomatic relations with Burma-if anything, we should be squeezing China and India to do more to strangle the detestable SLORC junta-yet Ron Paul supports it because it means more money for a small corporate clique.

That is what libertarian philosophy comes down to in the end.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by nntrixie

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.

They are our enemies.

FYI, Ron Paul does want to do business with them. See the PTNR issue raised by several posters here.

My point is that we should not trade with regimes that are arrayed against the forces of civilization and humanity.

There is no logical, rational reason to normalize diplomatic relations with Burma-if anything, we should be squeezing China and India to do more to strangle the detestable SLORC junta-yet Ron Paul supports it because it means more money for a small corporate clique.

That is what libertarian philosophy comes down to in the end.

Well where has big corporate think tanks gotten us? Well lets see according to the news today the news jobs for Americans are Hair Dresser, and lock smith...you might as well take your children out of college because those jobs are going to Mexico, India.

The same old crap is just getting us in deeper, we need changes, big changes. Who is our government trading with now, do you believe China is our friend. arent we getting oil from chavez. Aren't we supporting child labor all over the damn world, now Peru.....Helllllooooo wake up America, remember the huge spending bill last week. 1 1/2 billion dollars to Mexico. Hellloooo how can it get any worse.

This is circular logic.

If the people criticizing Paul's position favored diplomatic relations with countries like the PRC and Vietnam then this would be a substantive argument.

As it is I don't see anyone saying we should be propping up the economies of potential enemies.

Just because we have a horrendous, counterproductive trade policy with Red China does not mean we should look for ways to bolster the rancidly corrupt, tottering regime in Burma. The two aren't related, just as the validity of Cuban sanctions isn't diminished by the fact that we trade with the equally odious Vietnamese government.