Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

We are already propping up the economy of traitors and tyrants, we are even supporting Mexico while they are sending us their poor to take care of, oh and talk about slave labor, Mexico 4 dallors a day, that is such a corrupt government it is pathetic and we are aiding and abbeting these governments all over the world.

Paul did not say he would trade with them he said it is worth trying to talk to them about trade, how about talking for a change instead of just rushing in and bombing people.

he also said we need to do something about trading with these people who use child labor.

The same old crap is not working, we are about to lose this country like it or not we need a big changes or we are going down then what is the rest of any of it going to matter.

Originally Posted by Shapka

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.

Ron Paul's position is that trade with other nations foster's friendship and promotes democracy; that sanctions only serve to prop up dictators. Trade serves to empower the people at the expense of dictators.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

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.

Interior enforcement is not going to do anything for the drug dealers, gangbangers, and potential terrorists.

Plus, that means that a continual flow of thousands of illegals keep entering the country.

I don't understand it...........

How can anyone defend the fact that he voted against the fence??

How can anyone defend the fact that he has NO plan and has supported NO plans for employer enforcement??


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.

GENERAL INFORMATION - Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies! He and Carol, who reside in Surfside Beach, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have seventeen grandchildren.

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. He served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. He also was a key member of the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our currency. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul serves as the vice-chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Dr. Paul's consistent voting record prompted one Congressman to comment that "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another Congresswoman added that "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.

Amnesty/Permanent Legalization for Illegal Aliens

OFFICIAL STANCE ON AMNESTY: No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. RonPaul2008.com
2002: Voted to reward illegal immigrants with the Section 245(i) amnesty
Rep. Paul voted for H RES 365, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), an amnesty for illegal aliens that rewards illegal immigrants with residency by allowing certain illegal aliens to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to stay without fear of deportation. H RES 365 passed by a vote of 275 to 137.

Click here for more AMNESTY actions.



"If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty." June 18, 2007 press release; RonPaul2008.com




"Supporters of the amnesty bill like to claim that border protection is their first priority. But if enforcement of our borders is the highest priority, certainly a much shorter bill could have been written. Even better, why not enforce existing laws? According to our Constitution, Congress makes the laws that the executive branch is to enforce. The rush to pass this new law seems to obfuscate this simple fact. There are plenty of laws already in place, so it seems sensible to largely solve this problem without new laws. This legislation [S. 1639] purports to crack down hard at our borders, but as we have learned time and time again, you cannot address enforcement until you address incentives. That is why you cannot have border security with an amnesty program in place: the incentive of amnesty undermines any crack-down on border protection and in fact just makes work for our Border Patrol all the more difficult. Incentives in place to those who would come to the United States illegally will remain in place if this legislation is passed." June 11, 2007; Rep. Paul statement on website



"What is seldom discussed in the immigration debate, unfortunately, is the incentives the US government provides for people to enter the United States illegally. As we know well, when the government subsidizes something we get more of it. The government provides a myriad of federal welfare benefits to those who come to the US illegally, including food stamps and free medical care. Is this a way to discourage people from coming to the US illegally? ... I will continue to oppose any immigration bill that grants amnesty to illegals or undermines our liberty and sovereignty." May 31, 2007; Statement posted on LewRockwell.com



"Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?" LewRockwell.com; August 9, 2005



"The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenders by a government, and most of the immigration reform proposals in both chambers of Congress certainly meet that definition. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa and ultimately citizenship. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa." Citizenoutreachblog.com; September 19, 2006
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
OFFICIAL STANCE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: NONE
"Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn't mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he's not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally. 'I think we could be much more generous with our immigration,' he told me. But, he added, 'we don't need illegal immigration. We don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.'" December 12, 2007; ABC News


"Supporters of the amnesty bill like to claim that border protection is their first priority. But if enforcement of our borders is the highest priority, certainly a much shorter bill could have been written. Even better, why not enforce existing laws? According to our Constitution, Congress makes the laws that the executive branch is to enforce. The rush to pass this new law seems to obfuscate this simple fact. There are plenty of laws already in place, so it seems sensible to largely solve this problem without new laws." June 11, 2007; Rep. Paul statement on website

LEGAL IMMIGRATION
OFFICIAL STANCE ON LEGAL IMMIGRATION: No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. RonPaul2008.com
"He has also called for an end to welfare benefits, 'mandatory medical care' and public education for illegal immigrants." July 16, 2007; Des Moines Register (Iowa)



Chain Migration

OFFICIAL STANCE: NONE
Each year he has been in Congress, he has declined to cosponsor bills to reduce or end Chain Migration. He has not had a chance to vote on the issue.
Visa Lottery

OFFICIAL STANCE: NONE
2005: Voted for H.R. 4437 to eliminate visa lottery on floor of House
Rep. Paul voted in favor of final passage of H.R. 4437 which included a provision to eliminate the visa lottery that each year awards 55,000 visas on a random basis. H.R. 4437 was passed by the House by a vote of 239 to 182.

Click here for more VISA LOTTERY actions.
CONTROLLING FOREIGN WORKERS/ PROTECTING U.S. WORKERS
OFFICIAL STANCE ON FOREIGN AND U.S. WORKERS: No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. RonPaul2008.com
"He has also called for an end to welfare benefits, 'mandatory medical care' and public education for illegal immigrants." July 16, 2007; Des Moines Register (Iowa)



2005: Voted in favor of amendment to prohibit foreign-worker importation provisions in Free Trade Agreements Rep. Paul voted in favor of the Tancredo Amendment to H.R. 2862 to prevent the U.S. Trade Representative from including immigration provisions in Free Trade Agreements. The Tancredo Amendment failed by a vote of 106 to 322.

Click here for more FOREIGN WORKER IMPORTATION actions.

Citizenship for Illegal Aliens' Babies

OFFICIAL STANCE ON CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN BABIES: End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. RonPaul2008.com
2005-2006: Cosponsored H.J.Res. 46 to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens
Rep. Paul was a cosponsor of H.J. Res 46 to create a Constitutional amendment that would end the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship to more than 300,000 anchor babies born to illegal-alien mothers in the United States each year.

Click here for more BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP actions.



"He is opposed to amnesty and 'birthright citizenship' for children of illegal immigrants. He has also called for an end to welfare benefits, 'mandatory medical care' and public education for illegal immigrants." July 16, 2007; Des Moines Register (Iowa)



"Rep. Ron Paul of Texas also supports ending 'birthright citizenship." July 16, 2007; Des Moines Register (Iowa)



"[O]ne of the most absurd incentives for people to come to the US illegally is the promise of instant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil. That is why when Congress returns next week I will be re-introducing my Constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to individuals born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens or who do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States." May 31, 2007; Statement posted on LewRockwell.com



"No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship. Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet..." LewRockwell.com; October 3, 2006

MANDATORY WORKPLACE VERIFICATION OF Workers

OFFICIAL STANCE ON WORKPLACE VERIFICATION: NONE
Please email information.
EMPLOYERS WHO HIRE ILLEGAL ALIENS

OFFICIAL STANCE ON ENFORCING THE LAW AGAINST EMPLOYERS: NONE
2005: Voted for H.R. 4437 to increase interior enforcement
Rep. Paul voted in favor of final passage of H.R. 4437 which would increase interior enforcement by requiring employers to use the Basic Pilot program to verify that new hires have the legal right to work in the United States. As well, it would bring state and local law enforcement agencies more into the enforcement fold and provide funding through both grants and reimbursement for their assistance in federal enforcement efforts. H.R. 4437 was passed by the House by a vote of 239 to 182.

Click here for more WORKER VERIFICATION actions.
LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS

OFFICIAL STANCE ON LOCAL ENFORCEMENT:
2006: Voted in favor of H.R. 6095 to increase interior enforcement
Rep. Paul voted in favor of H.R. 6095 to clarify state and local law enforcement’s inherent authority to enforce Federal immigration laws and overturn a decades-old court injunction that impedes the Federal government’s ability to remove aliens from El Salvador on an expedited basis. H.R. 6095 passed by a vote of 277-140.

Click here for more FEDERAL PICKUP actions.
ENTRY-EXIT SYSTEM

OFFICIAL STANCE ON ENTRY-EXIT SYSTEM: Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. RonPaul2008.com
2006: Voted in favor of H.R. 6095 to increase interior enforcement
Rep. Paul voted in favor of H.R. 6095 to clarify state and local law enforcement’s inherent authority to enforce Federal immigration laws and overturn a decades-old court injunction that impedes the Federal government’s ability to remove aliens from El Salvador on an expedited basis. H.R. 6095 passed by a vote of 277-140.

Click here for more INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT actions.



"He said immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays a visa or otherwise violates U.S. law." July 16, 2007; Des Moines Register (Iowa)



"I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty..." Rep. Ron Paul before the House of Representatives; February 9, 2005

BORDER SECURITY
OFFICIAL STANCE ON BORDER SECURITY: Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. RonPaul2008.com
2006: Voted in favor of H.R. 6061 to create border fence
Rep. Paul voted in favor of H.R. 6061 to create a 700 mile reinforced fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and to provide for other barriers for border control. H.R. 6061 passed by a vote of 283-138-1 (1 denotes a vote of "present.")

Supporters of the amnesty bill like to claim that border protection is their first priority. But if enforcement of our borders is the highest priority, certainly a much shorter bill could have been written. Even better, why not enforce existing laws? According to our Constitution, Congress makes the laws that the executive branch is to enforce. The rush to pass this new law seems to obfuscate this simple fact. There are plenty of laws already in place, so it seems sensible to largely solve this problem without new laws. This legislation [S. 1639] purports to crack down hard at our borders, but as we have learned time and time again, you cannot address enforcement until you address incentives. That is why you cannot have border security with an amnesty program in place: the incentive of amnesty undermines any crack-down on border protection and in fact just makes work for our Border Patrol all the more difficult. Incentives in place to those who would come to the United States illegally will remain in place if this legislation is passed." June 11, 2007;

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... res08.html
More Information at above link.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Congressman Duncan Hunter represents California's 52nd Congressional District consisting of eastern and northern San Diego County. He is a Vietnam veteran, who served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers. In 1973, Hunter attended Western State University Law School in San Diego on the G.I. Bill, while also working at farming and construction. Opening a law office in Barrio Logan San Diego, Hunter assisted many in the Hispanic community free of charge and without government compensation. In 1980, he was asked to run against Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin, an 18-year incumbent, where, in a 2-to-1 Democrat district, Hunter won the Congressional seat.

Hunter's first assignment in Congress was to the House Armed Services Committee, where he continues to serve today as its Chairman. Responsible for a defense budget totaling more than $445 billion, Hunter focuses his national security efforts on providing the President the resources he needs to win the nation's military conflicts, modernization initiatives that quickly move new and effective technologies into the field, making the Department of Defense more efficient by moving resources from redundant and unnecessary bureaucracy to warfighting capabilities, and strongly supporting our nation's military personnel and their families by ensuring that they are well-compensated and well-equipped with safe and effective weapons and equipment. Prior to his current position as Chairman of the full committee, Hunter served as Chairman of the House Military Research & Development Subcommittee from 2001-2002, where he was responsible for overseeing the development and testing of key military systems, weapons programs, and technologies that fulfill military needs. Hunter also served as Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Procurement from 1995-2000 where he presided over $60 billion for the acquisition of military weapon systems and components.Having a district located in the California-Mexico border region, Hunter has made border enforcement a major priority. In 1988, Hunter authored legislation making the military the lead agency in illegal drug interdiction and was successful in obtaining military units for building roads and fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico. Over 40 miles of fencing and border infrastructure have been constructed to date. Additionally, Hunter passed legislation in 1995 to authorize an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents in response to the Clinton Administration's budget which attempted to cut agency resources. Hunter remains committed to sealing the U.S. border to illegal alien and drug trafficking, ensuring that the region remains safe for communities on both sides of the international boundary.Hunter's other legislative priorities include fulfilling promises to our nation's veterans, providing tax relief to America's working families, and continuing cleanup efforts at the New River and Salton Sea in Imperial County, which he previously represented for 20 years

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... res08.html

more info at above link!!!

Amnesty/Permanent Legalization for Illegal Aliens

OFFICIAL STANCE ON AMNESTY: "Congressman Hunter has a 27 year record of fighting illegal immigration and promoting border security. As a member of Congress with a Southwest border district heavily impacted by the effects of illegal immigration, Rep. Hunter has steadfastly opposed amnesty proposals, including voting against the 1986 amnesty law, while tirelessly working to strengthen border security. Amnesty is not the answer. In fact, it encourages a whole new wave of illegal immigrants who seek to catch the next amnesty.
America has one of the most generous immigration policies in the world. It is unacceptable that we allow millions of people to sneak in the back door of our country when the front door is available. We have tried amnesty and it does not work. We must enforce and, as necessary, tighten our immigration laws and secure our border–it is a matter of national security."

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... res08.html

nntrixie wrote:

What did they do? Began yelling about a fence - build a fence - build a fence.

Let me clear this up right here and now. Some of those in the U.S. Congress were yelling for a fence because that's what the majority of the public wanted! The idea wasn't created out of thin air, the people demanded that damned fence - yesterday! Yes, there are some in the Congress that went along with the idea simply because they didn't won't to appear weak on border security, however, there are quite a few folks in the Congress that are sincere in wanting the fence built. To suggest that everyone in the U.S. Congress was playing us like a fiddle on the fence is ridiculous.

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.

The comment above is about the most preposterous argument I've heard anyone make regarding the double-layered border fence in San Diego! The double-layered fence in San Diego works and its successes have been well documented. Have you for one minute considered how much worse things would be without the fence? I didn't think so. It's ludicrous to suggest any increase in crime is because the fence doesn't work. Does New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles blame increases in crime on the failure of their border fence. Oops, they don't have one. Furthermore, if there is an increase in violence against the BP in the San Diego area, I would suggest it's because the heightened security, which the border fence is a big part of, is frustrating the illegals. Think about it, the frustration of not being able to simply walk across the border in the San Diego area is what's driving the illegals to violence. Personally, I think that is a very good thing, not the violence, but the fact that the illegals are extremely frustrated by the fence.

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

It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Anyone that would suggest otherwise without detailed evidence to back such a claim is just someone attempting to create an argument to fit their own agenda. You've made no secret of the fact that you do not support a fence. Sure, you'll say you have nothing against the fence. However, you have railed against the fence at every opportunity.

I don't believe for a moment they intended to build the fence - or to build a fence that would have an effect.

Exactly who is they????? You give the impression that absolutely everyone in the U.S. Congress is against the fence. That's not true and you know it. There are those in the U.S. Congress that are very serious about the fence. I could give you a long list of names right now. However, it would be a waste of my time because I'm becoming more and more convinced that you're going to think what you want to think on the fence, regardless of evidence provided that goes contrary to any perceived notion you may have. Bottom line, there are many in the Congress that are quite serious about getting the double-layered fence built. Unfortunately they are fighting against the President, DHS, and U.S. House and Senate leadership.

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.

There is that word "they" again. Like I said, there are folks in the U.S. Congress that are very serious about building a fence. Also, no one is going to focus most of us on anything we don't want to be focused on. We are adults, not 13 year old children. You need to accept the fact that many of us want the fence built because we believe it will help slow down the invasion. Grant you, a fence isn't the only roadblock we need to set up to slow illegal immigration, but it would certainly be a nice place to start. The 20-30 million illegals didn't come here overnight and we aren't going to get rid of them overnight. However, a fence and increased human intervention at the border will certainly act to deter many potential illegals, terrorist, and smugglers while we're working on interior enforcement, employer sanctions, etc. We need to utilize all the tool, not just employer sanctions, interior enforcement, a fence, etc.

Where's all Duncan Hunter's favorable voting information and his position on the various issues, SOSADFORUS? You're not showing favorites are you? I noticed that you left off most of the the nagative votes too. What's up with that?