Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

Originally Posted by usanevada

[


So you won't be voting in the general election ?

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.
It's a matter of consciense, now that we know who they are, we cannot .

Originally Posted by usanevada

Also from an article posted on this site and others

Ron Paul does not agree with the border fence

Even though he voted for it

Whats up with that?

good question.

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.

Originally Posted by fj45lvr

Originally Posted by usanevada

Also from an article posted on this site and others

Ron Paul does not agree with the border fence

Even though he voted for it

Whats up with that?

good question.

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?

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.



Most large centers have a welcome centers (minus fences, of course). Is it too much to ask for a few for entering the country?

Originally Posted by ymeoru

Originally Posted by fj45lvr

Originally Posted by usanevada

Also from an article posted on this site and others

Ron Paul does not agree with the border fence

Even though he voted for it

Whats up with that?

good question.

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?

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.



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.

nntrixie wrote:

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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote:

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.

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!

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!!!

So, now, they are justifying why we really don't need a fence!!

Originally Posted by MW

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.

EXACTLY.

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.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by MW

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.

EXACTLY.

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.

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