Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

SOSADFORUS wrote:

Ron Paul did vote against some of the border fence bills, BUT, I believe it was because of other things that were in the bills.

NO, NO, NO, NO! How many times do I have to explain this. Ron Paul's vote against the border fence in 2005 was an amendment vote. There was no pork in the amendment. The following Paul votes were on amendments, not bills.

Voted against an amendment to reduce funding for the visa waver program.

Rep. Paul voted against the first Tancredo amendment to HR 2638, which would prohibit funding from HR 2638 from being used to fund the visa waver program. This amendment failed 76-347.

Voted on House floor against 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.

Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005

Rep. Paul voted against the Obey amendment ( H. Amdt. 144) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Obey amendment provided $100 million to fund grants under the REAL ID Act to assist States in conforming with minimum drivers’ license standards. The Obey amendment passed by a vote of 226-198.

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005

Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004

Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.

Voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control efforts in 2002

Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 232-183.

Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate.

Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.

Voted against authorizing the use of troops on the border in 1999

Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.

A bill should not be voted against simply because it contains pork. When faced with the issue of pork in a bill a member of Congress has the responsibility of deciding the over all importance of the bill in comparison to the pork included. The following are bills Paul voted for and against, and yes bills can include pork. However, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that he should have voted for or against each and every one of these bills simply because it MAY have contained pork.

Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006

Rep. Paul is a cosponsor of H.R. 793, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the timing of issuance of H-2B visas during a fiscal year. Specifically, H.R. 793 would split the H-2B visa cap so no more than 33,000 visas are made available for the first six months the fiscal year, and another 33,000 visas would be available in the second half of the year. HOWEVER, H.R. 793 exempts from the annual cap aliens granted an H-2B visa within three years prior to approval of an H-2B petition, thus potentially TRIPLING the number of H-2B workers in the United States at any one time. Although timing the issuance of H-2B visas is a common-sense approach that would help prevent the situation that occurred in FY 2004 and FY 2005 when the 66,000 annual cap on H-2B (low-skill) nonimmigrant visas was hit within the first quarter of the year, H.R. 793 would ultimately harm American workers by creating exemptions which potentially could triple the number of H-2B workers in the U.S. at any given time.

Nearly doubled H-1B foreign
high-tech workers in 1998

Rep. Paul helped the House pass H.R.3736. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Rep. Paul voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.

Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans
to make room for foreign workers

Before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), Rep. Paul had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Rep. Paul opposed that protection. The substitute also would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Rep. Paul voted against that. The protections for American workers fell 33 votes short of passing.

Voted against bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005

Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House against H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This legislation would set federal standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses and require proof of "legal presence" in order to obtain a driver's license. This would make illegal aliens ineligible for drivers' licenses. As well, H.R. 418 would tie the driver's license expiration date of a temporary visa holder to the expiration date of their visa so that those who enter the country legally as visa holders, but become illegal aliens by overstaying their visas will not have a valid driver's license after the date of the expiration of their visa. In addition, H.R. 418 includes provisions to broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens, and to complete construction of the San Diego border fence. H.R. 418 would deter illegal immigration by making it more difficult for illegal aliens to enter and to remain in the United States. It also would reduce significantly the risk that terrorists will be able to game our asylum system or avoid removal because of loopholes in our immigration laws. H.R. 418 was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 261-161.

Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003

Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.

Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty
for illegal aliens in 2002

Rep. Paul voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.

Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty. The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137 (a two-thirds majority was needed in order to pass).

Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001

Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants. The vote on the four-month extension represented a compromise of the White House push for a longer extension. Even though the four month extension was better than a year-long or permanent extension, it still would have resulted in at least 200,000 more people being added to the country through illegal immigration. Rep. Paul was part of a 336-43 majority voting in favor of the four-month extension of Section 245(i). It did not become law, though.

Now, should Paul have voted for or against these bills simply because they may or may not have had pork included? I don't know, I guess it would depend on what how much pork there was in the bill. As you can see above, he has voted on bills that we wouldn't support in 100 years! Can you say honestly say that the bills he voted on above didn't contain pork? Of course you can't - that's why the excuse that Paul never votes on a bill with pork is an empty argument. I'm sorry, I refuse to believe the excuses the Paul campaign uses to justify some of his votes.

MW, you can argue all day long, I know you are for Hunter and I am happy for you, but he does not have a snow balls chance in hell of getting the nomination, don't ask me why people don't like him, he just can not make the cut.

Most of the AMENDMENTS or BILLS you posted are very old and way before half of America woke up... he did vote for HR 4437.

I am not advocating he is perfect none of us are but, but I will vote for him, I will not vote for the top 5 the MSM are pushing and I dearly care for Tancredo, but the reality is he can not make it either.

Ron Paul has a huge movement building and actually stands a chance, he has already made history with the 17 million dallors he has raised. I WANT CHANGE....I WANT TO SAVE THE CONSTITUTION before it is destroyed.

We all have to do what we feel in our heart is right you feel it is Hunter, I don't believe he has a chance, I feel Paul has a chance.

I don't think any less of you for voting for someone I don't think has a chance and I hope you feel the same about my decision about Paul, but i have to vote for someone who stands half a chance against everyone else who has a far worse record and changes their mind everytime they stand before a new crowd, the top 5 are telling Americans exactly what we want to hear they have no true convictions.

brightmidnight wrote:

As far as the tariffs go, if we didn't have tariffs, many countries might drop theirs, or at least lower them. We would benefit overall because more of our goods would be bought by other countries, who would be richer from being able to sell us more goods, and likewise... it's circular. We would benefit, they would benefit, we would benefit, they would benefit. We would be able to import cars to other countries, as one example. GM and Ford might really go for that now-- but as it is, the tariffs are too high in many cases.

It's sort of naive to think every country is going to play by our rules just because we want them too. China certainly isn't playing by the rules. Furthermore, your premise completely ignores the American jobs that are outsourced for the purpose of acquiring cheap labor under free trade agreements. Do you have any idea of how many middle class Americans work in the manufacturing and textile industry? We've lost a lot of those jobs in recent years, however, we still have a ton of middle class Americans that hold jobs in those industries. Free trade is not only about trade, it's also about jobs. Why would an corporation pay an American worker $16.00 an hour when they can ship the job to Peru for $2.34 an hour? True Free trade, which Ron Paul supports, will definitely make that happen because the produced goods can be moved at a cost that will make it too inviting for greedy corporations to ignore. Heck, it's already happening. As Pat Buchanan said, "The rise of free trade has eroded America’s industrial base and with it our sovereignty." Optimal free trade conditions will require wide-open borders. That's the whole concept behind the North American Union. Trust me, those that are pushing free trade don't have the average working Americans best interest at heart.

SOSADFORUS wrote:

MW, you can argue all day long, I know you are for Hunter and I am happy for you, but he does not have a snow balls chance in hell of getting the nomination, don't ask me why people don't like him, he just can not make the cut.

My problems with Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to do with Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo.

We all have to do what we feel in our heart is right you feel it is Hunter, I don't believe he has a chance, I feel Paul has a chance.

I'm not supporting Hunter because I think he does or doesn't have a chance, I'm supporting him because I think he is the best man for the job. I don't begrudge you the right to choose the candidate of your choice. However, I do hope you're supporting him for the right reasons, not just because you think he has a chance. Quite frankly, I don't believe he has a prayer of receiving the RNC nomination.

Most of the AMENDMENTS or BILLS you posted are very old and way before half of America woke up... he did vote for HR 4437.

Old??????? Not a one of them is over seven years old. I wouldn't call that old. Be that as it may, it definitely establishes a track record of sorts. IMHO, a politicians voting history is an indication of what can be expected in the future. It's certainly more telling than campaign rhetoric.

Did you watch Ron Paul on Glenn Beck tonight? He is for building the fence he said the people have spoken, this is one of the reasons I am voting for him, I believe he will do what the majority of the people want.
He believes this country should be run "by the people" "for the people"

When asked if he would put the military on the border he said no, but he would put more border patrol and said Bush should not have pulled the National Guard off of the border.

Most Americans did not wake up to illegal immigration until May 2006 during the protests....alot of people still do not realize the impact, but they are sick of seeing our constitution ignored and destroyed. Our tax money being wasted as in the spending bill yesterday.

I am not voting for paul on the illegal immigration alone, I am voting for Paul because I believe he is the one who will restore our constitutional rights...in congress he has a record of standing up for what he believes and not going along with the gang, I am voting for him out of the bottom 3 because I think he has the best chance, but it most certainly isn't the only reason, I am not that naive or narrow minded...remember I never voted for Bush, I did my homework.

One thing about you and I, we can go around and around and still respect each others opinion I do wish more people were like that At least we know 2 of the bottom 3 are going to get a vote!!!

SOSADFORUS wrote:

One thing about you and I, we can go around and around and still respect each others opinion I do wish more people were like that At least we know 2 of the bottom 3 are going to get a vote!!!

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

I did not know that digger viewed the North American Union plan with skepticism or that he was not aware of the voting record of Ron Paul. Ron Paul's amendment HJ Res 46 (end Birthright Citizenship) needs more co - sponsors.

Luke 2

There are 79 cosponsers on H.R.1940, which clarifies who gets birthright citizenship, and speficially excludes anchor babies.

corhanem wrote:

There are 79 cosponsers on H.R.1940, which clarifies who gets birthright citizenship, and speficially excludes anchor babies.

Rep. Nathan Deal's H.R.1940 now has 96 cosponsors.

Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2007-12-10]

Rep. Robert Aderholt [R-AL]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]
Rep. Richard Baker [R-LA]
Rep. James Barrett [R-SC]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R-FL]
Rep. Jo Bonner [R-AL]
Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX]
Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA]
Rep. Henry Brown [R-SC]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R-CA]
Rep. John Campbell [R-CA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY]
Rep. John Culberson [R-TX]
Rep. David Davis [R-TN]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY]
Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. John Duncan [R-TN]
Rep. Terry Everett [R-AL]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX]
Rep. Robin Hayes [R-NC]
Rep. Dean Heller [R-NV]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX]
Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R-TX]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]
Rep. Steve King [R-IA]
Rep. Jack Kingston [R-GA]
Rep. John Kline [R-MN]
Rep. John Kuhl [R-NY]
Rep. John Linder [R-GA]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R-IL]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. John McHugh [R-NY]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R-CA]
Rep. John Mica [R-FL]
Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R-PA]
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-CO]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
Rep. Todd Platts [R-PA]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Tom Price [R-GA]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R-AL]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]
Rep. Peter Roskam [R-IL]
Rep. Edward Royce [R-CA]
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R-OH]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. William Shuster [R-PA]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]
Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK]
Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS]
Rep. Greg Walden [R-OR]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. David Weldon [R-FL]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY]
Rep. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R-SC]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1940

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) have signed on as cosponsors.

Rep. Nathan Deal's H.R.1940 now has 96 cosponsors.

Thanks for the info MW! I wasn't aware that the list had grown.

Sweet.

corhanem wrote:

Thanks for the info MW! I wasn't aware that the list had grown.

Sweet.

You're welcome. Yeah, I think the list has grown because of constituent pressure. Folks that are calling their representatives on the SAVE Act should also ask them to sign on as a cosponsor to H.R.1940 if they haven't already done so.