Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I can vote for Hunter, although I have some disagreements with his stance on some things.

How did he stand on NAFTA, CAFTA, etc?

See a letter I rec'd from Rep. Hunter re NAFTA posted here:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-45290-dunc ... fta+letter

Thanks, jean I appreciate that.

I am still a Ron Paul person, but I certainly wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for Hunter.

I do appreciate the information.

I just looked at an updated list of the CFR and neither one are on the list of members....thats good.

I read all the previous posts in this thread and might I say you are a well informed, intelligent group of people! I am honored to be among you still!

I donated to Tom Tancredo's campaign twice, for a whopping $25 total. I also donated to Ron Paul's campaign, for a whopping total of $12. As you can see, I had limited resources to work with, but that is neither here nor there.

I am terrified to vote for ANYONE in the upcoming election. I don't trust a single one of them.

I was very much FOR Tancredo, until his recent vote to expand NAFTA in the Peru agreement. YIKES!!

I have read a lot about Ron Paul, and while he seems like a great pick on the surface, I have issues with him stances on several items, although i agree wholeheartedly on some others.

When I took an online "who's my best candidate" quiz, my results said that my stances most closely match with Duncan Hunter, who I hadn't even heard of at the time (almost a yr ago).

I'll vote for Rudy McRomney when my poop turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert. AKA never and a day.

If Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul are not viable options, I will write in the person I think is most suitable for the presidency (William, Lou Dobbs, Dan Smeriglio ... ). I simply cannot join in on a 3rd party candidate who is as useless as the top tiers. That's a lot of work for the same old results.

I think supporting and promoting our issues is a lot more important-in the long run, and even in the short term with respect to this presidential campaign-than supporting or opposing one particular candidate. We should be able to highlight these issues of concern even if someone who is adversarial to our interests is nominated, so that when we apply pressure to him/her we have the backing of the American public. The issues of our broken borders and immigration process are going to last far longer than this campaign will.

That's a good point, Shapka.

DUNCAN HUNTER IS THE MAN!!

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

That's a good point, Shapka.

Don't get me wrong.

I think we should do everything in our capacity to help elect pro-American, anti-illegal, patriotic politicians, especially on a national level.

However, I don't think we should make that our only focus.

When the Democrats retook Congress I was dead-certain that they would be able to ram amnesty down our throats. The fact that they weren't able to do that proves how potent a force this movement is. The same principle applies on a local level. I can count on one hand the number of elected officials from The City who are not open borders, pro-illegal hacks, i.e. Congressman Vito Fossella, Senator Frank Padavan, Senator Marty Golden, and maybe one or two others. However, that hasn't stopped groups like NY ICE, 9/11 FSA and Citizens for a Secure Driver's License from exerting enormous pressure on our incompetent elected officials, e.g. Bloomberg, Spitzer, among others.

The point is to marshal our resources in support of ideas, not just candidates.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

That's a good point, Shapka.

Don't get me wrong.

I think we should do everything in our capacity to help elect pro-American, anti-illegal, patriotic politicians, especially on a national level.

However, I don't think we should make that our only focus.

When the Democrats retook Congress I was dead-certain that they would be able to ram amnesty down our throats. The fact that they weren't able to do that proves how potent a force this movement is. The same principle applies on a local level. I can count on one hand the number of elected officials from The City who are not open borders, pro-illegal hacks, i.e. Congressman Vito Fossella, Senator Frank Padavan, Senator Marty Golden, and maybe one or two others. However, that hasn't stopped groups like NY ICE, 9/11 FSA and Citizens for a Secure Driver's License from exerting enormous pressure on our incompetent elected officials, e.g. Bloomberg, Spitzer, among others.

The point is to marshal our resources in support of ideas, not just candidates.

Yes, I agree. The thing is that no matter how much we may like a particular candidate, or their electability, we need to stay strong on our principals. I do not want the movement to be comprimised. That is the main reason why I have been consistently critical of Paul. Not because I am shilling for Tancredo, but because I want the facts to be laid out about who these candidates are as it realates to our movement and ideals. It seems that some will defend votes and opinions about certain candidates no matter what. That is not what this movement is about. That is what partisans do. When Tancredo voted for the Peru Trade deal I was one of the first to denounce his vote. I would like to see more of that coming from the Paul supporters.

Ron Paul has made mistakes. No question about it. He's voted many times differently then many others or myself would have liked. Like you stated, he's not perfect.

However aside from Hunter/Tancredo, he is the only other candidate who is talking strong about illegal immigration (and has for many years). You can be sure that he would put pressure on congress to help pass laws to resolve the issue and he would certainly put much more power to enforce immigration laws back into the hands of the states.

Some issues such as H1-B visa's allowances and such, are seemingly minor in the overall scope of things and as a form of legal immigration they are far back on my "list" of immigration priorities.

I was very worried early in this election cycle that no viable candidate would arise that would actual protect our nations borders, but a fairly large and diverse movement has sprung up around Paul and he's managed to make some significant movement upward in the polls.

I understand voting on principle, I'll be doing it no matter what since I full-heartedly support Ron Paul and he's my candidate of choice. However in this case Ron Paul is polling around 8% in the early Primary States whereas Hunter is around 3% perhaps.

So while you might support Hunter more, Paul has a much more viable shot at capturing the nomination and vastly increasing our border/immigration enforcement. Paul's raised over $18 Million this quarter and has the cash to compete this election cycle.

I like the fact we have a couple good guys running for President, but when one of them has a far more viable shot at actually becoming the nominee it might be worth sacrificing a few ideals and throwing your support behind him.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is rarely good, but in this case I still support both of these guys immigration policies far more then any other candidate.