Thread: Paul Not Co-sponsor of SAVE ACT

I did a lot of campaigning for Ron Paul. BUT, after watching him in the debates, although I agree with the MAJORITY of what he says, the fact is, I DO NOT AGREE with an instant withdrawal from Iraq.

And now, even Hussein and Shillary WILL NOT STATE THEY WILL HAVE ALL OUR MILITARY HOME BY THE END OF THEIR FIRST TERM!!!

And as I stated before, the congress is what we are going to have to stay on top of to beat shamnesty.

The only other help we MIGHT get, would be if Romney is McShame's VP.

Ron Paul is a good man, and I like his adherence to the Constitution of the United States. But, right or wrong, we cannot defeat OURSELVES, by bailing out of Iraq. Too much at stake.

As a former AF Captain who has been over there, I saw too much to give it up.

Originally Posted by roundabout

BearFlagRepublic, Cheers!

CitizenJustice, Thank You for your service. I do not like Ron Paul's view towards the war either. I do believe that this has been his biggest obstacle. I was much more comfortable fighting in Afghanastan. Iraq should have been taken care of back in the early 90's. Ofcourse that was then, and this is now.

However like yourself, I agree with much of Ron's views. Hard not too, for me anyhow.

Would it be possible for Iraq to work harder or faster to get their act together?

One thing I feel certain of, we cannot run around the world every time 12 terrorist create havoc. Where to next? And after that?

Originally Posted by Chosen

I have heard nothing but defense of Ron Paul on less than empirical terms. Evidence has been presented as to the benefits of the Save Act to the fight against illegal immigration, yet Ron Paul voted against it. There has been information presented that demonstrated why he has voted against the save act referring to Libertarian Party agenda and a pattern of voting by him. Yet I have not heard one singular direct defense of his action. I think it is less than sufficient to respond "Ron Paul is a good guy, he votes for individual liberty." My thoughts are that his choice falls under the presented argument by the Libertarian Party that states all punishment of employers of illegal immigrants should be reversed.

For the fourth time it isn't a swipe against him, Ron Paul is not a god or diety and I am sure that he has a reason for what he did. What I see happening is many people waiting for him to come out and explain why he didn't vote for it, but does it really matter? All elelments against illegal immigration have determined that the Save Act will close many of the loopholes left from the 80's amnesty, NumbersUSA has determined it to be an excellent Act. So in my opinion, Ron Paul's choice to vote against it was simply incorrect. Whether it was for some technicality, Libertarian Party views, or any reason, the choice was a bad one.

I would like to hear those who support Paul explain why his voting against the Save Act is a good thing? At least as it relates to strategy.

Call his office. They'll probably tell you the same thing I told you - he doesn't support anything that erodes the privacy and liberty of the citizens.

If you care to do a little research, you'll find out that the Libertarian party was seriously divided on Ron Paul in '88 because he did not support their open borders plank.

I happen to think he is right. I want the illegal aliens to go home, but I do not want to expand the surveillance powers of the federal government to do it.

Originally Posted by roundabout

CitizenJustice, Thank You for your service. I do not like Ron Paul's view towards the war either. I do believe that this has been his biggest obstacle. I was much more comfortable fighting in Afghanastan. Iraq should have been taken care of back in the early 90's. Ofcourse that was then, and this is now.

However like yourself, I agree with much of Ron's views. Hard not too, for me anyhow.

Would it be possible for Iraq to work harder or faster to get their act together?

One thing I feel certain of, we cannot run around the world every time 12 terrorist create havoc. Where to next? And after that?

Ron Paul was perfectly content to fight in Afghanistan, as long as our intent was to find the people who attacked us.

Iraq never attacked us. And we are not building bases in Iraq so we can leave when they get their act together. Ain't gonna happen.

LIttle reported in the media is that when we "surged" Bagdhad, we did so by largely by moving troops out of other areas. The areas that we abandoned ceased to be violent as soon as we left. Yes, the surge is working, if endless occupation is the goal, but if a return to life as normal is the goal then we need to leave.

Terrorism is always the result of occupation. Historically, terrorism has always ceased when the invaders leave. Nobody can predict the future, but the theory that they will follow us home isn't based on anything other than fear mongering.

AngelaTC, well stated, and yes I knew Ron's, and agree with his view towards Afghanastan.

My support for Ron Paul stems from my desire for a return to Constitutional law. Plain and simple. Ron Paul has integrity and I like his demeanor as well. Nonetheless Ron Paul is just one man. We need more. More men of his caliber.

We have wandered far from where our founders would have hoped we would be. MHO

Bear Stearns should send shivers down every American's spine. We have left the farm.

On the bright side, I get to vote for Ron.

Ron Paul did not vote for the Save Act. So I asked if it would be possible for his supporters to in the least delineate a framework that would reflect how NOT signing the Save Act is beneficial to activists opposed to illegal immigration. Just based on the reposnses all that I receive is zealotry and an almost cult like apologism. There is no need to change the point at hand to some tenor of confrontationalism. Is does nothing to forward Dr. Paul's message and does everything to make me think that a great deal of his supporters are fanatics, prone to fall into a cult like daze. Why do I say this? It is very simple and maybe if I break it down for you it will find its way from the limbic centers and into the frontal lobe, not just striaght to the fight or flight portion of the brain...

I asked if those who support Ron Paul could explain how his NOT signing the Save Act benefits US in the movement to stop Illegal Immigration.

The responses are: Ron Paul loves the Constitution. Why do people hate Ron Paul. If they would just enforce the laws. Do you want Hillary? etc etc.

These responses DO NOT answer the point at hand, which is this decision as it relates to the movement we are all part of.

There is no need to view intellectual differences as a slight against character unless one is defensive. I presonally think Ron Paul either made a bad choice, or a choice that follows some political philosophy. Whatever that philosophy is, it is in concordant opposition to what WE need. Where the factors that Ron Paul supporters seem to be getting hung up on is when purpose, intent and sound judgement are discussed. Frankly, I have looked to Dr. Paul as credible and full of integrity, a genuine person. That still does not mean he is above making a poor decision. Plus, given his record for thoughfulness and careful review, one would only surmise that he would decide based on a specific reason and not whim, I think on this we could agree. The only explanation that exists outside of his lack of explanation himself is that he is following the Libertarian platform. And regardless of whether he "is" doing this intentionally, he IS following their platform via being in opposition to this bill. Currently Paul is on the same page as Ted Kennedy in opposition to the Save Act. This is of course another fact. I would propose that they are different philosophically for sure, but it does not change things.

In my opinion, based on his voting record listed here:
Ron Paul Immigration Voting History

He supports Illegal and Foreign Labor and the avoidance of punishing businesses for hiring illegals. He also supports H1B worker inreases. This is clear and evident. The facts are right there.

One that sticks out is his choice to vote against the Border Fence:

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.

He supports Driver Licenses for Illegal Aliens:

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.

In 2002 he voted for Amnesty:

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).

He has always voted against using troops on the border. This is not a Conservative view, it is a Libertarian view.

These are the facts. So please explain, those who support Ron Paul, how his NOT signing the Save Act benefits US in the movement to stop Illegal Immigration.

Chosen, Ron Paul does not support the National ID Act either. Does that make him pro illegal immigration?

JMHO as I have not heard nor read his position on this yet, but, I believe it has to do with the constitutionality of the law and the other options available. We all want the same thing. That includes Ron Paul. How do we get there? No need to fight about it amongst ourselves. This will either happen in congress or it will not.

Personally I am really liking what I am seeing at the state levels. Not perfect, but a heck of alot better than what we had 2 yrs. ago or more.

Look at all of the laws that have been on the books that have not been enforced by the feds. Loopholes will always be found. That is the nature of the beast. Loopholes will be found with the Save Act as well. The states stand a much better position at enforcing laws than the feds. Minus the IRS ofcourse! JMHO Yes we do need some laws from the feds as well, and some ENFORCEMENT of the laws on the books that are present. The feds 1st obligation is to protect our borders, that is an old one and one would think a very commonsensical one to boot. Not much there, heh? Why all the faith in newer and fancier laws? They won't run any faster, look any prettier, shine any brighter, dazzle any better, unless they are enforced! Have we not seen enough smoke and mirrors?

What has the federal government taken from the states and actually made it work, efficiently?

Welfare, a permanent road to poverty!

Social Security, a slush fund!

Income taxes, another slush fund to generate more power to the feds.

Immigration issues, a cheap labor pool at their command!

Energy policy, another power trip!

Monetary policy, you just been robbed!

Ron Paul may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but, please show the one that is! Will Ron Paul be the one vote that will hold this bill up? I am willing to bet not. If this bill can be manipulated it will pass. If it can be corupted, it will pass. If it can be swept under the rug after a short trial run, it will pass. WITHOUT Ron Paul's vote.

Operation Wetback worked very well -- it was a federally enforced operation. ICE does an excellent job -- just understaffed, and underfunded. The border fence here in San Diego works, and it was built by the federal government. IMO America is in this together, and America needs this problem solved together. Otherwise Bill Richardson will simply make his state the corridor for illegals to pass through, as they spread throughout the country who do not want the invaders here.

I understand you guys find SAVE unconstitutional. Thats fine. Its just that myself, Chosen, and many others disagree. Its all about interpretation -- as its always been with the great document. I think that employers are giving a huge incentive to the invasion of the United States of America -- the biggest incentive of all for the greatest invasion ever. That is how I see it, and I think the founders would agree if they saw what is happening to our great nation. You have a different opinion, and that's cool. Just be aware, that the vast majority of our movement wants employers of illegals punished. If that is unconstitutional, then we have a largely unconstitutional movement.

I DO NOT THINK THAT RON PAUL IS A BAD MAN.

I simply think that he thinks strictly on the lines of libertarian principles. That is, let the free market decide......if an employer wants to cut labor costs to hire cheap third worlders, then he should be allowed. It is also clearly seen in his support for guest worker programs (federal programs?? ) It is the free market at work. That is how libertarian philosophy works. They see it as beneficial to the consumer, and everyone wins. I think the fundamental flaw in libertarianism is that it is clueless as to the cultural, social, and nationalistic loyalties of peoples across the globe. Money, individualism etc is all that matters. We are all blank slates that want to have the right to more property and money. The less restriction placed upon that, the better. I don't think a libertarian has the slightest clue about national loyalties, and that the people invading our nation will NEVER be loyal Americans. And that the people employing them are not loyal Americans, and are a huge reason our nation is being taken over.

BearFlagRepublic, I am not against going after employers. I think what OK has done recentely and AZ is great! The more the merrier.

The feds had passed laws after the Reagan Amnesty. Then America sat back and became complacent. The feds done nothing to enforce the laws and then the public rose up after 20 plus yrs and here we are again.

I have more faith in the states than I do the feds. I do not want to see the feds pass another 'there ya go boys, are ya happy now' bill. To be even more frank, I would like to see America hold our rep's feet to the fire til they enforce the present day laws and close the border. No more smoke and mirrors. I am VERY suspicious of anything these fellows (polite term) do.

Opening the border to Mexican trucks when we still have not controlled our borders seems absurd to me. Yet this has been done despite the courts and the congress's actions! We have some serious problems when we make laws and cannot, or will not enforce, or ignore those laws.

We have got a tiger by the tail! This will not be solved with magic bullets. Nor silver ones. (well maybe they would work.) If the Save Act were to pass, how much of America would stand up and cheer, and then switch the channel to football? Then what, wink and nod?

If the Save Act does not pass, would America demand that the flame be made hotter? Would the states be outraged and continue on their own? Will the Save Act state NO AMNESTY?