Thread: Paul Not Co-sponsor of SAVE ACT

Why all the RP hate... All we need now is a Romney is CFR to bring back the old times..lol

Originally Posted by Pistov

Why all the RP hate... All we need now is a Romney is CFR to bring back the old times..lol

Romney is a CFR member.

I called Paul's office and they had no answer for me. Hmmmmmmmmm

Originally Posted by Pistov

Why all the RP hate... All we need now is a Romney is CFR to bring back the old times..lol

I don't view the legitimate questioning of why Rep. Paul has not signed a simple petition as 'hate' at all. Some people just want to know if and/or when he will sign the petition - that's all...

Overall, Rep. Paul's record on the subject is pretty good - evidence:

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/tes ... &VIPID=787

However, it would be nice to have confirmed his intent to want to punish employers of illegals - that's all.

Just thinking out loud. If this SAVE ACT is so good, and it does pass, will it not be amonst the oh so many other good laws on the feds books that are not enforced? Could it be smoke and mirrors put forward during an election year with its sole purpose to nulify those who are so adamant about border security and illegal immigration reform? If this SAVE ACT passes will it take the pressure off of the pro amnesty canidates?

Okay you xenophobic bigots, you got what you wanted, can we get on with other business now?

The states are doing a good job on their own right now, and this is making the feds look stupid and inept. Another law that is not enforced will do more harm than good.

GO RON PAUL!

So what I'm hearing you say is "do nothing." Nothing is worth it.

No Gogo, I merely pointed out a possibility. I also stated that there are many laws on the books that are not being enforced. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

If the SAVE ACT passes, will this take the pressure off of the states to quit passing simular laws at the state levels? The states have trusted the wisdom of the feds in the past, have they not? Where has this led us?

Just threw it all out there for stimulation. I am not so quick to jump during normal times, I am even less likely to jump during an election year. Promises are short lived during these election years.

I would like to hear how you felt towards the reverse psychology that I attempted to throw out there. I did not say anywhere to "do nothing."

What I come here for is further stimulation of the gray matter that we all claim to have. I am not affraid to throw my opinions around. if someone stomps on them and states why, or if they add to them, I am the greedy fellow who gains.

Oh, and another thing...REMEMBER ...Ron Paul follows the Constitution, he is for LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT..you know, the 10th amendment. If this is something he feels the Federal Government should keep their hands off of..he won't sign it.. He will say..leave it to the states and to the people. CONSTITUTION PEOPLE! STOP BIG GOVERNMENT NOW!

I do not see the point in constantly reminding folk about what Ron Paul is and what he stands for. In this particular case, he voted against the SAVE act.

Ron Paul has never been the strongest candidate against illegal immigration in the first place. He received a B on the immigration score card, with a C- when it comes to securing the border. During his career he refused to vote on legislation that deals with illegal alien refugee action and asylum.

Scorecard here:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/tes ... &VIPID=787

In fact he voted to increase H1B worker numbers.

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 an amendment to reduce funding for the visa waiver 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 waiver program. This amendment failed 76-347.

Here he votes against 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.

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.

Votes against use of military on the border:

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 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.

Here he votes for a defacto AMNESTY:

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.

There are many more problems with his voting record, I just picked out a few. These are the facts, I don't think there is really any way to spin them.

You can view this record here:
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=787

I simply view candidates on their record, not on anything else.

Great points jazz. One only need to go to Ron Paul's web site and read his positions on illegal immigration, border security, and constitutional matters, and they will quickly find that this whole thread could quickly become misleading and twisted to make Ron Paul look bad. Afterall, it is the season to push for McCain.

I am begining to believe that alot of people that say they wish their politicians would adhere to constitutional principles and to govern according to the Constitution are truely apprehensive of just how much courage would be needed to see that through.

Sortof akin to going to the dentist, no one wants to go and sit in the chair, even though they know it is for the best.

Others perhaps just wish to wave the Constitution about when conveinent.

Remember Waco? They were just a bunch of religous kooks. How long will it take for Constitutional kooks to be treated like kooks?