Thread: Ron Paul's Web site Border Security and Immigration

Ron Paul's Web site

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Border Security and Immigration Reform On the Issues

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
Border Security and Immigration Reform

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/borde ... on-reform/

Two quick points:

#1 Paul wants to "physically secure the border," yet he gives no indication of how this is to be done. Certainly not with a fence, nor with the US military. Paul is on record as having voted against both in Congress. We would need to TRIPLE our Border Patrol for them to take care of it. Yet this is not put forward.

#2 Where are the employer sanctions in Paul's policy? Where is attrition through enforcement?

Obviously we have the views here on border security in which probably 80% of this country wants however all the socialist democrats and neocon republicans are bought out by globalist. We need a party who believes in personal responsibilty and citizen responsibility.

The neocons have us policing nations who only depend on our military for security, this philosophy is wrong on our part and unConstitutional. Equal or mirror trade agreements and their own national defense and alliances with neighbors will prevent us from being responsible for other nations.

The Libertarians believe in free trade however whether they support mirror policies with the countries we trade with is unclear. Supposedly they want sovereignty and how they can accomplish that with free trade and no border patrol or holding employers responsible for hiring illegals or anything is not clear. Their view on guest workers is unclear however they are against taxation and we all know guest workers are a tax burden for citizens while farmers, the top of the pyramid in some denominations, construction etc... benefit. No wonder there are so few Libertarians because their views are undefined and vague.

Hopefully the undefined and vague principles of the Libertarian policies was why Paul left that party and became a Republican even though the GOP does not fund him!

Originally Posted by sturmruger

The neocons have us policing nations who only depend on our military for security, this philosophy is wrong on our part and unConstitutional. Equal or mirror trade agreements and their own national defense and alliances with neighbors will prevent us from being responsible for other nations.

Neocons suck. Constitution? I wish we had the ideals of the founders......I actually would settle for the 1960's trade policy

The Libertarians believe in free trade however whether they support mirror policies with the countries we trade with is unclear. Supposedly they want sovereignty and how they can accomplish that with free trade and no border patrol or holding employers responsible for hiring illegals or anything is not clear. Their view on guest workers is unclear however they are against taxation and we all know guest workers are a tax burden for citizens while farmers, the top of the pyramid in some denominations, construction etc... benefit. No wonder there are so few Libertarians because their views are undefined and vague.

Libertarians don't seem to understand their own policy. When they do, they should get back to us. Until then, their immigration policy sux.

Hopefully the undefined and vague principles of the Libertarian policies was why Paul left that party and became a Republican even though the GOP does not fund him!

Hopefully, but I believe it was just a way to get more votes, and to get national attention from a major politcal party

#2 Where are the employer sanctions in Paul's policy? Where is attrition through enforcement?

This is one reason why I don't trust Paul. Is he the same guard of the coportate elites as GWB or any other ate up Republican?

October 26, 2007 Vol. 07, No. 298

Miller: The Ron Paul Mystique
Part I: What's so different about Ron Paul?
By S. J. Miller

Dust from the November 2006 election had barely settled when presidential candidates began assembling for the 2008 campaign. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), most were known quantities. Lots of "folklore" has been circulated about Congressman Paul, but how much is actually fact vs. "factoid?"

Dr. Paul's distinction among Republican candidates is that he's the only one who opposes the War in Iraq. As an American who long ago realized that the US military is used as a corporate security force to protect globalist assets and interests overseas, and the "wars" and "police actions" are mounted whenever global capital interests are threatened, I felt Dr. Paul deserved further investigation as a viable candidate. Whether or not he actually emerges as the winning GOP candidate isn't as important as his forcing RNC recognition of opposition to the Iraq War among conservative voters.

"Doing my homework" as an informed voter didn't mean I began with Ron Paul as a blank slate; an old family friend had told me of his Libertarian background, his unorthodox "Constitution-only" stands and her respect for him. Like most Southern Californians, she thoroughly disapproves of his "open borders" position and his past support for illegal alien amnesty, but she supports him because she knows of his love for America.

Selecting the Immigration/Border Security issue as my yardstick for evaluating whether Congressman Paul's positions were well-founded and realistic doesn't make me a "one-issue" voter. I chose the issue that I'm most savvy on; many years as an activist on an issue that politicians don't want to discuss has given me valuable experience in recognizing evasion and "phony baloney."

As of early 2007, Dr. Paul hadn't published his "official" position on Immigration/Border Security. His House of Representatives website (www.house.gov/paul) doesn't have an "issues" page, nor did I find anything on his Liberty Caucus site. The www.ronpaul.com site that his supporters claim gives a thorough explanation of all pertinent information and links was under construction, as was his "Exploratory Committee" website.

So my only feasible starting point was the Libertarian Party website, where I found that I agree with many Libertarian views. I do join many Americans in the two I oppose strongly: "open borders" and "open access to drugs." Congressman Paul's campaign website agrees with these LP positions. Since reports that Dr. Paul supports legalizing prostitution lack substantiation, I discarded them as gossip.

Mrs. Penny Langford Freeman came to town.

A great "educational" opportunity arrived in February 2007 via a program with speakers opposing the North American Union, including Ms. Penny Langford Freeman, assistant to Congressman Ron Paul. I recognized a great opportunity to learn more about a Presidential candidate that held the promise of the new blood Americans are calling for the in the 2008 election.

I was particularly interested in learning how Congressman Paul reconciles his opposition to NAU and NAFTA with his Libertarian Party's "open immigration" platform. When evaluating politicians' promises and "positions," I've adopted The Judge Judy Test: "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true." Not only is it easily understood by virtually everyone, but it's also been foolproof.

Considering the current interest of Americans on the immigration issue, it wasn't easy to locate his position. Despite Mrs. Freeman's insistence that www.ronpaul.com and the "Exploratory Committee" websites answered all questions on Dr. Paul's position, they were still under construction.

Just before the speech, I revisited the Libertarian Party website where its "Issues" page listed what the LP regarded at the time as "Hot Issues:" High Gas Prices, Corruption on Capitol Hill, the Iraq War. Neither the NAU/SPP nor Immigration/Border Security qualified as "hot issues!"

Without the Dr. Paul's Immigration Report Card of his votes assembled by NumbersUSA, I'd have been sunk.

Mrs. Freeman spoke on Congressman Paul's early recognition of the virus affecting America (erosion of US sovereignty). Hearing Mrs. Freeman tell us that Paul "always tells the truth, even when he knows it isn't what people want to hear" certainly sounded promising for hearing a candid and forthright statement on where Ron Paul really stands. When she called for audience questions, I lost no time in getting to the mike.

Ron Paul's voting record
I'd collected Ron Paul's voting record on the very strategies urged that night to reverse the influence of "one-world government:" hiring Americans, no amnesty for illegal aliens and border security based on Paul's Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:


(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:

2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815
2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586
2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.


(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.

(3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),

(4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - "Enforcement Only" Bill).

(5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 199. In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.

What a surprise to hear Mrs. Freeman focus her reply not on the five items I'd presented, but instead on Congressman Paul's introduction of a bill banning "birthright citizenship" (actually one of several in the Congressional hopper). Was this another example of the politicians' shell game?

I reminded her that my questions weren't about birthright citizenship, but instead about using the military on the border, opposing the border fence amendment to HR 4437, his support for several Section 245i amnesties for illegal aliens and increased guest-worker visas for jobs Americans want. She apparently realized that I wouldn't be blown off so easily and spoke to the questions presented.

She said a border fence wasn't needed; sensors at the border would be enough. On the matter of the military on the border, she said it wasn't necessary--the Border Patrol should be fully empowered to do the job. She claimed that the job was done more effectively without the military when states patrolled their own borders, adding an anecdote about Texas Rangers' success in stopping diseased cattle from crossing the border.

My genealogical research tells me this is baloney. My great-grandfather served on the southern border at Fort Ringgold, TX while in the US Army (Fifth Infantry, Company E) from 1885-1889. Post Returns and Annual reports filed by military commanders to their superiors telling their duties and activities make clear that the Army and Cavalry patrolled the southern border at the time during Arizona and New Mexico territorial days. These reports were published as leather-bound books, distributed to senators, congressmen and others who eventually donated their copies to public and private collections (the set I used is maintained at the University of Nevada Reno library). "Post Returns" are a land military base equivalent of a ship's log, and are maintained by the National Archives.

She complimented the Minutemen on how effective their work has been, suggesting that she believes their mission is permanent. (Perhaps she hasn't heard Chris Simcox tell that the Minutemen eagerly await the day when the federal government will assume their constitutional duty and let the Minutemen go home.)

When Mrs. Freeman insisted that Ron Paul has NEVER voted for illegal alien amnesties, I further questioned, "He's never voted to support amnesties under 8 USC Section 245i?" with the bill numbers above. After a slight hesitation, she repeated the denial.

While the "Section 245i Amnesty" wasn't the same "path to citizenship" or "earned legalization" touted in "comprehensive immigration reform," it qualified as amnesty by "allowing an illegal alien to remain in the US legally"--the distinction is that 245i was for a temporary amnesty period rather than permanent. 245i was a loophole in the 1996 IRCA that barred illegal aliens from receiving visas for 10 years. By paying a "fee," illegal aliens who applied for legal status could remain in the US while their application was reviewed and evade the usual investigation done in their home countries. (This has a familiar ring!) The 245i program has since ended, but Ron Paul voted for its continuance in 1997, 2001 and 2002, and voted AGAINST ending it later.

Because all illegal alien amnesty bills during the past 5 years have originated in the Senate rather than the House, Congressman Paul hasn't been put in a position of casting a publicly-recorded vote on illegal alien amnesty since 2002.

It was obvious that Mrs. Freeman was not only unprepared but also unwilling to speak to Paul's voting record on immigration issues, which shocked me. Others in the audience apparently recognized Mrs. Freeman's evasions when they approached me afterward and inquired the source of my research.

To encounter from the Ron Paul camp the same evasions characteristic of typical hack politicians was disappointing, but I knew other opportunities would be forthcoming as the presidential campaign continued.

Directly from the Paul Campaign
And that's exactly what happened. As months passed, the Ron Paul Campaign website (www.ronpaul2008.com) was updated with his http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/borde ... ion-reform on Immigration Reform / Border Security, and several Paul supporters assured me it would answer all my questions.

They were wrong. The 6 Points raised more questions than it answered; I was underwhelmed.

So on July 8 2007, I e-mailed an inquiry to the Ron Paul campaign via its website, outlining specifics that I recognized were missing from the "6-Point Plan." Activists on the immigration issue have learned that what a politician DOESN'T say is just as important as what is acknowledged and it was clearly true of Ron Paul.

The inquiry can be found HERE. Public posting not only shared awareness of how ambiguous was the "6-point Plan, but the current interest level in Ron Paul generated lots of speculation and postings even without the campaign's reply. It effectively "opened the public debate."

My July 8 inquiry remains unreplied to this day. Not what I would have expected from a candidate claimed to tell the whole truth, even when it's not what people want to hear. On the other hand, it wasn't such a surprise after the February speech experience.

10 days later on July 18, I re-sent the inquiry and this time followed up with a phone call to the campaign. I did learn that the campaign staffers monitor phone calls much more conscientiously than e-mails when I received a call the following day from the campaign's "point-person on immigration," Don Rasmussen. He wanted me to go to RonPaul2008.com, where he would "walk me through" each point that would answer all my questions.

"Not so fast, Mr. Rasmussen," I said. "I've read your 6-point plan and it's the result of the ambiguities it contains that I sent my inquiry. Since I've spent the time to organize the "action items," why don't you give me your e-mail address, I'll send you a copy of the inquiry and you can respond to that." That Mr. Rasmussen gave me his e-mail address @ronpaul2008.com told me he was a legitimate campaign spokesman.

I was initially impressed that, true to his word, Mr. Rasmussen did reply within 24 hours. I would have been even more impressed had his reply actually addressed the items I presented rather than just offer a generic "one size fits all" evasion of hiding behind some nebulous definition of "we always follow the Constitution." Past emphasis on Congressman Paul's integrity led me to expect more than the standard evasion that I've heard from staffers of (for example) Senators John McCain or Jon Kyl. In the next installment, read Congressman Paul's positions on immigration, directly from the campaign's "point person on immigration," Mr. Don Rasmussen.

READ THE REST OF THE STORY:
Part II: "Ping-Pong Interview" with Ron Paul's point person on immigration

Part III: The Ron Paul I See

Part IV: The Ron Paul I See, continued

August 5, 2007

© S. J. Miller, 2007. All Rights Reserved

~ The Author ~


S. J. Miller is a veteran activist against illegal migration who joined the exodus from California and now resides in Arizona. Twenty-seven years' experience designing and maintaining computer applications was excellent training for pressing politicians for their positions on an issue they preferred to avoid recognizing.

Growing up in Southern California provided the best classroom for learning about illegal migration, with the further experience as a lifetime border state resident of California, Texas and Arizona.

She participated in Arizona's 2003 ballot initiative for Prop 200, and organized "Congressional Visiting Teams" to face Phoenix-area congressional staffers with citizens opposed to illegal migration. IT engineering experience in "reading between the lines" has served well in determining Ron Paul's position on immigration & border security for the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Miller can be reached for comment at sjm20727@qwest.net

The S. J. Miller Archive on The Federal Observer

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11832

I hate to be redundant (I've posted this article before), however, I feel the selection of our next President may very well be one of the most important decisions our country will make for years to come. Make no mistake about it, we are at a criticial juncture in our country's history.