Thread: To the Ron Paul Campaign--Where do you Stand?

With the increased internet attention on Ron Paul, I'm concerned that too many people support what they THINK he stands for without knowing his REAL position.

So I penned an inquiry to his campaign, hoping after several tries to get a response.

Should I receive a response, I'll share it with ALIPAC people.
==============================================
Ladies and Gentlemen of the "Ron Paul for President" campaign:

I attended a March forum in Glendale, AZ where Congressman Paul's representative spoke; her name was Penny (I've forgotten her last name). When I questioned her on specifics of the congressman's immigration votes, she both denied them as well as gave useless replies. It was obvious that she wasn't prepared for questions on immigration votes that evening.

As an anti-illegal migration activist and a lifetime border-state resident, the immigration issue is my top priority. Until the problem is stopped, anything done to resolve our other problems (education, health care, taxes, jobs, economy, crime and national security) are futile and worthless.

I've read Congressman Paul's 6-Point program, and what's there sounds good. What isn't there give me pause, big-time. I've sought answers via attendance at speeches, radio broadcasts and review of the website, all to no aviail. Several fellow activists have asked me to pen questions, and I'm "blind-copying" them on this inquiry (as well as any response I receive).

(1) Employer Sanctions. Congressman Paul doesn't mention actions against employers who hire illegal aliens, which are current laws in effect. Nor does he mention even making the current Basic Pilot Program mandatory instead of voluntary. Indeed, he voted in 2003 AGAINST HR 2359, which would have extended the then-pilot program for 5 years.

What would he do to end the active magnet that brings illegal aliens to the US, often with the advance aid of employers? Or would he give business and employers a free pass?

(2) Border Fence. Congressman Paul doesn't mention building a security fence on the border to prevent illegal crossings. Illegal migration isn't the only thing to be stopped; drug traffic and human smugglers (the "non lettuce-picker" variety) cross the border as well.

Congressman Paul voted AGAINST the HR4437 Hunter Amendment, which provided 800-plus miles of security fence on the US-Mexico border. It appears that he opposes building a border fence. It's not only a requirement to most Americans; it's also common sense. A strong & secure fence should automatic for preventing entry. Military bases have fences, pools have them, the White House has them. And they have REAL fences, not "virtual fences."

3. Military on the Border. Because the Bush Administration refuses to enforce immigration laws and secure our borders, the areas have become hotbeds of violence for what little enforcement exists. Clearly, our military must be deployed there to stop the violence and constant incursions.

Yet Congressman Paul has voted FOUR TIMES against militarizing the border, most recently in 2005 with NO on Amendment 206 to HR 1815, in 2004 with a NO vote on the Goode Amendment to HR 4200, in 2003 with a NO vote on the Goode Amendment to HR 1588, in 2002 with a NO vote on Amendment 479 to HR 4546, and in 1999 by a NO vote on the Trafficant Amendment to HR 1401.

When I presented this question at the March forum, the only response "Penny" could offer was that Congressman Paul doesn't believe border patrolling is the best use of our military, but that's largely irrelevant. What other option beside military presence and enforcement does Congressman Paul offer for reversing the degenerated situation on the Southwest border?

It may not be the BEST use of the military, but it's the only one currently available since the Border Patrol is overwhelmed and will continue to be until illegal migration is stopped.

Congressman Paul frequently cites his refusal to vote for any legislation not authorized by the Constitution, but securing the US states against invasion is specifically authorized by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.

(4) Border Security. In his website statement, Congressman Paul advocates "Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country," but excludes two of the most powerful tools to achieve it: border fence and military presence. He also omits action against employers who lure illegal aliens to the US for taxpayer-subsidized cheap labor.

What does Congressman Paul include in "whatever it takes" that he WILL do to secure our borders and stop illegal migration? By his giving the "Top 3" a free pass, what's left? By themselves, ending welfare programs to illegal aliens and anchor-baby citizenship won't do the job.

(5) Amnesty. His website statement "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." sounds promising, but suggests that Congressman Paul objects to the sheer volume (10-20 million) rather than the amnesty principle itself.

Congressman Paul voted YES on "Section 245(i) amnesty" plans for illegal aliens:

In 2002, voted YES on HR 365. This amnesty passed Congress.
In 2001, voted YES on HR 1885, extending an illegal alien amnesty for 4 months
In 1997, voted NO on ending the Section 245(i) amnesty.

The 245(i) amnesty allowed illegal aliens with "sponsorship" by a family member or employer to pay a "fee" (sound familiar) and remain in the US until their petition for legalization was addressed. The backlog at the time would have allowed them to stay for years or even decades and evade the advance security screening done by US embassies in their home countries.

Estimates for these 245(i) amnesties that Congressman Paul supported were 200,000 - 400,000. Considering his consistent support for these 245(i) amnesties, it is the principle or the numbers that generate his current opposition to illegal alien amnesty?

During the Q-A session following her speech, "Penny" not only refused to explain why Congressman Paul voted FOR amnesty, she TWICE denied that he'd voted for them. So she was no help.

During his recent appearance on The Terry Anderson Show, Congressman Paul's answer was that he didn't remember what a 245(i) amnesty was. That answer flunks what I call The Judge Judy Test ("If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true.")

Congressman Paul (aka in Congress as Dr. No) has voted NO on so many measures that the few upon which he votes YES should be firmly in his memory. That he "doesn't remember" convinced no one on the radio broadcast; I'm offering another opportunity for him to explain his votes.

(5) Suspicion of accomodating business' demand for cheap labor. Review of the following votes (along with his careful omission of employer sanctions & mandatory Basic Pilot verification) suggests that Congressman Paul will do all possible to enable businesses to bring in cheap labor from abroad rather than hire Americans:

In 2006, co-sponsoring HR 793 with a loophole that would TRIPLE the number of H2-B (unskilled non-agricultural) visas present in the US.
In 1998, voting YES on HR 3736, allowing 150,000 more H-1B workers into the US
In 1998, voting NO on an alternate bill to HR 3736 that would have prevented hiring temporary foreign H-1Bs to replace Americans laid off.

Whether entry-level, unskilled ("jobs Americans won't do") or high-tech jobs that "we can't find qualified Americans" to do, Congress' accomodating business demands has enabled business to post invisible signs "No American Need Apply."

While Congressman Paul's recent votes have shown improvement, I suspect that at heart his Libertarian principles really support allowing business to bring in all the cheap labor they want, as easily and as quickly as they want.

(6) "Immigration Reform." His website urges "Pass true immigration reform" and securing the border "...before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."

In both cases, Congressman Paul cites the need for "immigration reform," but he doesn't cite what that includes. What principles of current immigration law would he change and/or eliminate?

Americans won't accept border security and immigration law enforcement in exchange for amnesty. Border security and enforcement are specified in the Constitution; we won't be coerced into accepting "reform" baloney to achieve what the Constitution provides.

(7) What he DOESN'T say. Nowhere does he state an objective of "stopping illegal migration." Nor does he mention proactive measures of interception of illegal aliens or expediting their deportation. I have to ask if Congressman Paul really does want to stop illegal migration or just "know who they are and where they are" no matter how great their numbers.

You'll have to pardon my skepticism, but the woods are full of candidates pandering to anti-illegal migration Americans; we've become a force to be reckoned with rather than just dismissing. It's incumbent on us to ask ALL the pertinent questions on any viable candidate.

That I've even taken the effort to assemble this "laundry list" means I consider Congressman Paul to be viable. I wouldn't even bother with candidates like Mitt Romney, Rudi Guiliani or John McCain because there's no doubt where they stand.

I made the effort to learn at the March forum, but Penny was no help at all. Nor was Congressman Paul himself much help on his recent appearance on The Terry Anderson Show.

Regards,

Ron Paul is very popular with the Libertarians.
He's also popular with the http://www.infowars.com and http://www.prisonplanet.com groups.

He is an unsual character .

I agree with him on most issues. He just needs to strengthen his position against illegal immigration. He does, however, have a better record against illegal immigration than most politicians in Congress.

I particularly like his stance on the IRS. A lot of people may not know, but he was in the film for a short clip "America: Freedom to Fascism" http://www.freedomtofascism.com

He also appeals to the younger crowd because he was against the Iraq war from the start and he is openly against any censorship of the internet that the powers at be are working on behind our backs.

Ron Paul is also a huge Constitutionalist. He has so many no votes because of this. He is also highly principled, a man with integrity. He will not be just another politician. I think these qualities are sorely needed right now in our nation, or we are going to lose this fight for our sovereignty. Illegal immigration is a part of this issue, but not the main gist of the issue itself. We must fight to retain this nation's right to govern herself! Also, he is strongly against the IRS, who we know is currently out of control.

I suspect the answer to your first question is that Paul would do the job of the Executive branch and enforce the laws of the land, including the currently NOT enforced immigration laws.

That said, I really want to hear a response from him on these other issues. Please do let us know what you hear.

Originally Posted by ILiveinArizona

(5) Suspicion of accomodating business' demand for cheap labor. Review of the following votes (along with his careful omission of employer sanctions & mandatory Basic Pilot verification) suggests that Congressman Paul will do all possible to enable businesses to bring in cheap labor from abroad rather than hire Americans

Wow, we are being tough on Ron today aren't we

But, you actually raise a number of very valid concerns. With regard to the above I would say i have to agree in light on comments Ron has made on the issue. From what I gather, Ron would be OK with amnesty as long as we end welfare -- which is a typical libertarian view. That is unacceptable in my book, and one of the reasons I am not a libertarian.

I want a patriot. A cultural conservative. Tom and Duncan fit the description. Ron's main concern is the gov'ts role over this or that. While I respect his devotion to the constitution, he seems to fail to realise we will not have a constitution if we allow Third Worlders to overwhelm our nation because we are not bonded by language, culture, and history. Tom understands this VERY well and that is why he is my guy.

DITTO TO BEAR!! your making my posting easy today bear

SO FAR the only worthy ones in my book are Hunter/Tancredo

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

DITTO TO BEAR!! your making my posting easy today bear

SO FAR the only worthy ones in my book are Hunter/Tancredo

Thanx, SOSAD

I agree. Ron is slipping from my list of favorites. Tom and Duncan, well I have absolutely nothing bad to say about them!!

Ron Paul on The Morton Downey Jr. Show in 1988: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

We do need troops on the border to stop both illegal aliens and illegal drugs from entering this country. Ron Paul is wrong to oppose troops on the border.

I am still looking at the candidates, but I keep going back to Duncan Hunter. He's a common sense type of guy with a personality that tells me he would work well with others without going against his American principals. He would be strong in foreign affairs and a good military leader. And I like the fact that he would rip up the trade agreement we have with China and start all over.

Unless someone better comes along, Hunter's my man.

I don't believe Ron Paul is a viable candidate so why waste time on him. Tancredo and Hunter are much more plausible IMHO.