Thread: Please read Tom Tancredo’s article on Ron Paul and amnesty

Please read Tom Tancredo’s article on Ron Paul and amnesty.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=298533
Here’s a few quotes:

He(Ron Paul) says that immigrants “have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits.â€

It is not hard to see whose side Ron Paul is on...and it is not ours.

Ron Paul fools the people with his pretty words, but at heart he is a flaming liberal Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Ron Paul is looking forward to the day when his hopes come true, and all of our borders are gone.

If a person is for the immigration laws of the United States, and supports the Constitution and our sovereignty, don't vote for Ron Paul. He does not respect our constitution, and throws out his own ideas to handle illegal immigration. Ron Paul claims he is the only candidate who stands in all ways on the Constitution, this proves what he says is not true.

There were some good youtubes on this link about Ron Paul and his limmigration stands, but they are not working on Youtube now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://chip91.wordpress.com/

Ron Paul’s Liberal Record on Border Control

snip~
Posted by chip91 on November 11, 2007

In Congress, Ron Paul has been a major roadblock to securing our borders from Illegal Immigrants.

2005: Ron Paul voted against the Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 4437 to increase border controls

Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.

2005: Ron Paul voted against H.R. 418 to increase border controls

Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 418 to strengthen border control by requiring completion of the last 3.5 miles of the San Diego border fence. As well, H.R. 418 would broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens. H.R. 418 passed by a vote of 261-161.

2004: Ron Paul voted against the Virgil Goode (R-VA) Amendment to H.R. 4200 authorize the U.S. military on the border

Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain conditions, to assist in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.

2001: Voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 2586 to authorize the use of troops on the border

Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control efforts. The Traficant Amendment passed by a vote of 242-173.

Continue for more of the story : http://chip91.wordpress.com/

Is Ron Paul "Soft" on Immigration?
Share This Story
Submitted by Reason Foundation on May 3, 2011

By Brian Doherty

Super keep-em-out-er Tom Tancredo gets bummed by Ron Paul's latest comments on immigration in his new The New York Times bestseller Liberty Defined, as reported by Jim Antle in American Spectator:

Is Ron Paul the next "pro-immigration libertarian" to bedevil conservatives? VDare's Washington Watcher columnist surveysLiberty Defined, Paul's latest book, and finds a "tragic turnaround on immigration." In an email to supporters of his PAC Friday, Tom Tancredo accused his former congressional colleague and fellow 2008 Republican presidential candidate of doing a "180 turn" on immigration and "standing with La Raza and the Chamber of Commerce."

"I have served with Ron Paul in Congress for ten years and consider him a friend," Tancredo continued. "While we have differed very publicly on issues such as the threat of Radical Islam, he had generally been an ally on immigration in Congress. He was a solid vote against amnesty, a leader in ending birthright citizenship, and joined my Immigration Reform Caucus."

According to these critics (I haven't read Liberty Defined yet), in his book Paul repeats cliches about illegal aliens only doing jobs Americans won't do, canards about using the Army for mass deportations, and comes out for some kind of "generous visitor worker program" that bars participants from receiving government benefits. Paul remains opposed to amnesty -- though Tancredo characterizes this last position as "amnesty with an 'asterisk'" -- and birthright citizenship, but is also against Arizona's SB 1070, E-Verify, and employer sanctions against hiring illegal aliens.

While Tancredo might be angry that there is no concentrated tone of anger or vilification toward immigration, Paul specifically does in the book tip his hat toward Hans-Hermann Hoppe's theories that in a fully libertarian world of nothing but private property, that free migration would be highly restricted.

And when Paul lays out imigration policy in the book, it goes something like this: abolish the welfare state to eliminate incentives to freeload; have a generous visitor work program for those who want to come here to work; also have more border guards to enforce current laws, and permit states to enforce current immigration law. End birthright citizenship. Stop all federal mandates for free education and medical care for illegal immigrants. No legally compelled bilingualism.

Do not, however, punish employers for not enforcing immigration laws themselves. No citizenship for current illegal immigrants, but grant them some sort of "in-between status," which he grants might be problematic but he sees as better than trying to ship millions of them out. And police should be able to determine someone's citizenship if they have already been "caught participating in a crime."

This all might not be as harsh and angry as Tancredo likes toward people who cross borders without proper papers, but it's far from the more free-wheeling attitude toward immigration that is often pushed around these parts and that really aggravates the Tancredos of the world. Paul refers to "completely closed borders and totally open borders" as "two rash options."

It seems to me the Paul approach that just might work in GOP primaries even if it doesn't meet 100 percent no borders libertarianism, an idea that Paul also refers to as "the ideal libertarian world" solution, but one he thinks this ol' world isn't ready for.

Jim Antle raises the idea that Paul is deliberately shifting his immigration focus "perhaps in anticipation of competition with the more conventionally open-borders libertarian Republican Gary Johnson." This strikes me as extremely unlikely; read Liberty Defined in its entirely and its hard to detect any pandering to any audience about anything in it. It doesn't read like a campaign document seeking votes or voters; it reads like a committed man explaining what he thinks about things. Besides, there is probably little juice to be gained in GOP primaries by being even mildly pro-immigration.

And while Johnson told me he repudiates the idea on further thought, an early pamphlet from his "Our America: The Gary Johnson Initiative" says that he believes "Verification systems must be used for all workers," a restrictive idea Paul with his opposition to Real I.D. and to forcing employers to help enforce immigration laws has always been against.



http://www.opposingviews.com/i/is-ron-p ... mmigration

So whose words should I trust..... Ron Paul supporters, or people who fight to enforce our immigration laws. Think I will trust the people against illegal immigration.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/ron-paul.html





[size=117]Oppose Amnesty/Legalization

â–* Although Rep. Paul has always opposed amnesty, he also refuses to back enforcement measures that would lead to significant attrition of the illegal population. The effect of his positions is a de facto amnesty, and he recently has talked of the impossibility of handling most illegal aliens in any way but giving them some way to stay in the U.S. He tends to use the same language as the pro-amnesty lobbies who say the choise is between mass deportation or some sort of legalization.
â–*At the Republican debate on September 7, 20
11, Rep. Paul said: "Obviously, [illegal immigration is] a very big problem. I think we need to remove the incentive -- easy road to citizenship. Nobody has mentioned the fact that they qualify for benefits as well, you know, the welfare benefits. We shouldn't have to give -- the state of Texas shouldn't be forced to provide free health care and free education."

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us...pagewanted=all

â–*During the debate at the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll on August 11, Rep. Paul said, "I don't think we should give amnesty and [let illegal aliens] become voters.... I don't believe in giving entitlements to illegal aliens, and I don't support a mandate on the states to do so."

Source:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...enty-cain.html
â–* In his 2011 book Liberty Defined, Rep. Paul says that “immigrants that can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship -- no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a 'green card' with an asterisk should be issued.... It could be argued that [this system] may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits -- a much better option than deportation.â€