Thread: Look at Ron Paul closely if illegal immigration top issue

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

Ron Paul should not be a viable candidate for those of us who consider illegal immigration and border security our top priority.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

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.

FOLLOWING YOUR OWN LINK

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


The response from Mr. Don Rasmussen (Special Assistant to Ron Paul 200 called and identified himself as the Campaign "point person on immigration." Was very ELUCIDATIVE


Friday, July 20 at 2:18pm:


Hey Sandra - I have thoroughly read through this e-mail and noted your concerns. It strikes me that. more than anything else, you should understand about Dr. Paul is that he never votes for any legislation that is not EXPRESSLY authorized by a LITERAL reading of the Constitution. This is the Congressman's consistent, overriding philosophy about government. It is limited in scope and the rule of law originates from the Constitution. Therefore, if there is a bill that has nine points which you and I agree are necessary aspects of border security, but also infringes on the Constitution, Natural Rights, in a 10th, unrelated provision, the Congressman's philosophy requires him to oppose it no matter how much he agrees with the border security provisions. This is called principled governance and it is admirable.

Therefore, where you point out that the Congressman voted against border security measures, it was not out of opposition to those measures, but rather opposition to other aspects of the bill that exceeded the federal government's authority under the Constitution. You may or may not agree with this philosophical principle, but that is how one rectifies Dr. Paul's stand on border security, which is as tough as Tancredo's or Hunter's, with his votes which reflect this larger principle. As president, Dr. Paul will have the bully pulpit from which to demand clean bills that address border security while avoiding the infringement on Constitutional liberties of Americans like you and I. Dr. Paul remains the strongest candidate with a strong border enforcement agenda.

As to the questions of militarization, Dr. Paul has stated publicly that he wants to withdraw the United States from the 130 countries to which we are currently deployed so that we can defend our borders effectively and without the massive drain on financial and human resources under which we currently suffer. He has been very critical of the Bush Administration for pulling border guards from the southern frontier in order to send them to Iraq to train Iraqi border security.

I hope this helps clarify Dr. Paul's position on this very important issue. If you have further inquiries, my door is open. Feel free to e-mail me and I will do my best to get you the answers you seek.

Yours in Liberty – Don

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.

Is that why he has voted repeatedly against military occupation on our borders? What about his vote against Hunter's border fence in 2005 (Amendment to Hr 4437)?

Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law.

I think all candidates agree with this.

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.

After the 1986 debacle, most proponents of amnesty don't call it amnesty anymore. Paul is on record as saying that it's not realistic to deport all illegal immigrants (or something similar). Hunter and Tancredo are the only two candidates I've heard actually come out and say we should deport all illegal immigrants.

Pass true immigration reform.

Isn't that what the Senate has tried to do twice in the last year? Oops, I forgot, they've been calling it Comprehensive Immigration Reform. IMO, we don't need reform, we need our border secured and our written laws enforced. I don't believe our current system is incoherent or unfair, but I do believe it is being seriously abused.

My first choice was Tancredo until I heard about his stands on bushe's war. I cannot agree with the killing of our kids for the wealth and greed of this administration and their corporations.
I am also against any candidate who supports this war.

Originally Posted by minnie

My first choice was Tancredo until I heard about his stands on bushe's war. I cannot agree with the killing of our kids for the wealth and greed of this administration and their corporations.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, explains the Ron Paul mystique.......

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

[And that, ladies and gentlemen, explains the Ron Paul mystique.......

NAU, SPP, Illegals are important to me but I cannot forget the almost 4,000 deaths and 30,000 wounded kids we have.
My VOTE has to show that I'm against this.

When are people going to figure out that we CANNOT CUT AND RUN FROM IRAQ????????

As much as I wish we had never gone there, we are in a position now, where we can't leave. THAT IS, UNLESS YOU ARE A LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT.

And just what is it that we are trying to accomplish over there? Why are we still in Afghanistan? Those countries have survived for centuries before the US was ever in existence. Are we in a war or is it a police action? What is the objective?