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

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by MW

That sort of confirms our suspicions from our earlier discussion, doesn't it?

Sure does. When defending Paul, its a lot easier to talk about his views on the war than it is to defend his record on illegal immigration...

FIRST OFF: You guys can cherry pick all you want. Most of the bills mentioned by MW do not have "the pork" that is attached..

ALSO, as stressed MANY times..

RON PAUL supports The National Guard and the Nation Guard AirForce at the border..... These are the same people in Iraq right now, fighting wars..
SO, he is "not" against military.... These men are equiped.

Also, what many of you don't understand what has shown itself over and over again in Iraq.. the Military is NOT a police force.. it fails at that. The miliatry is designed to "kill and destroy" ---

Border Patrol + National Guard + Wall == plenty.

Also..

RON PAUL IS RANKED:

Rated 100% by FAIR
Rated B by NumbersUSA

These are not "shabby" numbers.. the thing to consider when evaluating these items is that Ron Paul is against ALL THE MECHANISMS that cause illegal immigration.... you can't vote on these... per se', as immigration measures..

1. ABSOLUTELY NO AMNESTY
2. NO WELFARE or benefits to illegals.
3. NO birthright citizenship

By removing incentive, you remove the lure..

LISTEN EVERYONE.. IF YOU HAVE QUESITONS ABOUT RON PAUL..

JUST GO TO HIS SITE AND DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH..

www.ronpaul2008.com
www.ronpaullibrary.com

MW and Bear are very nervous and worried that Ron Paul is stealing "their" supporters, and he is..

Illegal immigration is defined by alot of issues in addition to a "fence".. Ron Paul has been writing about the "NAU" and issues of sovereignty for years now.

Hunter and Tancredo fans.... start warming up to Ron Paul.. because those two are dropping out soon, and Ron Paul will be your only chance... All the other GOP's are CFR members and will that border WIDE OPEN... and "if" they do close it, it will be after they instantiate the REAL ID (ghouliani already talking about it) and Amnesty....

Sorry I no longer have the link to this but here's what Ron Paul said about the Hunter Amendment:

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes:

Mr. PAUL : Mr. Chairman, I rise with serious concerns over this legislation, which although it does address some illegal immigration problems is woefully weak on real substance. I fear that should this bill become law as is, six months or even a year down the road we will see no substantial improvement on the critical issue of deporting illegal aliens and protecting our borders. Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to achieve ``operational control of the borders''? Shouldn't the federal government already have ``operational control of the borders''?

Here is a road map for real immigration reform. First we need better enforcement of the laws we've got--which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported and for our borders to be secure. These things are already law, but the executive branch over the past decades has failed to enforce them. Congress can pass any law it wants, but unless federal agencies enforce those laws they are meaningless.

Second we need to eliminate the two main magnets attracting illegal immigrants to illegally enter the country, the welfare magnet and the citizenship magnet. Failure to address these in an immigration bill raises questions about achieving real results. That is why I introduced three amendments to this bill, in the hopes that we can finally do something about the problem of illegal immigration.

I introduced an amendment to end so-called ``birth-right citizenship,'' whereby anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen. I introduced an amendment to end the practice of providing U.S. Social Security payments to non-U.S. citizens. And finally I introduced an amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving food stamps, student loans, or other federally-provided assistance. Unfortunately, none of my amendments were even allowed to reach the Floor for a vote.

There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention of and expedited removal of aliens, for example, are a good step. Also to be applauded is the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors at U.S. ports of entry each year from 2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately subject to the availability of funds. But overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration and border reform. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says, H.R. 4437 ``treats some of the symptoms, it does not, in fact, do enough to actually cure the illness.

I will not vote for neocons like Gooliani, McCanibal, anf Thomcon. If Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul do not get the Republican nomination then Paul needs to run as an Independent because it really does not matter who wins between the afore creeps and Hileery they're all Neocons.

Who are the men and women that put out the Federal Observer

BRIGHTNAIL SAID:
TOTALLY IGNORANT POST HERE!!!!

First off genius..... CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANISM IS ANTI-WAR!!!!

Also, NO Democrate has promised OR has a plan to get us out of Iraq, and most are planning on the idea of going into Iran.

You sound like someone who listens to hannity too much.

IF you don't like us being there, then let us get out. We are borrowing BILLIONS A DAY from China to fund this war. We are 9trillion in debt, and IF THIS WAS ABOUT "war" - we already won.

We are there to nationbuild... --- a NON conservative republican idea.. YET you support this, and so does all the other GOP/DEM candidates...

SO, I believe you have NO IDEA what party lines are really about...

If you stack Issue to Issue, voting record to voting record, RON PAUL IS THE LEAST LIBERAL and LEAST DEMOCRATIC than all the other GOP candidates..

Put down your kool-aid and get informed....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[-

Brightnail: There is NO DOUBT how strongly you feel about Ron Paul. But give some of us a break and by not refering to people who have doubts or questions as "WOW. TOTALLY IGNORANT POST HERE."
Choosing a candidate for the position of presidency isn't an experiment for pete's sake. You said some really mean things.

RON PAUL IS THE ONLY TRUE REPUBLICAN RUNNING.

Id re-think that if I were you !!!

The only thing that makes me nervous about Paul is his record on immigration. This thread started out in General Discussion, along with 2 other threads about Paul that got banished here to the junk-yard. We are not the ones that are nervous.

Here are my main concerns about Paul (that are very well adressed in the Federal Observer).

#1 Border security -- If Paul wants to physically secure the border, how does he intend on doing this? He has voted no on the fence and the military on the border.......so what is his plan? Dramatically increasing the size of the Border Patrol? I would be for that, but I have not seen him say this. He needs this to be part of his agenda, as this would be a huge under-taking. It needs to be laid out clearly to the American people. There needs to be a plan of action, not ambiguity.

#2 Employer sanctions -- I have never heard Paul say that he wants to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants. In fact, he has voted against it in the past, as well as in favor of guest worker programs. According to the Federal Observer article, my suspicians are well founded -- the Paul campaign told the author that Paul does not favor employer sanctions. This is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that jobs are the #1 magnet for illegal immigrants. Moreover, Paul is in favor of rewarding these employers with yet another, you guessed it, guest worker program.

I see no identifiable plan of action to solve the immigration crises we have. No plan for sealing the border. No plan for attrition through enforcement.

butterbean wrote:

Brightnail: There is NO DOUBT how strongly you feel about Ron Paul. But give some of us a break and by not refering to people who have doubts or questions as "WOW. TOTALLY IGNORANT POST HERE."
Choosing a candidate for the position of presidency isn't an experiment for pete's sake. You said some really mean things.

Please forgive BrightNail's behavior, butterbean. As per my personal observation she has a tendency of dealing with those that don't agree with her on Paul in a patronizingly superior manner.

BrightNail wrote:

FIRST OFF: You guys can cherry pick all you want. Most of the bills mentioned by MW do not have "the pork" that is attached..

Who's cherry picking? The votes provided are not allegations, but fact. They are actual votes that show his weaknesses on border security and other illegal immigrant issues.

RON PAUL supports The National Guard and the Nation Guard AirForce at the border..... These are the same people in Iraq right now, fighting wars..
SO, he is "not" against military.... These men are equiped.

In other words, Paul is not willing to "do whatever is necessary" to secure our borders. Let me remind you of his own words (from his web site):

"We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."

Paul has voted numerous times against sending our military to the border. Once again, this is fact, not allegation. Least we forget, he also voted against Hunter's fence amendment in 2005 (he flopped in 2006 and voted on the fence because he was running for President - he knew voting against it again would be political suicide). Interestingly, most of the votes against the below listed amendments were from the Democrat side of the aisle. Yes, Paul sided with the Democrats against securing our border. He chose the losing side each time because the amendments passed the U.S. House of Representatives every time they were brought up for a vote.

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 authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004

Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.

Voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control efforts in 2002

Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized 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 232-183.

Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate.

Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.

Voted against authorizing the use of troops on the border in 1999

Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=787

He can attempt to explain away these votes by claiming he supports sending the National Guard but not active duty military (note: the amendments made no mention of ACTIVE duty military). However, most of us have been around long enough to see right through that game. By the way, the National Guard is considered a reserve component of the armed forces. Do you have a link to something dated prior to his run for president that states he supports sending the NG to the border? Perhaps you have something dated before his run that explains his reasoning for voting against all the amendments to send members of our armed forces to the border? Understandably, I'd prefer to see some evidence to substatiate your claim that he supported having the military on the border. This proof must be dated prior to the beginning of the presidential campaigning rhetoric. Even if you are able to provide such proof, which would surprise me, it still doesn't fully excuse his voting against securing our borders through military force.

BrightNail wrote:

Hunter and Tancredo fans.... start warming up to Ron Paul.. because those two are dropping out soon, and Ron Paul will be your only chance...

I can't speak for Tancredo. However, Hunter has no plans of dropping out before the primaries. He is retiring from the Congress and plans on being around a while. I don't know what Paul web site your information is coming from but the following article may help clear up some doubts of his commitment (last I heard Hunter still had 2 million in campaign funds):

Hunter still upbeat about presidential bid

By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer

WASHINGTON ---- He doesn't draw throngs like Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani, but U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter has admirers in his longshot bid for the presidency.

The El Cajon lawmaker, who hasn't been able to move his campaign from the bottom tier of GOP candidates, met one of those fans in his Capitol Hill office recently.

"I really admire you and I'm glad you're running," Joe Sangiorgio, a George Washington University political science student and congressional intern, said while getting his picture taken with his choice for president. "I plan to vote for you, and I would give your campaign $50 million if I could."


Sangiorgio must not be paying much attention to the polls or standings in the race for campaign cash: Hunter is polling no more than 3 percent outside California and has raised a relative pauper's sum of less than $2 million.

Despite those numbers, the congressman told the North County Times earlier this month that he has no thoughts of dropping out.

Hunter also reflected on his record in Congress during the last 26 years, saying he is proud of his efforts on behalf of the military and defense industries, and that he believes large numbers of U.S. troops would leave Iraq next year.

Tough odds

Hunter's odds of getting elected president are pegged at 200-1 in Las Vegas, and his chances of raising anywhere near $50 million that Sangiorgio wished for, or suddenly winning favor among a large portion of the electorate, are seen by most observers as slim and none.

Despite that, the affable Hunter has nothing to lose by staying in the race, said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College who specializes in national politics.

"There's really no reason for him to withdraw yet," Pitney said last week. "He gets to take part in national debates standing next to the party's eventual nominee. This could be his last chance for national television exposure, so why give it up?

"He's retiring from Congress, where his party is now in the minority, so staying in and taking part in the primaries is all gain and no pain."

The low numbers Hunter has been getting don't appear to bother the folksy politician, whose 52nd Congressional District includes parts of Poway and Ramona. The former chairman and now-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee claimed he's had no thoughts of abandoning the effort and suggested surprise at even being asked the question.

"I'm not afraid of an election," he said. "To get out before the first numbers come in doesn't make any sense."

In debates, Hunter speaks forcefully about his desire to protect American jobs, and the needs to improve border security and maintain a strong military.

As the major candidates raise many millions to pay for media buys and dozens of political operatives, Hunter's Oct. 15 campaign finance report shows he has raised a paltry $1.7 million with only $132,741 in available cash. That compares with another bottom-tier candidate, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, who dropped out of the race Friday despite having raised more than twice as much as Hunter.

"We don't have a bunch of consultants that we have to pay," Hunter said as he munched on a turkey sandwich during a break in a series of votes taking place on the House floor. "We run a highly efficient operation."

'Great effect'

Rather than spend his campaign cash on media buys and staff, Hunter gets his message out through the "free media" at presidential debates and as a frequent guest on conservative radio and television. He travels to campaign events by commercial airliner, often relying on volunteers or a single paid staffer to shuttle him around once he's on the ground.

And despite only winning a couple of straw polls, the hawkish conservative will look you straight in the eye and say he is in to win.

"The real contest doesn't start until the January primaries, and I intend to do well in those elections," he said during a conversation in his congressional office, a large room adorned with numerous mementos and pictures of Hunter and his supporters during his time in office.

Hunter said he believes he has influenced the debate, pointing to his criticism of U.S. trade policy with China, which he says gives the Asian giant an unfair advantage over American manufacturers. He also claims to be the first to call for pre-emptive military action against Iran if it's shown that country is near production of an atomic weapon.

The leading GOP candidates have followed suit on Iran, building a fence along the majority of the border with Mexico and improving the trade and economic climate for U.S. manufacturers to preserve American jobs, he said.

"I think we're having a great effect. I'm out there every day trying to do the best I can to communicate my ideas and see if we can't draw a crowd."

But the crowds haven't responded in the way he had hoped. Nonetheless, he said plans to stay around after the first round of primaries and caucuses.

How long after that?

"If you get to the point where you're not getting any numbers at all and can't possibly recover, you don't stay in just for symbolic reasons," he said.

Congressional career

As he wraps up the penultimate year of his congressional career, Hunter said he will always be proud of his relationship with the military.

"The Armed Services Committee is one where you can really get things done," said the Vietnam War veteran, who was the panel's chairman until this year. "I was able to help rebuild the military during the Reagan era and work through the start of the missile defense system and the Contra wars."

In recent months, he has helped speed the development of new mine-resistant armored personnel carriers and increase funding and attention on efforts to defeat roadside bombs.

"We're in a new era of terrorists with technology and we've got to be able to respond. You take the best positions you can and try every day to do something good for this country.

"It's a long war, and there's not going to be any surrender ceremony like we saw on deck of the battleship USS Missouri at the end of World War II."

Despite some accusations of ties to men convicted or charged in the scandal of his friend and former U.S. Rep. Randy Cunningham, that relationship has not dogged Hunter on the campaign trail. Beyond a defense attorney's failed effort to subpoena him and other lawmakers, Hunter's name has not surfaced in any of the investigations linked to the now-imprisoned Cunningham.

When Hunter leaves Congress, his replacement could be his son, Duncan Duane Hunter, a U.S. Marine now serving in Afghanistan. The younger Hunter will face at least two other GOP challengers during the primary in his bid to keep a Hunter hold on the 52nd District and the family philosophy a part of California's congressional delegation.

Iraq and beyond

Somewhat surprisingly, Hunter is opposed to seeing the Marine Corps leave Iraq and assume major combat responsibility in Afghanistan, which Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway is advocating.

Hunter said he would rather see the 25,000 Marines come home from Iraq, as that country's fledgling army assumes responsibility for security with quick reaction forces called in if needed.

"Al-Qaida has been defeated on the battlefield in Anbar because of the hard work of the Marines," he said. "I would like to see the Marines rotate out of Iraq, and Afghanistan should be a place where our NATO allies really start participating in a more robust manner."

He predicted that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq next year will be far lower than the current 160,000. Putting greater pressure on the Iraqis to provide their own security could lead to substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops in the coming months, he said.

"The Iraq army can take over a lot faster than many people think," he said.

Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10 ... _22_07.txt

Hunter's confidence will carry me as a supporter until the end, regardless of whether that end is in the White House or not.

BrightNail wrote:

MW and Bear are very nervous and worried that Ron Paul is stealing "their" supporters, and he is..

Hmmm.........I'd think one could say the same thing about you. Of course they could probably add agitated and frustrated to the list too.

I stand by my position, Ron Paul is not all he's being hyped up to be, especially where border security and illegal immigration are concerned.

BearFlagRepublic wrote:

The only thing that makes me nervous about Paul is his record on immigration. This thread started out in General Discussion, along with 2 other threads about Paul that got banished here to the junk-yard. We are not the ones that are nervous.

You noticed that too, huh?

BearFlagRepublic wrote:

#2 Employer sanctions -- I have never heard Paul say that he wants to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants. In fact, he has voted against it in the past, as well as in favor of guest worker programs. According to the Federal Observer article, my suspicians are well founded -- the Paul campaign told the author that Paul does not favor employer sanctions. This is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that jobs are the #1 magnet for illegal immigrants. Moreover, Paul is in favor of rewarding these employers with yet another, you guessed it, guest worker program.

Remember, he also voted against the employer verification program.

I see no identifiable plan of action to solve the immigration crises we have. No plan for sealing the border. No plan for attrition through enforcement.

Like I've said in the past, it's not necessarily what Paul says that bothers me, it's what he doesn't say and how he votes!

Combine Paul's campaign rhetoric with his votes and you can see clearly why there are some of us that don't trust him.

see
I feel better !!!