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

VERY WELL PUT MW!

GREGAGREATAMERICAN wrote:

I feel better !!!

That's a good thing.

butterbean wrote:

VERY WELL PUT MW!

Thank you, butterbean.

Okay, let's calm down people. Just keep in mind that while we have our own personal favorite candidates, we are all ultimately on the same side; We want the rule of law in our country restored and out of the hands of the Globalists.

To shed some perspective on the article that was posted, I was contacted by two different people with the following information:

FYI:

Sandra Miller, the author of this speil, is an AVID Tom Tancredo supporter. She is also (and has been for a LONG time) on a power kick. What she got SOO irate about is that she sent the RP HQ an email several weeks ago and they didn't see fit to go down and answer her little missive in the point by point manner that she desired sssooooo....she sent then another email and still failed to get exactly the response that she wanted. As this made Ms. Miller feel like she wasn't as important to the RP Campaign as she feels like she deserved, she wrote out this garbage about Dr. Paul's record. I have attempted to clue her in about why Dr. Paul voted against some of those bills that she liked so well (there were amendments attached to them that Dr. Paul couldn't support) but, she's having too much fun and garnering too much attention to back off her stance now.

How do I know all this, you ask? I am a co-founder of the Tennessee anti-illegal immigration organization (www.tnrip.org) and have had dealings with her for YEARS now. As a matter of fact, a little over a year ago, she called me long distance to DEMAND that I change something on our home page!! When I politely refused, she went on a tirad and bad-mouthed our group all across the country even though we are all fighting for the same cause. She's an attention seeking, control freak which is pretty well negating a lot of the good work she's done on this issue in the past.

Something else that may be pertinent is the fact that I have known and admired Congressman Tancredo for several years and have gotten to spend quite a bit of time with discussing a variety of issues. Everyone who knows me is well aware of how I feel about Tom and, yet, I have come out as an avid supporter of Dr. Paul because I can not be a one-issue voter. With that being said and, as someone who is deeply involved in this illegal immigration mess, I wouldd NOT be supporting Dr. Paul if I were not 100% comfortable with him on this issue as well as a host of others.

'nuff said.

----------------------------------------

Didn't get the full name from this person. Just a user name:

Back when the first part of that article came out, I called his House office and talked to an aide. I don't remember the whole think verbatim, but I remember the vote I was the most concerned about (It was the one depicted in the article like it was a vote for amnesty), was explained to me somewhat like the following.

1. The author is being very misleading, the vote was not for amnesty at all.

2. There were a bunch of people currently in the process of either getting their work visas extended, or within the government's process of becoming a citizen and the time period was almost expired. The problem wasn't the people. They had and were doing everything they were supposed to do. They did not enter this country illegally at all. They had all the proper paperwork. Had applied for extensions and they were supposed to be processed by the gummit LONG AGO, but because of how crappy the government is, they were hugely backlogged and were not going to get them done in time.

By their ineptitude alone, it would have created a bunch of criminals, just because their paperwork had not been processed in time. The bill that Paul voted for, extended the time period. That's all. Finite.

Call his House office and ask for an aide that handles immigration, yourself, if you want to. Be sure and ask why he voted like he did on certain things, or they will refer you to his campaign office. The campaign office phone flunkees do not have NEAR the knowledge that his House aides do. So, don't let them know this has anything to do with his Presidential run.
--------------------------------

Well, I hope this puts to rest once and for all the smear tactics that Ron Paul is weak on illegal immigration. While I will continue to post the latest news on Ron Paul, I will also continue to refrain from specifically attacking Tancredo or Hunter out of mutual respect for their supporters on these friendly but spirited forums. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

Chloe24 wrote:

'nuff said.

While I appreciate your tactful manner in responding, none of what you've said really explains away the facts that have been presented.

Back when the first part of that article came out, I called his House office and talked to an aide. I don't remember the whole think verbatim, but I remember the vote I was the most concerned about (It was the one depicted in the article like it was a vote for amnesty), was explained to me somewhat like the following.

1. The author is being very misleading, the vote was not for amnesty at all.

According to NumberUSA it was an amnesty vote. I've found NumberUSA to be very knowledgeable in defining the implications of a vote. If they say it was an amnesty, that's good enough for me. Furthermore, after reading your description, it sounds like an amnesty to me. A specific deadline was set for legalization, however, it was extended to purposely allow more legalization - that's amnesty.

Well, I hope this puts to rest once and for all the smear tactics that Ron Paul is weak on illegal immigration.

I wouldn't exactly call getting the facts out a smear tactic. Nothing can be said to explain away the votes he's made in the past. You've provided a lot of he said, she said, information (and it's appreciated), however, Paul's voting record is well documented and available for all to see. The adamant support you've shown for your candidate of choice is commendable, however, in regards to border security and illegal immigration, I'm not sure your loyalty is deserved.

Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate - We don't seem to have one anywhere in the running.

Tancredo is my first choice - but I fear he can't win. He will be buried by the Republicans, the money people, and the media (one and the same really).

I have such respect and admiration for him for standing up by himself much of the time to speak out on this subject. He has crossed the WH, the media, the corporations and his own party many times and has been attacked for it.

As much as I would like to see him elected, I just don't think he can be - as painful as that is for me to say.

I am not sure, if Paul voted against military on the border, why he did. Was there something else in the bill that went against the consititution?

As to the fence, I think the fence issue is a stall. The ones voting for it know it can't be completed for years. By the time it could be completed they can have amnesty in place, one piece at a time. They have no intention of really building a fence - or of it being built in time to fix anything.

The fence does nothing about the 20M+ already here and the anchor babies being born every minute.

Also, he may think the best solution is some sort of temporary work program. Suppose he could enforce the laws against employers, cut them off from welfare, allow them to be punished for their many transgression of our laws (traffic, etc.)? Suppose the temporary worker programs did not allow for the bringing in of families? Suppose he would deport any and all illegal criminals? Would that not take care of 90% of what we want? It would for me.

I can live with a temporary worker program - not a guest worker program - but a temporary which leaves the families back in Mexico, and has a time limit.

As to why we are still safe from terrorists, it is a puzzle, but I am absolutely convinced it has nothing to do with our invading Iraq. Think about it. We have a totally open border and the entire world knows this. If the terrorists were bent on destroying us or terrorizing us - there is absolutely nothing we are doing domestically to keep them from it. In fact, we are offering the most enticing set of circumstances any terrorists ever had.

Why would they remain in Iraq and face our army, when they could simply walk across the border and do whatever vile thing they chose to do?

It only took 19 to do the deed on 9/11. Of course, we know they had to have a lot of help inside - our immigration system was certainly part of that help. It hasn't changed - in fact now everyone knows how broken it is.

I just posted this in the "Discussions" forum, but thought it was also relative to this conversation.

Looks like someone on ALIPAC is attempting to bring in outsiders to help in the defense of Paul's position on border security and illegal immigration. Check it out:

Paul's Integrity Questioned - Need Help!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, the issue of Ron Paul on illegal immigration has come up and he's getting really slammed on this forum because of some of his voting positions. Someone posted this recent 4 part investigative article - The Ron Paul Mystique Part I: What's so different about Ron Paul? and now people who are reading it are becoming suspecious of him.

Illegal immigration is a HUGE factor amongst many Republicans in deciding which candidate they will throw their support to, and this particular website has enormous grassroots activist power, (which they have proven by getting the Senate to vote down Amnesty twice in one year).

I've been to this site and I think more people CAN be turned on to Ron Paul with the right responses. They seem more open minded unlike some Neo-con forums. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAINLY REGISTERED REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS. We need them to support Ron Paul! There are many Hunter, Tancredo and Thompson fans there. If their guys don't make it, I think they would go for Paul. But NOT if they believe he is weak on this issue. They just won't vote at all. Anyone up for the challenge??


Some parts of the article says:
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.

CONCLUSION: Ron Paul will NOT militarize the border to provide "cover" needed by the Border Patrol. He would do nothing to change the daily incursions into the US by the Mexican military supporting the smuggling networks.

Here's the forum where you can find the full article: http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-88328.html

Go to this link to read the responses:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=29499

A LOT of anti-ALIPAC BS over there

After reading the link I provided to the Ron Paul site, it would appear Chloe24 and libertygrl are one and the same. Additionally, these aren't her real words, they're are borrowed:

Sandra Miller, the author of this speil, is an AVID Tom Tancredo supporter. She is also (and has been for a LONG time) on a power kick. What she got SOO irate about is that she sent the RP HQ an email several weeks ago and they didn't see fit to go down and answer her little missive in the point by point manner that she desired sssooooo....she sent then another email and still failed to get exactly the response that she wanted. As this made Ms. Miller feel like she wasn't as important to the RP Campaign as she feels like she deserved, she wrote out this garbage about Dr. Paul's record. I have attempted to clue her in about why Dr. Paul voted against some of those bills that she liked so well (there were amendments attached to them that Dr. Paul couldn't support) but, she's having too much fun and garnering too much attention to back off her stance now.

How do I know all this, you ask? I am a co-founder of the Tennessee anti-illegal immigration organization (www.tnrip.org) and have had dealings with her for YEARS now. As a matter of fact, a little over a year ago, she called me long distance to DEMAND that I change something on our home page!! When I politely refused, she went on a tirad and bad-mouthed our group all across the country even though we are all fighting for the same cause. She's an attention seeking, control freak which is pretty well negating a lot of the good work she's done on this issue in the past.

Something else that may be pertinent is the fact that I have known and admired Congressman Tancredo for several years and have gotten to spend quite a bit of time with discussing a variety of issues. Everyone who knows me is well aware of how I feel about Tom and, yet, I have come out as an avid supporter of Dr. Paul because I can not be a one-issue voter. With that being said and, as someone who is deeply involved in this illegal immigration mess, I wouldd NOT be supporting Dr. Paul if I were not 100% comfortable with him on this issue as well as a host of others.

A little deceitful, don't you think, Chloe?

I totally disagree with Paul's foreign policy stance and his immigration stance makes me really nervous. I don't like being nervous on this issue.

I can't add anymore than what MW added....just dittos>

Originally Posted by gofer

I totally disagree with Paul's foreign policy stance and his immigration stance makes me really nervous. I don't like being nervous on this issue.

I can't add anymore than what MW added....just dittos>

In total agreement with you... I am worried what he would actualy do. However if he is up against Hil/Obama any other dem he has my vote. Cause I know for sure their stance.

Thats why my wish list Tancredo/Hunter/Paul. Dream would be one of them choosing the other to run with them.