Thread: Paul voted twice for 245(i) amnesty during Bush presidency

Here is a link to Ron Paul's voting record on legal and illegal immigration:
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=787 .

Here is a link to a webpage maintained by NumbersUSA that describes the Section 245(i) amnesty supported by Ron Paul in detail.

In both 2001 and 2002, Ron Paul supported the position of President George W. Bush on Section 245(i) amnesty for illegal aliens. In 2001, President Bush supported an extension of the 245(i) amnesty. In 2002, President Bush supported a reinstatement of the 245(i) amnesty for illegal aliens. On both occasions, Ron Paul supported President Bush's position.

Copied below is how NubmersUSA characterized these votes.

Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty
for illegal aliens in 2002
Rep. Paul voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.

Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty. The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137 (a two-thirds majority was needed in order to pass).



Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001
Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants. The vote on the four-month extension represented a compromise of the White House push for a longer extension. Even though the four month extension was better than a year-long or permanent extension, it still would have resulted in at least 200,000 more people being added to the country through illegal immigration. Rep. Paul was part of a 336-43 majority voting in favor of the four-month extension of Section 245(i). It did not become law, though.

HR 1885 245(i) allows certain undocumented immigrants to adjust their status while remaining in this country. Without that provision, they are forced to return home for a period of three to ten years before they can gain legal residency. This means, for example, that if someone from the Phillippines who lacks legal status marries a U.S. citizen, the couple must either be separated for several years, or they must both move to the Phillippines for the necessary time period. Either option is problematic.



H RES 365, IF ENFORCED, would have precluded a lot of todays problems.
It called for all kinds of actions WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN FIT TO IGNOR.

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/News/2002 ... es365.shtm

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

HR 1885 245(i) allows certain undocumented immigrants to adjust their status while remaining in this country. Without that provision, they are forced to return home for a period of three to ten years before they can gain legal residency. This means, for example, that if someone from the Phillippines who lacks legal status marries a U.S. citizen, the couple must either be separated for several years, or they must both move to the Phillippines for the necessary time period. Either option is problematic.



H RES 365, IF ENFORCED, would have precluded a lot of todays problems.
It called for all kinds of actions WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN FIT TO IGNOR.

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/News/2002 ... es365.shtm

Before attempting to respond to your post, I would like for you to tell me what "undocumented immigrants" are.

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

HR 1885 245(i) allows certain undocumented immigrants to adjust their status while remaining in this country. Without that provision, they are forced to return home for a period of three to ten years before they can gain legal residency. This means, for example, that if someone from the Phillippines who lacks legal status marries a U.S. citizen, the couple must either be separated for several years, or they must both move to the Phillippines for the necessary time period. Either option is problematic.



H RES 365, IF ENFORCED, would have precluded a lot of todays problems.
It called for all kinds of actions WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN FIT TO IGNOR.

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/News/2002 ... es365.shtm

I used your link to read the text of H. Res. 365 at the Immigration Daily website. I have a question, though. What is the source of information from which you obtained the paragraph that you copied and pasted at the beginning of your post?

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

HR 1885 245(i) allows certain undocumented immigrants to adjust their status while remaining in this country. Without that provision, they are forced to return home for a period of three to ten years before they can gain legal residency. This means, for example, that if someone from the Phillippines who lacks legal status marries a U.S. citizen, the couple must either be separated for several years, or they must both move to the Phillippines for the necessary time period. Either option is problematic.



H RES 365, IF ENFORCED, would have precluded a lot of todays problems.
It called for all kinds of actions WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN FIT TO IGNOR.

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/News/2002 ... es365.shtm

How often do you use the phrase "undocumented immigrants"?

What are undocumented immigrants?

From what source of information did you copy and past the language about "undocumented immigrants"?

This was brought up in another forum...

If you read the whole bill, and as usual there are other things attached, you will see that there is reference to the REAL ID ACT.

Ron Paul Opposes the REAL ID ACT. So, he gets dinged on the illegal immigration vote.

So, its important when looking at these "bills" - you see all the other things thrown in.

"I wonder if Tom Tancredo voted YES on the National ID card (REAL ID Act) ...

Originally Posted by BrightNail

This was brought up in another forum...

If you read the whole bill, and as usual there are other things attached, you will see that there is reference to the REAL ID ACT.

Ron Paul Opposes the REAL ID ACT. So, he gets dinged on the illegal immigration vote.

So, its important when looking at these "bills" - you see all the other things thrown in.

"I wonder if Tom Tancredo voted YES on the National ID card (REAL ID Act) ...

How could there be a reference to the REAL ID Act of 2005 in legislation that was voted on in 2001 and 2002?

These votes had nothing to do with the Real ID Act. Further, these were "yes" votes by Rep. Paul. If there other things attached to these bill that were problematic, they didn't stop Ron Paul from voting for the bills. Tom Tancredo voted "no" as to both pieces of legislation.