Thread: Romney's Spanish Ad

Originally Posted by flashman

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Ron Paul on Immigration

January 03, 2008
By John Stossel


I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home.

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ation.html

Based on these quotes by Paul, it sounds like he wants the NAU???

But he's for denying benefits to illegals. I'd definitely support that and he's right on. There's no reason illegals should be receiving these benefits which are costing us millions of dollars in tax money. On that issue alone, I'm willing to support the guy. Imagine, cutting unemployment and welfare benefits to all illegals, that there would solve the economic issues of illegal immigration

Romney has also said this by saying-------no sanctuary cities, go after employer who are hiring illegals, no benefits for illegals, close/secure the border, etc.

Ron Paul plan-----no welfare for illegals------

But, I don't want a fence........And, we can open that border far and wide and let illegals come here to take the jobs of US citizens.

I think that Ron Paul wants the NAU!!

Ron Paul is not in favor of the NAU. That is another reason why I like him. He is not aligned with the CFR whatsoever. Now, Romney I'm not so sure. All I know for sure is that Paul wants national sovernty. Those are not the priciple of someone who wants to merge Mexico, United States and Canada.

Originally Posted by alexcastro

Ron Paul is not in favor of the NAU. That is another reason why I like him. He is not aligned with the CFR whatsoever. Now, Romney I'm not so sure. All I know for sure is that Paul wants national sovernty. Those are not the priciple of someone who wants to merge Mexico, United States and Canada.

AGAIN..............How can Ron Paul not want the NAU when:

---He does NOT want a fence

---He has NO plans for going after employers for hiring illegals

---He wants the border to remain wide open

Are you not reading anything that I posted-----take your hands off of your ears and open your eyes!!!

End the war, stop giving federal subsidies to illegal aliens. Those two points are gonna be huge for our economy. We need to pay down our deficit. We owe the chinese up to our ears. Our dollar is weaker. I have told you the reason why I am voting for him. You are not changing my mind. I do not think Romney wants out of Iraq, and that is a huge deciding factor for me. I changed parties so that I could vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is my canidate. Yours is Romney. The end

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Ron Paul on Immigration

January 03, 2008
By John Stossel


I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home.

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ation.html

Based on these quotes by Paul, it sounds like he wants the NAU???

In light of his comments about the border fence being "offensive", it is not surprising that Ron Paul voted against the fence before he voted for the fence.

His comments also shed some light on why Ron Paul supported President Bush's efforts in 2001 and 2002 to reward hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with Section 245(i) amnesty and why he supported President Clinton's efforts to reward hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

Ron Paul, "Dr. No", voted "present" on H.R. 4328, an omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 that contained an amnesty for thousands of Haitians. The bill passed by one vote. When a bill receives a tie vote, it dies. If "Dr. No" had voted "no" instead of "present", that bill containing amensty for thousands of Haitians would have died.

Thanks to Dr. Paul's votes in both 1997 and 1998, illegal aliens received amnesties.

Ron Paul voted seven times against allowing the United States military to assist the United States Border Patrol in border control functions. It is not surprising that he finds the fence "offensive".

According to NumbersUSA:
Rep. Paul helped the House pass H.R.3736. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Rep. Paul voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.

Also, according to NumbersUSA:
Before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), Rep. Paul had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Rep. Paul opposed that protection. The substitute also would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Rep. Paul voted against that. The protections for American workers fell 33 votes short of passing.

I suppose someone familiar with them could quote from some of Dr. Paul's writings in the Ron Paul Political Report or the Ron Paul Survival Report. However, there wouldn't be much point since he says he not only didn't write some of the material in his newsletter, he didn't even bother to read it.

Gosh I just read the whole thread.........It reminded me of walking through a saloon where there had just been a drunken brawl.

I went to the site of this article and read the comments afterwards. Bren you might find comment # 48 interesting and it was written by a Mormon.

Originally Posted by alexcastro

When the politicians start pandering to the Spanish speakers it makes me nervous. If they start getting a large support of Latin voters then they have to answer to them when elected. Remember George Bush had a large latin support when running for President. They start catering to the Hispanic lobby and then it's all over for being tough on illegal immigration.

absolutely!

Of those linked to the CFR Mitt Romney is one fo them according to this article:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-99295.html


The only two running who are not members is Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter.

I refuse to vote for any CFR member. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for someone who wants to destroy our country. It is defeating all that I have done here since 2005. I refuse to vote for someone who will not allow Americans to keep our Constitutional rights. I refuse to vote for anyone who shows supports the Real Id, the end of Posse Comitatus, the end of Habeas Corpus, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, FEMA Detention Camps, Domestic Spying and on down the line. I want a President who will stand up for We the People.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Of those linked to the CFR Mitt Romney is one fo them according to this article:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-99295.html


The only two running who are not members is Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter.

I refuse to vote for any CFR member. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for someone who wants to destroy our country. It is defeating all that I have done here since 2005. I refuse to vote for someone who will not allow Americans to keep our Constitutional rights. I refuse to vote for anyone who shows supports the Real Id, the end of Posse Comitatus, the end of Habeas Corpus, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, FEMA Detention Camps, Domestic Spying and on down the line. I want a President who will stand up for We the People.

Jp I have a lot of respect for you and withholding a vote is your right, but that’s a shame you feel forced to. Please don’t feel this is directed at you. But I wanted to let people know how I feel about any one not voting just because of the CFR name tag.
If you can answer some of the questions please do.


I’m slowly beginning to understand some things others here at alipac believe, and why they believe the way they do. I chose to disagree with some those views. Does that make me sell My American Values down the Road?
Will I loose my American Constitutional rights, just because I own stock in a company that has business across the great divide. Does that make me a bad American?
Did I sell my American Constitutional rights?

I hope those missing votes arent the ones that give the election to the OBL… I just hope the other missing votes aren’t the ones that cost us the election.


People can name names and make clams in articles as creditable news sources all they want. I noticed in that particular article, the writer seen fit to lump all the candidates into one group. Why?

Ill ask it again. Show me an open agenda that plans to take our American Constitutional rights. Show me Direct Connection to these candidates selling America rights to the CFR. Show me Proof that the Romney or Thompson has hidden agendas to sell American Constitutional rights down the Road from the head seat in the White House.


Heck, just show me Ron Paul won’t or has never ever had a business dealing with any CFR member.
A lot of time truth is told here. If Paul was ever to make into the White House or even into the Senate for that mater .He would be in a position of having dealings in foreign business as a necessity. Also, Paul would need a CFR associated free cabinet, which he will never find.

I just want to make my point clear here.
I’m sure people have very good reasons and (some I agree with, some I do not) for waiting the CFR shut down. The CFR list here is old. (out dated)

America has woken up to what many of the problems are and what’s needed to get us heading in a better direction. Not voting because a candidate has useful foreign relations, that does nothing but give the burning bush more fuel.
Please show me some tangible proof they (theses candidates in question) all together or one at a time have a hand in a negative American out come. Be it due to being a member of, or associated with the CFR.
Show me these candidates just because they might be a CFR member, plan to take away my American Constitutional rights.
Any American Constitutional rights.

Giving up your vote is stealing your own American Constitutional right from your self.

In Fact, Any Presidential Having Foreign relations can still mean they stand for the people. The American people.
In this time in our world, useful foreign relations is a have to. It’s how they use it that we have to be concerned about.

I am choosing not to give my vote to anyone whom does not deserve it Greg. The information is out there, if you so desire, use what God has given you and find it. I as a Christian and an American have a profound duty to what is best for my country and if that means not voting for anyone without compromising, then so be it.

Every time a politicians asks us to compromise, we loose just a little bit more liberty, I am not going to compromise, I will remain steadfast in where I stand.