Thread: Ron Paul's vote in 2005 against border fencing

I should have clarified that I was talking about the top tier.

I think very highly of Tancredo, who could be a Darkhorse candidate. He and Hunter would make a powerful combo actually. But yeah, I wasn't including them in that statement.

Ron Paul isn't a LIbertarian. He's a Republican with some libertarian leanings. This is an immigration forum, but I could illustrate other areas where he deviates significantly from the platform of the Libertarian Party.

I don't know why he voted against the Hunter Amendment. He'll be on Terry Anderson's radio show tonight if somebody wants to try to call in and ask him
(www.terryanderson.com) (9:00 CST)

Personally, Ron is my guy, but Hunter or Tancredo wouldn't bring wails of agoony from my lips on election day either.

I think it's going to be a Fred / Hillary race though.

Originally Posted by MW

I wonder why he voted against it, anyone know?

Ron is first and foremost a Libertarian. They don't believe in "borders." Back in the day I actually considered joining but their views on Immigration were so naive that it was a deal breaker for me. Not that being a Republican these days is much better ... but at least the guys fighting so hard in the Senate for us are Republicans, which gives me some hope for the future.

Originally Posted by CitizenBob

Originally Posted by MW

I wonder why he voted against it, anyone know?

Ron is first and foremost a Libertarian. They don't believe in "borders." Back in the day I actually considered joining but their views on Immigration were so naive that it was a deal breaker for me.

That may be true with some Libertarians but that is absolutely not the case with Ron Paul. Please do some research before making such statements. He's more conservative than the Republican Party is nowadays! From what I'm learning about him, I believe he's conservative on social issues and some what libertarian on government issues. Which means he wants limited governement and favors the rights of the individual citizens. He's a throw back to what the founding fathers wanted.

As with any party, there are varying distinctions within political groups. Just look up either Republican, Democrat or Libertarian on Wikipedia. The different distinctions within each group will make your head spin!

There are five ingredients necessary for conservatism. These are fundamentals:Â*

-The first necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in smaller government.Â* Particularly at the federal level.Â* Statism is Leftism--an all-powerful, centralized government. Conservatives oppose this, embracing state's rights and a smaller, less centralized federal government.Â* This is the foundational cornerstone of conservatism.Â* -

-The second necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in national sovereignty and isolationism. Â*Conservatives do not believe in foreign aid or foreign entanglements. They revere American sovereignty. Yes, conservatives do believe in a strong national defense--but national defense as mandated by the Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine. An invasive military empire is not mandated. Therein lies a crucial difference. Â*
When Woodrow Wilson tried to get the US into the League of Nations, conservatives opposed him. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was aggressively lobbying to get the US into the Second World War, conservatives opposed him. Conservatives have scorned the UN. They are not practitioners of global military interventionism. Conservatives believe in defense of our national borders, not aggression---and real security based on not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Conservatives believe in "Fortress America"...not Pax Americana.Â*

-The third necessary ingredient is a belief in the Rule of Law---beginning with the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is essentially sacrosanct. A conservative does not believe in a "living Constitution". Â*

The only way a conservative would ever alter the Constitution would be by constitutional amendment. He would never seek to override it with power-grabbing legislation. The passage of the USA-Patriot Act--an Orwellian abomination, all the way down to its namesake--established pretty firmly just how many conservatives are left in Washington DC. Â*

-A fourth necessary ingredient to conservatism is a belief in traditional values. It is here that politics over such things as Roy Moore's Ten Commandments come into play. However, traditional values, are, by their very nature, regressive. It is true that there is no constitutional separation of church and state, as commonly stated, but there is also Freedom of Worship, and a generalized restriction of government authority. Therefore no allowances exist for the federal government to dabble in the religion business one way or the other. Real conservatives, being strict constructionists, would protect the religious rights of the individual without exploiting Christianity for seizure of power.Â*Â* Â*

-The fifth necessary ingredient to conservatism is adherence to principle.Â* The stubborn instinct to stand firm on issues, rejecting political expediency, in other words. Conservatism cannot exist without an ideological backbone, because one of the most basic philosophies behind conservatism is preservation of tradition. Traditions cannot survive in the absence of principles.Â*

The national leadership of the Republican Party has willfully broken from all the above.Â* We should do away with the terms "paleoconservative" and "Old Right". These only tend to confuse things, lending passive legitimacy to 'neo-conservatism'. A neo-conservative is no more a conservative than a bird is an amphibian. In the cold light of reality, there are no "paleocons" and "neo-cons". There are only a handful of conservatives and a bunch of leftward-leaning Republicans who are fakes. Real conservatives, in power, are rarer than hen's teeth these days.Â*


We do have one shining example of a conservative left in this country. Â*

No, it isn't Patrick J. Buchanan, or any of his peerage. Pat is a very well-educated--but self-deceiving--mainstream Republican. He is apparently more interested in selling books than taking a coherent stand on issues. Intelligent, yes. Principled, no. (The same description also fits his mentor, Richard M. Nixon.) Â*

The one prominent example of a conservative left in our system is a congressman by the name of Dr. Ron Paul. He appears to be our last surviving American statesman. Unlike GW Bush, Paul is a real Texan as well as a real conservative. He is also widely known in libertarian circles, and he once ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. Because he runs under the GOP banner, he is frequently referred to as a "libertarian hybrid". Which is precisely to the point.Â*

What is a conservative? A conservative is a libertarian who believes in traditional values. Â*

That is not to suggest "libertarian" and "conservative" are completely synonymous. There is a large anarchist wing within the libertarian movement, and anarchists are incompatible with any constitutional state, because they oppose all forms of government. Hence, it cannot be said that all libertarians are conservatives. Â*

But are all real conservatives libertarians? Yes.
http://www.etherzone.com/2004/tuma122004.shtml

RON PAUL'S VOTING RECORD ON IMMIGRATION AND OTHER ISSUES:

I have no explanation for his no vote on the 2003 border fence legislation. But one thing I know for certain. Ron Paul does his homework. He reads and studies bills before he votes on them, unlike many of our legislators today. He is a strict constitutionalist so anything he deems unconstitutional he will not vote for. There must have been something in that bill that he didn't like. He did however vote for the 2006 Border Fence bill:


RON PAUL'S VOTING RECORD:

RON PAUL ON IMMIGRATION:
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Click here for 7 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

* Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
* Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
* Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 199
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)


FOR MORE IMMIGRATION ISSUES:
http://senate.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_ ... ration.htm

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life:
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm


Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul has become my man, followed by Tancredo and Hunter. If he got into the White House, he would shake things up like it's never been done...he'd probably make so many enemies that he'd be a one termer only, but things would change for the positive...he actually believes in the Constitution.

Ostrich

Originally Posted by chloe24

That may be true with some Libertarians but that is absolutely not the case with Ron Paul. Please do some research before making such statements.

I'm quite secure in my research. How far his Libertarian beliefs in the past are affecting his votes now is a question he is facing during his campaign for the GOP nomination and I'm glad he has clarified it to your satisfaction.

I am troubled by the same issue that was the subject of the original post on this thread. For example, before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), he 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. He voted against the Hunter Amendment to increase security with the border fence in 2005 (H.R. 4437). I am also troubled by the fact that he voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005 (H.R. 1815). As a Californian I was particularly galled that he Voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens.

These are a few of my concerns and hopefully you will see that my comment was a considered one and that I have no personal animosity towards Rep. Paul.

God Willing, if we all work as hard as I know we will over the next 24 hours the House of Representatives won't even have to worry about this horrendous piece of legislation.

Ron Paul is a hands off kinda guy, that is why he voted NO.

He believes in market forces without any government intervention, good for a cage rattler.. maybe not president (vice definately).

I would got Hunter and Paul or something like that. be a nice mix match.

Chloe24 wrote:

I have no explanation for his no vote on the 2003 border fence legislation. But one thing I know for certain. Ron Paul does his homework. He reads and studies bills before he votes on them, unlike many of our legislators today. He is a strict constitutionalist so anything he deems unconstitutional he will not vote for. There must have been something in that bill that he didn't like.

Well, I certainly wish he would have read more and done a little deeper research before voting for or against the following:

- Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006.

- Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998.
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.

- Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers. 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.

- Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005.

- Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005.

- Voted against bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005.

- Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004.

- Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003.

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

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

- Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in 2002.

- 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.

- Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

- Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

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

- Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997.
Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined.

Interestingly, Rep. Hunter (R-CA) and Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) voted, what I consider, the correct way on each of the above.

I realize Rep. Paul has a lot of fans out there, however, he's not as strong on border security as Hunter and Tancredo. I don't think anyone would argue that point.

With that all said, Paul still remains my third choice behind #1 Hunter and #2 Tancredo. Honestly, no politician is perfect in every area. However, Hunter and Tancredo are absolutely perfect on border security, whereas Paul isn't. Additionally, to my knowledge Hunter and Tancredo have never voted on an amnesty.

Don't get me wrong, I like Paul and will vote on him if he makes it through the primaries.

Ron Paul would cut off the head of the beast that is destroying this country, the federal reserve. These international bankers are the driving force for the North American Union. They already control Europe and they want North America. Paul would enforce the damn laws in this country. The law is the law with Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul is the best overall candidate.

Tancredo is hands down, the best on the immigration issue but I really think he lacks in other areas.

Hunter is beholden to Haliburton, Boeing, and the Military establishment. Too many conflicts of interest.

It's hard to find a perfect candidate but Ron Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter are the best choices.

I was doing a little bit of research and my guess is that It seems like Paul voted no on Hunter amendment because it was too vague, namely the part: "Amendment mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border"

Ron voted yes on The Secure Fence Act of 2006 which was more substantial piece of legislation
---
BORDER PROTECTION ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT OF 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - December 17, 2005)


[Page: E2596] GPO's PDF
---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.
[Page: E2597] GPO's PDFThere 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.