Paul's Integrity Questioned - Need Help!

[libertygrl]

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

[Vvick727]

Gah, this KEEPS coming up. its so wrong on so many levels.

he did vote for the hunter amendment. do some research people.

[Johncjackson]

He says in almost every debate and public appearance that he wants to bring troops home from abroad and secure our borders.

[Dustancostine]

I don't think he wants to secure our borders with the military. He wants to secure them with border guards. You don't want a militarized border, it is not their job.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

POST THIS:

Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter have the most conservative voting records on immigration.

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida...
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida...

Ron Paul has stated that he wants very strong borders and he was appalled that our government had taken border guards off of our borders to send them to Iraq.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/haman3....

This is his six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward
for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

AND BTW... I have the records of all the canidates on illegal immigration.. these three are the best.. If you need more info just message me ;)

[American]

It makes no sense to try and deport all the illegal immigrants, it just wont work and the cost would be enormous.

Ron Paul as the right tactic take away the social services and they will leave on there own. Also the welfare state has to be addressed to really get a firm grip on immigration and have Americans take those jobs the illegals are getting.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I think he voted against the actual Hunter Amendment, but ended up voting for the final passage of the bill. Why, I don't know. But he said at one of the debates that the fence was the weakest reason for him voting for the final passage of the Immigration Control Act of 2005.

[Kacela]

Dr. Paul's Issues (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/) page about Border Security and Immigration Reform seems to be pretty clear about this:
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.and
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

He's also said that by bringing the troops home now, the border patrol that was depleted when most of them got sent overseas, will be restored.

[Lord Xar]

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

I post there all the time.. hmm, I surprised this keeps coming up. Who is posting, the Hunter or tancredo lover??? there are already alot of Paul fans there.

[American]

WOW, I was just reading that forum.....anything short of mini guns with shoot to kill orders placed on the borders is the only thing those people understand.

Ron Pauls record speaks for itself, once Tancredo and Hunter drop out they will have no choice. The thing that I question is that must just be a bitch forum because I have never seen any petitions of anything from that forum like I have from other illegal immigration sites.

eh, let them bitch.

Dont get me wrong I like Tancredo, but you cant run the country with a strong anti illegal immigration platform only. Hunter wants to go to war with the world, he has issues.

[Pete]

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.

Dead on, as usual.

[ConstitutionGal]

Okay folks - 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.

[libertygrl]

Excellent!

Yeah, I think some of the people in that forum are Tancredo and Hunter fans trying to sway people over to their side. But I AM concerned about that four part article entitled, "The Ron Paul Mystique - http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11832


It appears to be a well researched and detailed piece. There's a lot of info there so I haven't had the time to read through all of it yet, but I think some of Paul's staff may have ignited some of the doubts about his illegal immigration stance by their inability to answer some of the tough questions asked by the author.

You know, we are so focused on getting the positive word out on Ron Paul, I wonder if we should do a detailed piece on the negative records of his competition. Sometimes people have to see the negative in order to be motivated to vote for the positive. Maybe do a double sided flyer with positive and negative comparisons between RP and which ever candidate you choose to compare.

[DrNoZone]

I don't think he wants to secure our borders with the military. He wants to secure them with border guards. You don't want a militarized border, it is not their job.

It's the National Guard's job though (in addition to the border guards). And Paul would bring home our National Guard who are currently stationed illegally over seas.

[libertygrl]

Okay folks - 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.

Thanks for the "inside info" ConstitutionGal. I too was a Tancredo supporter until I discovered Ron Paul and had to make a final decision between the two. I still respect and like Tancredo but differ with him on the war and the national ID.

Would you mind posting this at the ALIPAC forums in response to the posters remarks to give some perspective on this article? Or would you be open perhaps, for me to copy and paste what you have written here?

[ConstitutionGal]

Thanks for the "inside info" ConstitutionGal. I too was a Tancredo supporter until I discovered Ron Paul and had to make a final decision between the two. I still respect and like Tancredo but differ with him on the war and the national ID.

Would you mind posting this at the ALIPAC forums in response to the posters remarks to give some perspective on this article? Or would you be open perhaps, for me to copy and paste what you have written here?
Feel free to copy and paste as I refuse to sign up on the alipac forums and lend any credibility to Bill Gheen (who runs it to line his own pockets and to garner attention). Personally, I think he and Sandy make a good pair - both are attention hounds (the story behind Gheen will be for another day) although, I will give Sandy credit where it's due - she doesn't make any money off her efforts.

[american.swan]

use www.govtrack.com and prove them WRONG

[KingTheoden]

I do not know, but I speculate that he voted against the amendment initially because it a) did not cut to the core of the problem and b) is a gigantic boondoggle for some corporation that gave Hunter a wad of cash.

For me, I think building a wall or fence is simply unnecessary. I do support dispatching the US military to areas that have been invaded by paramilitary and drug traffickers, but think it is not going to be needed for the military to man the Great Wall of America.

If we disallow undocumented immigrants access to emergency rooms, welfare, and social services AND work to get rid of employer verification (SS numbers, etc) as we eliminate the income tax, the labor market will be much more even.

Further more, I think it is vital to stop supporting the tyrannical regimes in Latin America. Because our government has propped up the Mexican government and oligarchs, it is no wonder that so many people want to come here to escape.

We should also remove the restrictions on West Europeans from coming here (as zany as it sounds, it is very, VERY hard for a Frenchman or Irish person to come here).

Admittedly, I am a bit more libertarian with the the immigration problem than Ron Paul, so one should expect his position to be more active than my passive one. But I think it sums up his ideal platform.

[klamath]

I get a little tired of tha anti illegals people getting a little to carried away. I have a problem with the illegals and would like to see the border secured and something done about those in the country. It has been a problem that has been going on for 30 years or better and now just can't be just taken care of with a wave of some politicians hand.
For those that want this massive deportation I really want you to stop and think real clearly about what you are wanting and how you want it carried out.
Do you really want scenes like the one below going on all across America conducted by a massive federal police force?
Of those millions of homes raided how many do you think will be misstaken addresses? How many of you would like to have this going on in your homes?

tp://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/breaking-news-photography/works/eliansma.gif

[runderwo]

They are introducing legislation in Oklahoma that would allow the police to seize property of suspected illegal immigrants and those who harbor them. Just like how suspected drug dealers (based on confidential/anonymous informants) can have property seized without due process, even if the individual is never arrested or prosecuted. What is more insidious about this is that most illegal immigrants are renters or squatters, not property owners. So what is going to happen in the end is that legal (Mexican-looking) immigrants are going to lose their property to the police, just because their skin color will raise the suspicion of the police. This is going to be incredibly divisive, which of course is exactly what those in power want.

Tulsa PD has a new policy of doing 'reasonable suspicion' immigration checks on people they stop for traffic violations. Anyone who thought the policy would truly be enforced without racial profiling would be insane, yet that is what we have today... if you're Mexican-looking, prepare for an immigrations check for no reason whatsoever outside of your skin color.

[ConstitutionGal]

They are introducing legislation in Oklahoma that would allow the police to seize property of suspected illegal immigrants and those who harbor them. Just like how suspected drug dealers (based on confidential/anonymous informants) can have property seized without due process, even if the individual is never arrested or prosecuted. What is more insidious about this is that most illegal immigrants are renters or squatters, not property owners. So what is going to happen in the end is that legal (Mexican-looking) immigrants are going to lose their property to the police, just because their skin color will raise the suspicion of the police. This is going to be incredibly divisive, which of course is exactly what those in power want.

Tulsa PD has a new policy of doing 'reasonable suspicion' immigration checks on people they stop for traffic violations. Anyone who thought the policy would truly be enforced without racial profiling would be insane, yet that is what we have today... if you're Mexican-looking, prepare for an immigrations check for no reason whatsoever outside of your skin color.
The Nashville/Davidson County Sheriff's Dept. has signed on to a similar federal program (287(g) and it was being derided the same way that you mention the OK law. While I'm not yet familiar with the actual OK law, I can tell you that the 287(g) program is NOTHING like MALDEF, LULAC and LaRaza were telling folks it was going to be. The only way anyone gets their immigration status checked is if they cannot provide proof of legal residence - a valid driver's license, birth certificate, green card or something similar. They are NOT just picking on people who look Hispanic and have, in fact, handed several people over to ICE that were illegals from China, the middle-east and Africa along with several Hispanic folks. Up until VERY recently, the illegals knew they had nothing to fear from law enforcement in a nation that is supposed to be founded on the rule of law. If someone comes here the right way and through the proper channels, I say WELCOME. To those who sneak into this country and get caught, I say good riddance as we cannot seem to take care of the people who belong here and may need our help. Dr. Paul seems to understand this concept and it why he supports securing our borders and cutting off all tax-payer funded benefits to illegal residents.

[libertygrl]

Feel free to copy and paste as I refuse to sign up on the alipac forums and lend any credibility to Bill Gheen (who runs it to line his own pockets and to garner attention). Personally, I think he and Sandy make a good pair - both are attention hounds (the story behind Gheen will be for another day) although, I will give Sandy credit where it's due - she doesn't make any money off her efforts.

Thank you! :)

[KingTheoden]

I get a little tired of tha anti illegals people getting a little to carried away. I have a problem with the illegals and would like to see the border secured and something done about those in the country. It has been a problem that has been going on for 30 years or better and now just can't be just taken care of with a wave of some politicians hand.
For those that want this massive deportation I really want you to stop and think real clearly about what you are wanting and how you want it carried out.
Do you really want scenes like the one below going on all across America conducted by a massive federal police force?
Of those millions of homes raided how many do you think will be misstaken addresses? How many of you would like to have this going on in your homes?

tp://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/breaking-news-photography/works/eliansma.gif

Exactly. I know a lot of Hispanics and I can tell you that they will NEVER support someone like Tancredo or Hunter because these guys seem to advocate massive deportations.

Imagine armies of black clad SWAT members storming into homes and hauling people away. In the words of the South Park ski instructor, were that to happen we are going to have a bad time.

The problem will work itself out when we begin to eliminate the income tax and all of the freebies that some undocumented folks use. Yes, we can send some units to the border to take on the drug cartels entering, but as for an 1100 mile long deployment, I think such is a waste.

Let's stop funneling cash to the corrupt oligarchs of Mexico and other Central/Southern America nations. Let's get out of NAFTA and GATT and the WTO, treaties that are not free trade and only serve to make living conditions worse for us and those in Mexico (and the SEZ slaves in China for that matter).

The attitudes of some in the anti-illegal camp are not tuned to that of the Constitution; like it or not, when you are here you do have all the rights granted by God. Running hundreds of SWAT teams to kidnap people does not fit into the Constitution well either. Eliminate the unfair incentives and the problem will solves itself. A LOT of Hispanics will support Ron Paul, but not other Republicans for this issue. There is a real fear of round ups- there should not be. JMO

[DaronWestbrooke]

Note for reference.

[JaylieWoW]

For those that want this massive deportation I really want you to stop and think real clearly about what you are wanting and how you want it carried out.
Do you really want scenes like the one below going on all across America conducted by a massive federal police force? tp://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/breaking-news-photography/works/eliansma.gif

I am a firm believer in victimizing the victim twice. What is meant by this is that when a crime is committed against you, robbery or whatever, you are victimized during the act of the crime and then victimized again when your perpetrator is sent to jail because of the cost of housing that criminal in a correctional facility. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't put criminals in jail, obviously dangerous criminals SHOULD be locked up.

The reason I bring this point up is because illegal immigrants paid their own way getting here. I don't see why the American taxpayer should pay their way back in some sort of mass deportation scenario. Rather, I believe Ron Paul is spot on with his analysis of cutting off social services for them because this would encourage them to pay their own way home and therefore avoid the taxpayer being "victimized" a second time.

(P.S. Perhaps the word "victim" is a bit strong when speaking of illegal immigration, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make).

[Callie369]

I don't know who the person is who stated that Ron Paul was "realy getting slammed" at alipac.us, but it isn't true. There are MANY members there that back Paul. MANY of the Tancredo and Hunter fans have stated if their guys look like they aren't going to make it, they WILL vote for Paul.

So stop the rumors and visit the truth.

[c0unterph0bia]

Ron Paul on Immigration:

* No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
* Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
* No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important. (Jun 2007)
* We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)
* 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 1998)
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)