Tancredo vs. Ron Paul on Illegal Immigration

[Lord Xar]

I want to know the real deal here.

I went to Tancredos website and it mentioned a NUMBER of instances in which Ron Paul voted for amnesty and illegal immigrant rights.. YET, Ron Paul sounds as if he is against Illegal Immigrants and such.

Personally, my whole agenda those of my family and friends is someone who is VERY STRONG ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Where does Ron Paul really stand?

I know what I read (on his website), but Tancredo and others have shown instances in the past in which Mr. Paul's voting record on illegal immigration is not matching his stance now.

Please advise.. otherwise I dig Ron Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

Someone posted this earlier, elsewhere on this board:

Ron Paul will be the guest on the Terry Anderson show tonight at 9 p.m. pacific, 11 central. If you don't live out west and get KRLA in L.A. or KDWN in Vegas or KFNX in Phoenix you can listen live at www.theterryandersonshow.com

Also, if you miss the live show, an archived version will be available by Monday morning at the website.

The topic will be illegal immigration.

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul opposes amnesty and has said so repeatedly that we shouldn't promote illegal behavior--when we do (as we did in 1986), we should expect to see more of it.

I am not familiar with the votes or sites you refer to but don't include. Given how rarely Dr. Paul actually votes "aye" on, well, anything, I would surmise that Dr. Paul voted against a bill for a combination of reasons where a part of that bill could have included positions misinterpreted that way.

[LibertyCzar]

Tancredo has some interesting ideas. And his approach to this presidential campaign is fascinating. He doesn't believe he'll win. But he wants to force what he calls a "broker" Republican Convention. This means that no one will have the necessary delegates to win the nomination. It'll be like the Iowa Caucus, where the delegates for different candidates will bargain. With the way things are shaping out, this could very well happen. I'm certain Mitt Romney will get many delegates. So will Fred Thompson, unless he doesn't run. I even think Huckabee could get some delegates. McCain, I think will be gone before any primary, so he won't get any. But Giuliani will get some of the progressive Republican delegates. Duncan Hunter should win the delegates from his own District, at least. It'll be crazy. I really think this will be a "broker" convention. The same, I think will happen to the Democrats, but that's another matter.

This is where Ron Paul can really influence the Republican Party, even if he ends up not getting the nomination. The delegates he gets can force some sort of compromise. And I'm sure Ron Paul will get more delegates than Tom Tancredo. Then Ron Paul could run on as a Third Party candidate. It's wonderful. :D

[Lord Xar]

How about a

Tancredo/Paul TICKET...

PUSH THAT ANGLE !!!!!

[angrydragon]

Does Tom provide any evidence of the votes? What bills he's referring to?

[JoshLowry]

I went to Tancredos website and it mentioned a NUMBER of instances in which Ron Paul voted for amnesty and illegal immigrant rights..

Can you please provide a link? Hard to answer your question if it's going to be that vague...

[LibertyEagle]

Xar,

Tancredo is good on immigration and I do like the man, but Dr. Paul is much stronger than he on the issues of our economy, foreign policy, trade, monetary policy, etc.

[JoshLowry]

Lord Xar you also might want to read this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=1853

[Bradley in DC]

As I explained in an earlier post on another thread, Dr. Paul's endorsement and Liberty PAC got Tancredo the Republican nomination in a crowded primary that got him elected. Tancredo then joined Dr. Paul's Congressional Liberty Caucus, and Dr. Paul has returned the favor joining Tancredo's immigration one. They are personal friends and very close philosphically, and the two are closest among the presidential candidates.

Rep. Tancredo has announced publicly previously that he would announce his decision this month whether to run for re-election to the House or continue his presidential run (unlike Dr. Paul who is taking advantage of Texas' LBJ law to run for both). I expect him to keep his safe seat and endorse Dr. Paul later in the year. Any Paul-Tancredo rivalry is misplaced.

With respect to the immigration question, Dr. Paul is more interested in addressing the causes not the symptoms but both agree with both.

[LibertyCzar]

Tancredo is more of a one-trick pony. He'll be good in the House. Ron Paul will need friends in Congress. It's not enough for him to be President if Congress will be entirely hostile toward all his positions. I could easily see Tancredo endorsing Ron Paul at some point, if he drops out. Or he could go into the convention, and then tell his delegates to go to Ron Paul. That would be good too.

[Wyurm]

this is a bill Dr. Paul voted yes on: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/446/

[angelatc]

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TX&VIPID=787 - shows immigration-related votes.

Also, this is a comment from an immigration control forum I occasionally peruse:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=69951




Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005
Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. Specifically, it 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. As well, it includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.

[mesler]

One of the biggest differences between Tancredo and Paul is Tancredo apparently wants to stop legal immigration (temporarily) as well.

This is Paul's entry at www.ontheissues.org:

* 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)

Tancredo has a very good reason to make Paul look soft on immigration, as it's pretty much his only issue. For Paul, it's a side issue, but he is 2nd behind Tancredo, from what I can tell, on what he wants to do to fix the problem.

[angelatc]

I've read several places that Tancredo and Paul are friends, so I don't imagine things will get nasty unless it comes down to the two of them being the only finalists on Super Tuesday. :)

[Bradley in DC]

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TX&VIPID=787 - shows immigration-related votes.

Also, this is a comment from an immigration control forum I occasionally peruse:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=69951

What else was in the amendment?! Did Dr. Paul make a statement on the Floor or release to the press?

[Daveforliberty]

Tancredo (or more likely a staffer) isn't telling the whole story about Ron Paul's votes. Although technically he did vote for or against certain bills that were championed by one side or the other in the immigration debate, it appears he did so on (surprise surprise) constitutional grounds.

I don't know the details about his votes, but I see several where he voted against putting US troops on the border (the Founding Fathers would have been in unanimous agreement), and against the Real ID act. A yes vote on Real ID would built Giuliani's database, and yes would have some impact on illegal immigration, but would also have been a fast track to a National ID card.

Looks like Dr. Pauls votes on immigration, like everything else in his record, is constistent and in line with the constitution.

[LibertyCzar]

Tancredo is trying to look like the purist when it comes to illegal immigration. I guess that's fine. That's his issue. But will he be a good administrator, delegator, leader? That's another matter. I'd rather have him in Congress. Ron Paul seems to have what it takes. He inspires people to follow. :D

[lynnf]

I want to know the real deal here.

I went to Tancredos website and it mentioned a NUMBER of instances in which Ron Paul voted for amnesty and illegal immigrant rights.. YET, Ron Paul sounds as if he is against Illegal Immigrants and such.

Personally, my whole agenda those of my family and friends is someone who is VERY STRONG ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Where does Ron Paul really stand?

I know what I read (on his website), but Tancredo and others have shown instances in the past in which Mr. Paul's voting record on illegal immigration is not matching his stance now.

Please advise.. otherwise I dig Ron Paul.

It is important to consider not only what was in the legislation that was voted on, but when the vote occurred. I have no knowledge of the specific votes involved,
but it is only common sense and experience that tells me that it should be investigated further.

The major reason that when the vote occurred is important is that we have a past
involving immigration - most of us are descended from immigrants. However, it is only in recent years that illegal immigration has been proven to be so damaging to the country. So Ron Paul might be excused for earlier votes that might have favored immigration. In recent years it has become apparent that corporations have hired illegal aliens and encouraged them to apply for welfare benefits to provide health benefits at the expense of the taxpayers rather than providing benefits to them themselves.

Not to mention that the number of illegal aliens is purposely low-balled by saying
it is only 12 million when a more realistic estimate is 30-40 million! And then there is the lie that they only take jobs that Americans don't want. Much of this misinformation has only been exposed in more recent years.

So I would urge you to consider these things when making your decision about our candidate - and consider them carefully.

lynn

[Bradley in DC]

It is important to consider not only what was in the legislation that was voted on, but when the vote occurred. I have no knowledge of the specific votes involved,
but it is only common sense and experience that tells me that it should be investigated further.

Dr. Paul's positions have not and do not change. Obviously, when voting aye or nay on a bill, it depends on what's in the whole bill (different versions of which change over time).

[tnvoter]

I imagine if Tancredo were to drop out, Paul would get that solid 1% extra boost, as no other candidates seem to give a #### about the border or the illegal immigration issues.

[Minuteman2008]

The other candidates besides Paul, Hunter, and Tancredo are just pandering on illegal immigration. Like you said, they really don't care, but now they have to take a stand on it since it is the number one topic on conservative talk radio (something I never thought would happen). Even with weak voting records on immigration, Giuliani and Thompson are going to try to convince voters they can be trusted on this. I can't believe how naive people can be.

[rg123]

I like Tom he is a nice guy but he cannot speak for crap and is for pre-emptive strike on Iran and pro nafta you will never hear Tom say that he would remove it. He is against the nau but believes that some of nafta is workable to his principles
he has to many ties to neo's in the party on the economic side allthough they disagree on Immigration
Tom needs to stay in congress and I believe his supporters will follow Ron Paul
allthough some peeps are so upset that they simply will not vote republican or dem for feeling so betrayed. For me the thing with Duncan Hunter is he has alot of ties to Military contractors My gut tells me his stance on border security have more to do with how much Duncan can profit from the deal than anything else. I'll never forget when he hugged Bush at the signing of the The Military Commissions Act of 2006 A picture is worth a thousand words notice how thrilled he is in this photo op
withBush:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/images/20061017-1_p101706pm-086-515h.html

[specsaregood]

For me the thing with Duncan Hunter is he has alot of ties to Military contractors My gut tells me his stance on border security have more to do with how much Duncan can profit from the deal than anything else.

You would be 100% correct.
"Duncan Hunter: Never Mind What the Navy Says, This Plane is AWESOME"

Excerpt: "Congress has spent $63 million dollars in an effort spearheaded by Duncan Hunter to build a plane that the Pentagon does not want and does not think will work."

Read more: http://2008central.net/?p=917#more-917

[LibertyEagle]

This should be all it takes...

Duncan Hunter was a sponsor of the Military Commission Act. You know, the piece of legislation that stripped away your habeas corpus rights.

[Lord Xar]

Here is that link. I don't think this is it.. but this one is extensive.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TX&VIPID=787

[KingTheoden]

Recall that it was Tancredo just a couple years back advocating for the REAL ID Act, a bill that trounces the Constitution and has done absolutely nothing to resolve the immigration problems we face.

People think it is as simple as erecting a massive wall and then forgetting about the whole ordeal. Phonies like Mitt Romney talk about the 'scourge' of immigration violations yet are ardent supporters of expanded Z visas and other programs that pack in as many skilled workers from Asia as possible.

There would not be such an influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America were it not for the following:

Mexico's Government- Contrary to what those on the Left (and Right for that matter), Mexico is hardly an example of market capitalism. Its government, which our government supports, ensures oligopolies or flat out monopolies thus explaining why Mexico has such a high per capita billionaire rate. It is not a free country and official repression is considered normal. If our government to were to halt its support of the corrupt regime in Mexico City, it would crumble and a much freer administration would take office. Such might mean a North and South Mexico; but that is hardly a bad thing. As people have more freedom, they have much more incentive to remain home rather than search for a better life elsewhere.
Welfare Culture- From the federal government down to the municipal level, people have become utterly addicted to government programs. An effect of this is that the rest of the world wished they could get a piece of such 'freebies' as well. Dr. Paul has made this point before; scaling back welfare would have a significant effect on scaling back those who come here and end up costing the nation far more than whatever they contribute.
Massive Labor Regulations- Even though the Constitution contains the 'Contract Clause,' the ability for a two free parties to freely engage in business has been usurped. Legally, if I want to hire someone I have to file various forms, withhold sums of the employee's salary, be concerned with him suing me on absurd grounds, etc. etc. Rather than expose myself to such risk and trouble, I might decide to hire people 'off the books' and it so happens that predominantly those who are willing to work in such a way are illegal aliens. If we gut regulation it will allow a truly free marketplace and lead to less reliance on foreign workers.


I would just like to add two side points. One, so-called legal immigration is hurting our nation just as much as illegal immigration because current law allows US employers to specially seek out foreigners for skilled positions that can be filled by those living here. Someone who received advanced degrees in computer science i force to compete with an H1B1 visa resident who has no more love for America than a Mexican landscaper. But instead of putting out of work a young or blue collar American, the H1B1 forces someone who should earn around 120 000 a year to work as a middle manager at a big box store making half that. So while illegal aliens are an immense drain on our resources, we need to be fair and address the full spectrum of immigration problems we face. Second, Tancredo comes off much to hostile towards the illegals; he means well I have no doubt but he needs to focus less on admonishing the individuals but rather attack the system that has led to the present situation. Dr. Paul does that very well and is why I believe he is far superior a candidate on immigration reform.

[Lord Xar]

Recall that it was Tancredo just a couple years back advocating for the REAL ID Act, a bill that trounces the Constitution and has done absolutely nothing to resolve the immigration problems we face.

People think it is as simple as erecting a massive wall and then forgetting about the whole ordeal. Phonies like Mitt Romney talk about the 'scourge' of immigration violations yet are ardent supporters of expanded Z visas and other programs that pack in as many skilled workers from Asia as possible.

There would not be such an influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America were it not for the following:

Mexico's Government- Contrary to what those on the Left (and Right for that matter), Mexico is hardly an example of market capitalism. Its government, which our government supports, ensures oligopolies or flat out monopolies thus explaining why Mexico has such a high per capita billionaire rate. It is not a free country and official repression is considered normal. If our government to were to halt its support of the corrupt regime in Mexico City, it would crumble and a much freer administration would take office. Such might mean a North and South Mexico; but that is hardly a bad thing. As people have more freedom, they have much more incentive to remain home rather than search for a better life elsewhere.
Welfare Culture- From the federal government down to the municipal level, people have become utterly addicted to government programs. An effect of this is that the rest of the world wished they could get a piece of such 'freebies' as well. Dr. Paul has made this point before; scaling back welfare would have a significant effect on scaling back those who come here and end up costing the nation far more than whatever they contribute.
Massive Labor Regulations- Even though the Constitution contains the 'Contract Clause,' the ability for a two free parties to freely engage in business has been usurped. Legally, if I want to hire someone I have to file various forms, withhold sums of the employee's salary, be concerned with him suing me on absurd grounds, etc. etc. Rather than expose myself to such risk and trouble, I might decide to hire people 'off the books' and it so happens that predominantly those who are willing to work in such a way are illegal aliens. If we gut regulation it will allow a truly free marketplace and lead to less reliance on foreign workers.


I would just like to add two side points. One, so-called legal immigration is hurting our nation just as much as illegal immigration because current law allows US employers to specially seek out foreigners for skilled positions that can be filled by those living here. Someone who received advanced degrees in computer science i force to compete with an H1B1 visa resident who has no more love for America than a Mexican landscaper. But instead of putting out of work a young or blue collar American, the H1B1 forces someone who should earn around 120 000 a year to work as a middle manager at a big box store making half that. So while illegal aliens are an immense drain on our resources, we need to be fair and address the full spectrum of immigration problems we face. Second, Tancredo comes off much to hostile towards the illegals; he means well I have no doubt but he needs to focus less on admonishing the individuals but rather attack the system that has led to the present situation. Dr. Paul does that very well and is why I believe he is far superior a candidate on immigration reform.

Well, I do NOT agree that legal immigration is equally as destructive as illegal immigration. That is just a PLAIN WRONG statement. A job taken is a job taken. If you have 250,000 visas and only a fraction of those are given to outside labour as opposed to MILLIONS of jobs thru illegal immigration and then count all the social/economic ramifications.. I would say ILLEGAL immigrations IS MUCH MORE destrcutive than legal immigration.. much more. If illegal immigration is a cause of 40% of the unemployement of black american, I would say that is HUGE!

Anways, I don't want to split hairs... I just think that Ron Paul "can" be tougher. I mean, no wall? There needs to be a wall. There just needs to be, symbolism is important.

anyways, thank you for your responses.

[Shmuel Spade]

"Raise your hand if you think it's appropriate to talk about nuking Mecca."

*Tancredo raises hand*
*Ron Paul doesn't*

/point made

[KingTheoden]

But the tricky part is quantifying the effect of importing unlimited people from India and Asia. Someone who would otherwise be making six figures is forced either to be a contractor for Blackwater to match that salary- or is forced to work in a big box store pulling down 45 000 managing a store. Our hypothetical person is still employed but instead of being white collar, he is lower middle class. These visas that corporations can obtain are absolutely obscene; they actually advertise jobs and interview for them with the goal to disqualify an American so they can bring in someone who will work for 50% the going rate (which is fine because he will put money in various business tax shields his cousin creates thanks to incentives to immigrants to start businesses).

I do agree that my comment that illegal immigration was only as destructive as legal immigration was wrong and misleading. I do standby the rest of my post however. As for a wall, I am pretty sure that Ron Paul voted for a fence to span the border. In terms of building the next Great Wall, I just don't think that is necessary. If we make the changes I listed above and station the military on the Southern border, I think we will have this problem mopped up by Christmas.

[lynnf]

Dr. Paul's positions have not and do not change. Obviously, when voting aye or nay on a bill, it depends on what's in the whole bill (different versions of which change over time).

Thanks for that clarification. I assume that you're talking partly about those
Frankenstein bills that have several unrelated topics rolled into one bill, like say, immigration, health care and clean air.

Could you let us know how you know about Dr. Paul's record? For instance, if
you are on his staff, how long you have been there?

lynn

[LibertyEagle]

I do agree that my comment that illegal immigration was only as destructive as legal immigration was wrong and misleading. I do standby the rest of my post however. As for a wall, I am pretty sure that Ron Paul voted for a fence to span the border. In terms of building the next Great Wall, I just don't think that is necessary. If we make the changes I listed above and station the military on the Southern border, I think we will have this problem mopped up by Christmas.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it is my understanding that Ron doesn't want to put the military on the border. He prefers using the National Guard and beefing up the border patrol. I would think it had something to do with the whole posse comitatus thing.

I agree though that since he voted for the fence and seems to endorse it in his writeup on immigration, he should act stronger about it. Otherwise, it makes him look like he's waffling and I know he isn't a waffler.

[Bradley in DC]

Thanks for that clarification. I assume that you're talking partly about those
Frankenstein bills that have several unrelated topics rolled into one bill, like say, immigration, health care and clean air.

Could you let us know how you know about Dr. Paul's record? For instance, if
you are on his staff, how long you have been there?

lynn

We call those velcro Christmas trees.:D When a bill is moving, it attracts ornaments (add ons to gain votes and also people with pet projects trying to get them passed).

Yes, I was a legislative staffer for Dr. Paul, long-time fan, and still work closely with the office. You can check mine--or anyone's--profile by clicking on their name.