Need Help Defending RP On Immigration Issue

[libertygrl]

Fellow Ron Paul Supporters;

I was hoping you might be able to help me. I am a frequent visitor/poster to a rather influential anti-illegal immigration web forum called Americans For Legal Immigration. (ALIPAC) http://www.alipac.us Other issues are discussed there as well, but the main objective is to stop illegal immigration. The activists there seem to be Americans from all walks of life, and are very committed. I can tell you for a fact, that they were very instrumental in getting the most recent amnesty bill stopped in the Senate.

I continually post information there about Ron Paul and he has generated some interest. However, people have continually been asking very good questions about specifics of his voting record when it comes to immigration. Some of his voting stances on immigration have me scratching my head as well, and the only response I can come up with is to tell people that if it doesn't follow the constitution Ron Paul won't vote for it. (Obviously, I'm in need of a better response!)

But these latest posts require some real knowledge and specifics behind his voting record on various immigration bills. He's getting really slammed on this issue and I'm concerned that these posters are beginning to influence the other people who may have been considering him.

Since ALIPAC's numbers continue to grow by leaps and bounds, it can be a great place to influence people to vote for Ron Paul. However, to some people there, he doesn't seem to have a clear stance on immigration and I was hoping some of you who are more knowledgeable, might be willing to register with ALIPAC and respond to their concerns. Here are some examples:

From ALIPAC Posters:

"Here is a link to a video of Paul adressing immigration that I posted on a different thread. Listen closely, then tell me if you are convinced that he is against a guest worker program/amnesty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38

To me, Paul only objects to giving illegals welfare benefits. Afterall, some of their work-ethic is "more American than some of us.

I never thought I would roll my eyes at Paul, but that comment disgusts me as well as the applause he received by his supporters. Sure some illegals work harder than some Americans, but hard work isn't really an indicator of how American you are....as if Americans have a monopoly on hard work or something. Paul needs to get right with the social/cultural aspects that Tom Tancredo adresses. My support of Ron is wearing thin."
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, since Paul supports a free market economy, am I to assume he thinks we probably need illegals and that they should be acceptable. The more I hear from him, the more I question having him as my third choice. We do not need illegal immigrants and giving them a "free pass" is not acceptable!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------

"From what I gather, Ron would be OK with amnesty as long as we end welfare -- which is a typical libertarian view. That is unacceptable in my book, and one of the reasons I am not a libertarian."

----------------------------------------------------------------


To The Ron Paul Campaign - Where Do You Stand?

With the increased internet attention on Ron Paul, I'm concerned that too many people support what they THINK he stands for without knowing his REAL position.

So I penned an inquiry to his campaign, hoping after several tries to get a response.

Should I receive a response, I'll share it with ALIPAC people.
==============================================
Ladies and Gentlemen of the "Ron Paul for President" campaign:

I attended a March forum in Glendale, AZ where Congressman Paul's representative spoke; her name was Penny (I've forgotten her last name). When I questioned her on specifics of the congressman's immigration votes, she both denied them as well as gave useless replies. It was obvious that she wasn't prepared for questions on immigration votes that evening.

As an anti-illegal migration activist and a lifetime border-state resident, the immigration issue is my top priority. Until the problem is stopped, anything done to resolve our other problems (education, health care, taxes, jobs, economy, crime and national security) are futile and worthless.

I've read Congressman Paul's 6-Point program, and what's there sounds good. What isn't there give me pause, big-time. I've sought answers via attendance at speeches, radio broadcasts and review of the website, all to no aviail. Several fellow activists have asked me to pen questions, and I'm "blind-copying" them on this inquiry (as well as any response I receive).

Too long to copy here. Please go to:
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=72810

- end-
-----------------------------------------------------------

It's great that Ron Paul is against the war, however, I think he should also start speaking out on illegal immigration because that is a HUGE issue as well. Look what happened to McCain after he was pushing that Amnesty Bill. After the war, illegal immigration is a major concern to Americans.

I hope some of you guys may be better equipped to respond to some these posters and help Ron Paul. Thanks for your help!

[DeadheadForPaul]

While I am against illegal immigration and amnesty, I think it is wrong to tie a guest worker program in with that. That's my 2 cents

[Ava]

I don't know if it helps. Ron Paul has stated explicitly that the current laws concerning illegal immigrants should be enforced. In other words, illegal immigrants should be treated exactly as being illegal, and they should not be treated as a second class of citizens with benefits.

Some confusion may come from the fact that Ron Paul has no problem with legal immigration. Anyway, I'm not an expert by any means.

[Lord Xar]

Hey Libertygrl.. I am a member of that site too, and your questions are valid.

I would hope you can get some very clear answers to your questions.

[klamath]

This is right out of his position paper on his site.

"Border Security and
Immigration Reform
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. This is my six point plan:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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"

[Lord Xar]

This is right out of his position paper on his site.

"Border Security and
Immigration Reform
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. This is my six point plan:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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"

She commented on the above.. in that the 6 points are effective but what the questions she asked of his campaign in AZ............. specifially I think of "does he or would he support miliatry at the border" and "does he accept illegal immigrants as long as they are not given welfare benefits"..

I think Ron Paul should clarify things a bit too.

[klamath]

I don't think it could get much clearer than this.

We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Now if they want Ron Paul to turn the country into this to get those nasty Beaners. I would not want that type of people suporting Ron Paul.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Inselian.jpg

[libertygrl]

I don't think it could get much clearer than this.

We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Now if they want Ron Paul to turn the country into this to get those nasty Beaners. I would not want that type of people suporting Ron Paul.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Inselian.jpg

Yeah, that's a frightening picture. Makes you wonder why they went after a child in that manner, and not after the illegal immigrant pedophiles, rapists, gangs, etc. That was during the Clinton administration, was it not?

Anyway, thanks so far for your replies. A big issue for the illegal immigration activists is the idea of having the military protecting our borders. Anyone know why he wouldn't want that? I'm thinking it's because he'd rather have individual border states protect their turf rather than the govt. Would that be the National Guard? I have no doubt he wants to uphold the constitution but some activists believe that one of the first steps in doing so, would be to secure the borders militarily. Personally, I just think many of us are not as informed about constitutional law as Dr. Paul is. That's where he needs to step up and be more specific.

I think we need to bring these issues up to his campaign so that he could address them more clearly. Maybe he could have a town hall meeting with these activists in some of the border states. Any thoughts?

[dspectre]

I think National Guard are really under state Militia, so Yeah I think that would probably fly. The National guard weren't originally under Federal control.

What people don't understand is that if you take away the economic incentive, then there is NO REASON to come here.

It's like what Napoleon said "An army Marches on Its stomach"

If you have a weed growing or a pest, and you take away its food, it dies. It is that simple. WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS.

I'm sounding like a broken record, but if you had a huge military presence, and you could still get stuff for free over here....THERE would still be people who come over the border.

I get tired of these people who consider themselves so called Conservatives and want to use the Federal government to solve their problems.

[dspectre]

One other thing, I think RP would be open to using the Military since under the constitution, The Federal Government has a mandate to secure its sovereignty.

But all things being equal, It always boils down to Money.

[CodeMonkey]

I can't quote him but I think I've heard RP specifically say he wants to use the military to defend the borders. That is a totally legit use of our armed forces.

[klamath]

I just retired from the guard and we do have Guardsmen on the border now. All of the guard is highly strained with muliple deployments to Kosovo, Afganistan, and Iraq.

[Santana28]

well, i think Ron Paul understands first hand that once the incentives for coming (or staying) in this country are removed, a vast majority will return to their home countries VOLUNTARILY without any form of deportation needed beside the threat of deportation.

I personally would take the ending of birthright citizenship farther and revoke the citizenship of children born to illegal immigrants in the past 10-15 years as well. That means the obvious - they will have to take their children with them, instead of crying hardship about seperation from their families. And kids under the age of 10 shouldnt be seperated from their families anyways. They shouldn't have been here in the first place, and they shouldn't be allowed to stay. Consider the free medical care and education they have recieved during their lifetime to be a "gift" - and kindly remind them that the handouts are over.

If the military were brought back from not only Iraq, but all the other unneeded bases around the world, we would have more than enough manpower and equipment to do the job and do it right. Even more reason for those skirting the system to return home voluntarily - who wants to mess with the Army??

I think enforcing the existing laws, and ending birthright citizenship will get the job done 60%. Enacting laws that disallow renters from renting or selling property to illegals will get rid of 80% of the ones who remain. I think actual deportations would end up only happening with about the last 20% of the ones who refuse to leave.

I think it would definitely be counter-productive for Ron Paul to go around touting "Get Tough on Immigration!" and praising Deportation and hard tactics. I think he understands that there are other ways to succeed than that, and he is also ultimately empathetic to their plight as a doctor and does not wish them harm, but at the same time is wise enough to know that there is simply no way they can be allowed to stay in a sovereign nation such as America.

just my thoughts.

[winston84]

Sorry I was wrong about Tancredo and NAFTA. The only thing I can find in favor of Ron Paul that happens to be immigration related is the fact that Tancredo voted in favor of the Real ID Act.

[Lord Xar]

I just retired from the guard and we do have Guardsmen on the border now. All of the guard is highly strained with muliple deployments to Kosovo, Afganistan, and Iraq.

so, are you guys helping down there at all? Seems like the border is completely open........

also, do you really think that the National guard can do a better job than the border patrol?

[klamath]

It might be helping a little but there isn't that many down there. I didn't do any of the border missions as iwas doing a mission overseas. I think that the border could be pretty much sealed with a chain link fence, border road and a couple of thousand border guards.

As for as who could do better it would all depend on the training.

[Lord Xar]

sorry to sound like a broken record,,,, but.

isn't the border with mexico an international border?
I am not following the logic that individual states have to guard their own borders when the whole border itself is internation - thus a federal issue?

Also, wouldn't the huge influx of illegals be an 'national' dilemna? Also, if Ron Pauls logic holds true, then california/texas ie.. border states then would have to fund the border security by themselves when having thsoe borders closed helps ALL the states?

I am trying to wrap my brain around this --


Also, if you stop giving social services then wouldn't the "states" then allow these services to persist? So, if you take it out of the Federal hands, then the States "can" institute social services, correct? for instance LAUSD, los angeles school district -

any ideas?

[Lord Xar]

I would like clarification on this: A poster posted this on another board, and I would like to hear others more versed in Ron Pauls views/Libertarian views about this below.
Most libertarians have cockeyed views when it comes to immigration.

**************************

First of all, even if you eliminated every aspect of the welfare state in this country it would only marginally reduce the influx from our So. border. The reason people come here is because they live in places like Mexico and El Salvador, not simply because we have become a welfare state. If South Korea eliminated all of its social welfare benefits tomorrow do you think people from North Korea would say "whoa, better stay put in this hell-on-Earth?"

Secondly, the people who come here are hard core socialists. They're not wading across the Rio Grande with copies of The Road to Serfdom and Atlas Shrugs in their rucksacks along with bottles of water. Paying obeisance to an abstract principle that might theoretically dovetail with "libertarian" principles-such as open borders-while eradicating liberty in the process-illustrates the hypocrisy of most self-described libertarians in this country


******************************

[klamath]

The guard is a two part funded program. The present funding for the mission on the border is from the federal government. If it was SAD (state active Duty) funded almost no guardmen would go on the mission as the pay is so poor. Most of the time the only time Guard soldiers are paid SAD wages is during floods and earthquakes.