I need CLARIFICATION on the Following: Some Immigration Bills.

[Lord Xar]

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

Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.

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

Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.

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

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.

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

Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 232-183.

Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate.

Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.

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

Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.

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

I am trying to wrap my brain around the votes above and his stance on illegal immigration. Does he intend to actually enforce the laws and get those borders secure, or ?

Please advise on each point. NO conjecture please.

[Wyurm]

gah, as I said in the last thread, numbersusa is NOT a good site to get voting record info from. None of the reportcard sites are. The only good way to understand ANY candidate's voting record is to look at the actual bill TEXT for each vote. For example, Tancredo has an A+ in immigration control. One of the bills he voted for that made him look good on immigration control was the real ID act.

Ok, I can't find the thread, but I know for sure there is one and it has a good explaination, the search just isnt revealing it for me.

This link shows Dr. Paul's stand on immigration: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5

[Harald]

Here is a free bump. We need to get a statement from his staff / RP on this. I tried searching congressional record around the time the bills were passed.

My reading of this (despite your prohibition on cojectures :p ):

Military goal is to fight wars. Destroy human beings and property. (and act as a deterrent promising to inflict pain and suffering on would be attacker)
Border control goal is to deter people from crossing the border illegaly. It is law enforcement activity. Not military activity.

Different skill set, tools, training required to be good and efficient at achieving those goals (military vs border control).


Moreover, it is illegal under Posse Comitatus Act to use military under federal authority for law enforcement which border control is.

Ron Paul is for more border guards, but against combat troops on the border.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr020905.htm

Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?

[qednick]

RP would NEVER authorize use of federal troops to do a law enforcement job period.

[Lord Xar]

I hear what you are saying... BUT there should be some clarification as many of those bills, it would seem appropriate TO HAVE armed forces in "some cases" - ie, national defense... I am having a hard time defending ron paul on ANY of these points on other forums....

[qednick]

I hear what you are saying... BUT there should be some clarification as many of those bills, it would seem appropriate TO HAVE armed forces in "some cases" - ie, national defense... I am having a hard time defending ron paul on ANY of these points on other forums....

I'm not sure why you're having a hard time defending this. Using military to guard borders is like using military to do regular police work in your home town.

[Johnnybags]

the reasons are not normally what you think. For instance, voting against medals for Rosa parks- oh no sounds awful- but willing to pay for it out of his own pocket if all the spendthrifts kicked in, which they declined. Bottom line is he will enforce laws on the books and find a constitutional way to secure the border. Either that or have your pals vote for Rudy, who will dismantle the border and send our military to the southern border of Mexico under the new NAU, its his job to get done, now that the chimp failed. Thompson and McCain are the under the same orders. Clinton and Obama are as well, odd, no!

[Bob Cochran]

RP would NEVER authorize use of federal troops to do a law enforcement job period.
I totally agree with not using troops to enforce laws except in emergencies, and I'm happy to see that Ron Paul appears to have a consistent voting record on NOT using troops to guard our borders.

[ThePieSwindler]

One thing to remember is that Ron Paul realizes the problem must be pulled up from the roots. Using more force will only prove to make the immigrants who want to come here for the freebies more violent, and it will not stop the problem of the illegals already in the country. He realizes that it is the welfare state and anchor baby provision in i think the 14th amendment? that causes a problem because it puts a burden on the states and the taxpayers. Now, as for using troops down on the border, that would be in violation of the Posse Commitatus Act, as Gor just said, and is really unnecessary and potentially dangerous, as all we need are border guard law enforcement. No matter what, the incentive to come here for free handouts must be taken away.

[Lord Xar]

I'm not sure why you're having a hard time defending this. Using military to guard borders is like using military to do regular police work in your home town.

Well, I believe the issue is that IF YOUR POLICE in your time is under a state of emergency because they are woefully ineffective -- then what? Take a year or two or three to hire new police, or "under certain conditions" put military there.

[qednick]

Well, I believe the issue is that IF YOUR POLICE in your time is under a state of emergency because they are woefully ineffective -- then what? Take a year or two or three to hire new police, or "under certain conditions" put military there.

Border security is not the job of the military, it's the job of the border patrol and USCIS. If they need more agents, they should hire them.

Think about this: back in 2001 when they wanted to "secure" the border with Mexico, they've had 6 years to build a Berlin-style wall all along the border but haven't. They kept telling us how fearful and scared we should all be. The pesky terrorists can just sneak across from Mexico with a nuke in a suitcase. So why haven't they built the Berlin-style wall yet - which they easily could've done in 6 full years???

I'll tell you why. It's because just about every politician these days is a member of the CFR and believes in collectivsm and globalization. For the same reason the British politicans keep refusing the UK population a referendum on the EU constitution/treaty. They know they'll get a massive "NO" vote and it will go against their mass plans for globalization.

Despite what they say, they actually WANT those immigrants here - whether we like it or not.

:mad:

[LibertyEagle]

Well, I believe the issue is that IF YOUR POLICE in your time is under a state of emergency because they are woefully ineffective -- then what? Take a year or two or three to hire new police, or "under certain conditions" put military there.

It is my understanding that this is why we have a National Guard. We don't want the military involved in police actions in our country. That was the whole reason for Posse Comitatus.

I don't think Dr. Paul has any problem with using the National Guard on the border. It's just the military he takes issue with.