RP voted for Section 245(i) amnesty for illegal aliens on three (3) occasions???

[Misesian]

I saw over at FireSociety.com somebody brought to the attention that Ron Paul voted for this. Some of the other parts of the immigration that Graciela brings to question is fluff but what about this amnesty thing.

You can reply over here, where there is plenty of other Ron Paul discussion going on too amongst constitutionalists and neocons: http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thr...2&page=1#68638

[Wyurm]

I hate numbersUSA, why people are stupid (edit: I'm not actually saying those guys are stupid, I mean its a stupid site to use) enough to use that site for arguments, I'll never know. The problem with NumbersUSA is that they love to use old bills as proof to back up their claims. Often bills that are really hard to find online. Usually the bills they CLAIM were a bad thing to or not to support have hiddent clauses, arent what they appear to be, or something of that nature. So, I'll make a deal with you. Since I am sick and tired of trying to research NumbersUSA claims, find the actuall bill text on another site and post it here, and I'll help decipher it. I'm sorry for appearing lazy, but I really am tired of that site purposely posting inaccurate info thats not easy to research.

[Gee]

http://www.npa-us.org/issues/immigra...ration-law.htm

All its supposed to do is allow people in the US legally to apply for residency while still remaining in the US. Does it have a loophole? After 20 years in congress, you can't expect someone to never make a mistake.

[ThePieSwindler]

http://www.npa-us.org/issues/immigra...ration-law.htm

All its supposed to do is allow people in the US legally to apply for residency while still remaining in the US. Does it have a loophole? After 20 years in congress, you can't expect someone to never make a mistake.

How is that a mistake? If they are here legally, then laws that help them move toward becoming citizens are good. And constitutional (the congress shall have the power to enforce uniforms laws of naturalization).

[jacksit]

From what I can tell, the bill would allow people here illegally to apply for residency status. That would not make them "citizens" but "legal residents." Basically, it would allow them the same opportunity to apply for residency status as people abroad. Without it, they could only get legal residency status if they left the country and applied abroad. However, since there's a 3 or 10 year bar for people reapplying after having left the US, they, in reality, would not be able to apply. So it seems to be a way of registering people who are here. I don't really have a problem with that.

[angelatc]

I don't like the fact that he voted for this. I absolutely have aproblem with allowing people who entered this country illegally the chance to make themselves legal residents. Millions of people put their names in the lottery every year, hoping to get called. Rewarding the people who don't have any respect for our laws is just wrong.

It's like waiting in line for tickets to a hot concert, on the hottest days of summer. standing at the back of a long line, bring a tent, csome reading material, food, drinks, for 2 days knowing when the box office opens you might get tickets, then having 10 people cut in at the front...then having the manager tell you"Well, because they got here first, and we don't want to make a scene, we're going to sell them some tickets. "

Dr Paul usually seems to be able to predict what's going to happen, so I will admit to being disappointed that he didn't see that this was a way to encourage the wave of cheap laborers that corporate America used to dilute the labor market.

Regardless, he seems to be on that page now.

I like Tancredo well enough, but he's a hawk. I won't vote for anybody who doesn't want our troops out.

[jacksit]

From what I can tell, you don't get a preference by being here already. You simply get the chance to enter the lottery on the same terms as everyone else. To use your analogy, the current law prohibits you from buying a ticket if you're already inside the theater. The new law would give them a chance to buy a ticket. I think giving people the chance to register and take their chances is better than having them not register at all.

[angelatc]

I think that they should lose all chances, forever, by being here illegally.

[jacksit]

Fair enough. That's a reasonable position. Punishing people who come illegally makes sense. It just doesn't seem like much of a punishment to stay in the country illegally and be denied the chance to apply. I just weigh the cost and benefits differently.

[Dan Klaus]

This is a non-issue. I'm sure he had his reasons and this certainly won't deter me from spreading his message of freedom.

[Harald]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=4266

---- pasted here for convenience ---

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

paul is in the Yea's section here

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll127.xml

explanation:

From The Office of Ron Paul: Regarding the extension of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, contained in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (HR 1885).

Rest assured, I am against general amnesty for illegal aliens. Many have suggested that section 244(i) grants "amnesty" to illegal aliens, but this is not true. In fact, it only applies to that group of people who meet the following criteria: they are eleligilble for permanent residency status have lived in this country since Dec. 2000 their application is based on a family relationship that existed prior to Aug. 15, 2001 or on an application for labor certification that was processed before Aug. 15, 2001.

This bill will also allow those who are "waiting in line" for their application to be processed to remain in this country, provided they have a sponsor. In addition, they will be required to pay a penalty of $1000 before they can reapply.

Other provisions of HR 1885 will go a long way toward addressing your concerns regarding border control and security. For example this bill provides for at least 200 additional INS inspectors. and at least 200 additional investigators. It requires the establishment of a government-wide, electronic data-sharing system on persons with terrorist ties, that federal officials could use to determine whether to grant visa application or permit an individual to enter the U.S. In addition, the Justice Dept. will be required to establish a system to electronically track all foreign visa students in the United States. Finally, it would prohibit the issuance of temporary visas to citizens of nations considered to be state sponsors of terrorism, unless it has been determined that the alien does not pose a threat to the safety of American or U.S. national security.

What has not been discussed in the current debate regarding immigration reform is that, rather than luring immigrants to a land of opportunity, our present welfare states draws those from other jurisdictions who come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments. Genuine immigration reform can only result from elimination of the current welfare state and a renewed embracement of the constitutional principles under which transfer payments were the exception rather than the rule. Such a renewal will not only attract the industrious, but will deter those migrants merely looking for a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

It is an outrage for our government to invite people over here for the express purpose of providing them with taxpayer-funded assistance. Rest assured, I believe that immigrants should not receive any form of welfare or public assistance, and this is why I am cosponsoring HR 190, which would revoke the automatic citizenship, and thus right to welfare benefits, currently granted to the children of illegal immigrants.

[Lord Xar]

I don't like the fact that he voted for this. I absolutely have aproblem with allowing people who entered this country illegally the chance to make themselves legal residents. Millions of people put their names in the lottery every year, hoping to get called. Rewarding the people who don't have any respect for our laws is just wrong.

It's like waiting in line for tickets to a hot concert, on the hottest days of summer. standing at the back of a long line, bring a tent, csome reading material, food, drinks, for 2 days knowing when the box office opens you might get tickets, then having 10 people cut in at the front...then having the manager tell you"Well, because they got here first, and we don't want to make a scene, we're going to sell them some tickets. "

Dr Paul usually seems to be able to predict what's going to happen, so I will admit to being disappointed that he didn't see that this was a way to encourage the wave of cheap laborers that corporate America used to dilute the labor market.

Regardless, he seems to be on that page now.

I like Tancredo well enough, but he's a hawk. I won't vote for anybody who doesn't want our troops out.

I was under the impression that the REAL ID ACT was pushed IN with that bill so RON PAUL voted the way he did. Someone could verify this.....

REMEMBER.. WHEN researching bills etc... look at the whole thing, usually there are sides of 'pork' on them that will make or break a bill for someone with principle.

[rpf2008]

I think that they should lose all chances, forever, by being here illegally.

I don't think that's fair.

[angelatc]

I'm not really the touchy feely type.

Fair? My BIL who works new construction, went through the '80's housing market, which was relatively depressed, making $17.50 an hour with benefits, although there were several stints of unemployment. Part of that is because he lives in upstate NY - new construction typically slows down in the winter.

The housing boom that just ended - housing starts and housing prices were at record highs. That means that the demand for labor should have increased, therefore driving wages (including benefits - not just salaries) up. Instead he spent the late 90's - early 2000's stuck in line with the day laborers, working for $8.00 an hour cash, no benefits.

That's not fair either, and I think they need to be absolutely discouraged from coming in illegally. Making them ineligible for citizenship or even residency is a tool to accomplish that.

If we had a shortage of 3rd world workers applying to get in, then I'd reconsider my positions. Time and sensibilities always change, and I'm not above that.

Right now, I'm more of the mind set that we need to reward the meek and punish the lawbreakers.

[Lord Xar]

I'm not really the touchy feely type.

Fair? My BIL who works new construction, went through the '80's housing market, which was relatively depressed, making $17.50 an hour with benefits, although there were several stints of unemployment. Part of that is because he lives in upstate NY - new construction typically slows down in the winter.

The housing boom that just ended - housing starts and housing prices were at record highs. That means that the demand for labor should have increased, therefore driving wages (including benefits - not just salaries) up. Instead he spent the late 90's - early 2000's stuck in line with the day laborers, working for $8.00 an hour cash, no benefits.

That's not fair either, and I think they need to be absolutely discouraged from coming in illegally. Making them ineligible for citizenship or even residency is a tool to accomplish that.

If we had a shortage of 3rd world workers applying to get in, then I'd reconsider my positions. Time and sensibilities always change, and I'm not above that.

Right now, I'm more of the mind set that we need to reward the meek and punish the lawbreakers.

I am with you. I was painting houses 15 years ago for $12/hour... Now! You can do it for $10 or less. Flood the market with illegals, and an american can't supply his family with necessities. But keep in mind, housing.. food, insurance etc.. all have gone up. Not only that.. what is so absolutely ridiculous that the money these employers/big business save by paying slave wages to illegals, WE THE AMERICAN CITIZEN have to make up in our taxes to FUND the social programs etc.... so, really.. we loose twice. Suppressing wages for many americans and also now charging us to promote this illegal behaviour with education, welfare, hospital etc...

angelatc, do you feel Ron Paul goes far enough in his illegal immigration stance?

[Wyurm]

I was under the impression that the REAL ID ACT was pushed IN with that bill so RON PAUL voted the way he did. Someone could verify this.....

REMEMBER.. WHEN researching bills etc... look at the whole thing, usually there are sides of 'pork' on them that will make or break a bill for someone with principle.

I'm not sure if they tried to sneak the Real ID act in at other times, but Numbers USA said that RP was rewarding illegal aliens for voting against the Real ID act. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@D&summ2=m&

Those report card sites are not really trustworthy sources of info on candidates. They usually ignore the actual text of the bills and just grade based on the title or summary. And, I don't just mean for Ron Paul, I mean when looking up info for any candidate. Far too misleading to be trustworthy.

[angelatc]

To be honest, I'm torn. I would absolutely support expenditures designed to export each and every illegal immigrant that's here. There are downsides to that of course - I certainly don't want storm troopers busting down doors and raiding bodegas. That's not America either. Plus, the government is always so absolutely inept that who knows how many citizens would end up in foreign countries. I'm absolutely for fining employers, but I think that the fines would better be tiered as a percentage of revenue or something. Using a flat figure, say, $50,000 per immigrant, would bankrupt a guy like you who accidently hired a student who isn't technically allowed to work, but a company like Dow would just look at it like an operating expense.

so, I don't have the perfect answer. However, I trust his judgement so I'll just have to wait and see.

[LibertyOfOne]

I'm not really the touchy feely type.

Fair? My BIL who works new construction, went through the '80's housing market, which was relatively depressed, making $17.50 an hour with benefits, although there were several stints of unemployment. Part of that is because he lives in upstate NY - new construction typically slows down in the winter.

The housing boom that just ended - housing starts and housing prices were at record highs. That means that the demand for labor should have increased, therefore driving wages (including benefits - not just salaries) up. Instead he spent the late 90's - early 2000's stuck in line with the day laborers, working for $8.00 an hour cash, no benefits.

No one is entitled to have a job that pays well. When a part of the market is not yielding the wages that one wants it's the responsibility of the individual to learn a new skill. Should blacksmiths get government protections because there is squat for market demand? What about typewriter repairmen? So then why should we have government protectionism in the case above? Do you want a free market? Controlling the movement of capital, people, or money is not what a free market is. It's up to us as individuals to adjust to the market because that is how it works. It's a good thing labor prices are cheaper. If they weren't low, the prices of new housing who be much higher than it is now due to added on inflation.

[Wyurm]

No one is entitled to have a job that pays well. When a part of the market is not yielding the wages that one wants it's the responsibility of the individual to learn a new skill. Should blacksmiths get government protections because there is squat for market demand? What about typewriter repairmen? So then why should we have government protectionism in the case above? Do you want a free market? Controlling the movement of capital, people, or money is not what a free market is. It's up to us as individuals to adjust to the market because that is how it works. It's a good thing labor prices are cheaper. If they weren't low, the prices of new housing who be much higher than it is now due to added on inflation.

As RP has already said, with the way our economy is right now, we must enforce illegal immigration laws. Primarilly we need to stop subsidizing illegal immigration and start focusing on straigtening our economy out. Once we get everything straightened out, we can worry about it. But if you have 100 bucks in your pocket and 150 bucks in bills, you should probably not be worrying about donating to a charity. Likewise we don't have the financial stability to support those not willing to push their own country to do whats right.

Its not that there would be an issue in a perfect world, or even in a world where we had a stable economy, however we dont live in a world like that at the moment. We can't afford illegal immigrants, and that's that for now. If the NAU goes through, or amnesty is passed, I believe you would suddenly develop a very different view on this matter. Sadly, then it would be too late.