Why Ron Paul Voted For the Amnesty Bill

Sierra Times ^

[Sir Gawain]

Why Ron Paul Voted For the Amnesty Bill
By Sierra Times
Published 03. 25. 02 at 21:05 Sierra Time

After last weeks vote of HR 1885 that granted amnesty to immigration that now occupy U.S. Soil, Ron Paul's (R-TX) vote left many of our readers scrathing their heads. They weren't alone. So we asked. According to Paul's office, there may have been some bad 'spin' on the details about the bill itself. We'll let you be the judge as you read. Your feedback is strongly encouraged. - Sierra Times

---

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.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[tallhappy]

Of course he would vote for it or support it. If he didn't he would be very untrue to his philosophy.

Libertarians don't even believe in borders.

There are no illegal immifgants in their view -- can't be.

[sinkspur]

Let's repeat what Paul says. He says the same thing lots of the rest of us have been saying since this bill was passed:

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.

It's not an amnesty!

[AmericanInTokyo]

I'd like to hear Messrs. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo both debate this. Maybe on Crossfire? Paul could team with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and perhaps Tancredo could team with Pat Buchanan. Would be good....

[tallhappy]

Funny. Ron Paul claims he will re-write the constitution singlehandedly to make everything all right.

[AmericanInTokyo]

It is "regularization."

This is the first step in the process of "amnesty". De-facto, it is a precedent to amnesty and therefore, can and should be considered as intrinsically a part of this process. Maybe Tom Tancredo (Republican-Colorado) could shed some light on this point.

[cynicom]

Political spin balogna, regardless of how Paul slices it.

[TomGuy]

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.

Politicobabble. All HR190 says is that a child born to "a mother who is neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident" is not a citizen of the US. The Bill addresses nothing regarding benefits to illegals.

HR 190
A BILL
To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the individual's birth in the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.
In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this Act to a mother who is neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a citizen or national of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a citizen or national, or is entitled upon application to become a citizen or national of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.

[Sabertooth]

Let's repeat what Paul says. He says the same thing lots of the rest of us have been saying since this bill was passed:

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.

It's not an amnesty!

To be fair, most of you at least got the name of the Section right... 245(i).

Ron Paul has never been an icon of any sort to me, and his statement amounts to either spin and dissembling, or outright confusion.

Once again...

INS Memo: Sec. 245(i) filings

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment.
Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.

President Bush's desired 245(i) extension was specifically about illegals.
Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals.

Here's more...

How Do I Benefit From Section 245(i)?
(from INS website)

Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) after they obtain immigrant visas from a consulate or embassy outside the United States or, for many immigrants already lawfully in the United States, through a process called "adjustment of status." If you entered the United States unlawfully, if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, or if you worked without permission, you normally would have to leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa. Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States.

You might need section 245(i) if you:

• Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official.
  
• Stayed in the U.S. longer than allowed by INS.
  
• Entered the U.S. as a worker on an aircraft or ship (crewman).
  
• Entered the U.S. as a "Transit Without Visa."
  
• Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since your entry into the US.
  
• Worked in the U.S. without INS permission.
  
• Entered as an "S" nonimmigrant (relates to witnesses about criminal or terrorism matters).
  
• Are seeking a work-related visa and are out of status at the time of filing the application to adjust status (Form I-485).
  
• Worked in the U.S. while being an "unauthorized alien."

LINK

Here's a nice refutation by Michelle Malkin of the embarassing Wall Street Journal editorial, "Immigrants and Terrorists," that so many of FR's Bush apologists and Amnesty Deniers were clinging to earlier this month.

Whatever you do, don't believe your lying eyes.

[Destructor]

"ther 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."

What about the thread yesterday about the Bill that was introduced to shut down the INS in the wake of the whole 9/11 debacle? How are we going to have 200 additional INS Inspectors if there is no longer an INS? Something about this whole thing is beginning to stink! It's like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

[KC Burke]

Thanks for finding this and posting it.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Rest assured, I am against general amnesty for illegal aliens.

Agreed!

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.

I said this before, here.

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.

And I said that, here.

Other provisions of HR 1885 will go a long way toward addressing your concerns regarding border control and security.

That's right. Thanks Ron Paul. We totally agree!

[Victoria Delsoul]

[Sabertooth]

Ron Paul: Rest assured, I am against general amnesty for illegal aliens.

Don't you see the weasel words? "I am against general amnesty..."

Sounds like too many have figured out the Clintonian "no blanket amnesty" promise, so the Amnesty Deniers are fishing for new jargon.

[dead]

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.

I’ve been pointing out for years that our “immigration problem” lies not in those crossing the borders, but with the socialist agenda of those already here.

[Joe Hadenuf]

It's not an amnesty!

Oh come on sink. If you say this enough, even *you* may begin to believe it.

[Sir Gawain]

But realistically, what are the chances of ending the welfare state? Of course it would help end the problem. That's why it will never be done.