Skip to comments.On Illegal Immigration and Border Security[Ron Paul]
Posted on 12/03/2007 11:37:07 AM PST by BGHater
Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem.
We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. Its no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so.
Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.
The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.
I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation we dont have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.
The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America .
I am forced, kicking and screaming, to agree with what he says.
See, if he would emphasize these positions instead of working on getting contributions from the anti-war moonbat wing of the Democratic Party, he’d be doing even better than he is now. But for whatever reason, he’s decided that he’s going to be Moonbat-in-Chief with his anti-war rhetoric.
Paul has very valid points about limiting the scope and role of government in our lives as well as on immigration.
Too bad he’s off the reservation on other important stuff.
Ronald Ernest Paul, old hippie, Free Sex, Free Drugs
and free Huey! ( Dewey and Louie too).:)
Here is his theme song.
Shrimp boats is a-comin, their pork is in sight.
Shrimp boats is a-comin, they will be druggies tonight.
DH would make a fine President.
Here is Paul's problem in a nut shell. He make sense for a paragraph or two then loses control and starts screaming insanely stupid garbage like the above.
It is this sort of wholly fraudulent, rabidly stupid demagoguery that not only disqualifies Paul to be CIC, it disqualifies him to be a Congresscritter. He simply is far too bio polar to be in an position of political power.
The problem with Ron Paul and illegal immigration is that until now he’s never really done anything to combat it. He voted against putting the military on the border and through the years his only solution has been ‘end welfare’.
Don’t forget Ron has never gotten one piece of his legislation through congress, and he never offered much in the way of immigration.
Now if he would get a clue on iraq (or atleast show that he knows what’s really going on there) then he would be doing a lot better in the polls.
So you're saying that it's NOT outrageous that we're guarding Iraq's borders better than our own?
I agree with you. If he stuck to his guns on this he might have a chance. I see more and more support going his way. As I’ve said before “We can’t send all the illegals home.............until we start.” But....there’s too much money following them around. Follow the money and you’ll understand why Congress or the President hasn’t done anything. Also look to the NAU idea.
“Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.”
Ron Paul is the only candidate to have done something concrete (introducing legislation) to do away with the anchor baby outrage.
Actually not, Tancredo and Hunter have both proposed bills on this as well.
Ron Paul is far from the only Congressman to introduce such legislation.
That plus the fact that neither of them are anti-war moonbats are some of the things that make them real conservatives.
It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders.
Try this: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2005/March/other/iraq_training.xml
Or this, though I am sure since Bob Barr joined the ACLU he is now a heathen in your eyes:
We Can't Secure Our Borders, but Iraq's Borders Get Priority
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
May 30, 2007
Check it out at Numbers USA.
Don't bother giving me the Constitution argument on this. The fact is that Paul won't defend America abroad and he won't defend her at home either.
On this issue Ron Paul is not wrong, or nuttier than a squirrel turd.
On this issue.
Don't bother giving me the Constitution argument on this.
Ok, we'll just ignore Posse Comitatus violations and "other provisions" that were inside the Goode Amendment HR 4200. I still don't agree with Paul's stance on border issues. And it's a fair and compelling argument against Paul's candidacy. Paul has a well thought out and long consistent record against using any combat troops on US soil, he is also consistently against workplace SS number identification schemes on the basis that the US is a right to work country. Up until 9/11 most conservatives were opposed to national ID cards, on various grounds, and I am still against national ID cards. The Bush administration has abandoned the REAL ID Act by almost indefintely delaying it's implementation due to resistance from State level governments. So the prior position of the conservative movement regarding Posse Comitatus and national ID cards hasn't been abandoned, you can successfully argue it is an outmoded stance, but the stance goes back to at least the time period of the introduction of the Social Security Administration.
Solders make lousy cops. Border Patrol Agents are cops.
Unthinking slavish worship of anyone, especially of a politican, is silly and sickening. Please stop it. You are seriously empbarassing yourself.
How can I trust a thing a guy says that has bought into the idea that since the year 2000, illegal alien immigrants have only increased by a little over 2 million? This being the case, how can he state that the problem has exploded in the last ten years? What basis would there be to support that comment? It was generally accepted that we had ten million illegal alien immigrants in country in the year 2000.
Paul then procedes to tell us how much illegal immigrants are costing us. Well, I agree, they are costing a lot, but the costs of around 30 million are a lot more than the costs of about 12 million. Why is he deflating the incidence of illegal alien immigration?
The subsidy issue is significantly impacted by the number of illegals who are here. So is the overcrowding at U.S. schools. So are a number of negative aspects of this overcrowding and how those side issues impact the education of our youth in general.
Paul then dips into the murkey waters of illegal alien immigration and border control, to reveal that our war in Iraq is the problem. If only we had all those troops on our border, ‘where they belong’, all would be just peachy in this old world.
Ron, you do yourself a disservice. You touch on important issues that need to be touched on, but you nulify your credibility by tying your views on other topics to them. And then your comments fall like a house of cards. You’re your own worst enemy.
Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday]
• Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
|Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave|
too bad you are wrong. nothing has been sudden about his desire to close the borders.
Yeah, but wouldn’t it be wonderful what he could do with the executive power of the presidency. Some things that he has been advocating for years could be done with the stroke of a pen.
Then you have the bully pulpit. A Ron Paul win would have the congressional critters p**ping in their pants. Unbalanced budgets would have to passed over a veto. Tax raises would have to be passed over a veto. Congressional raises would have to be passed over a veto. In fact, most things would have to be passed over a veto.
Just stagnating congress would have a huge beneficial effect on our economy. Come the mid term elections, the Ron Paul Brigades will have many candidates against the congressional critters opposed to his agenda.
We are in for a wild ride.
Prawned Paul is his own worse enemy. Just when you find yourself agreeing with him, he starts spewing enemy propaganda again.
Keywords for "bullshit next to come".
gimme gimme gridlock baby!
Cites, please. How is it that protecting our own borders is so much LESS important than protecting the borders of another nation, ANY OTHER nation???? Why is it that the best CBP agents are in another country instead of doing their job on OUR borders???
Am I the only one who finds the Bush fanboys busting on Paul on this issue hilariously ironic?
No, for some reason you guys have decided he's going to be Moonbat-in-Chief.
AuntB you keep raising this point but it does really say anything about Paul one way or the other. For all you know the pieces of legislation he's introduced have all been wonderful and would have left our country more prosperous and more safe than it is today.
Not having legislation only means that, it didn't pass. Why didn't it pass? Because for whatever reason the other congresscritters didn't see that it passed. Maybe the bills would have limited their power or perks in some way.
. . . and he never offered much in the way of immigration.
You still admit that he's offered something. Not offering much does not equal not offering anything at all.
Don't hold your breath. The "not passing any legislation" argument will continue to be used.
Works for me! (As a positive, that is.) George Will once remarked that the first amendment begins with the most beautiful phrase in the English language: “The Congress shall make no law...”
Agreed. However, Paul has never been able to get a piece of legislation through congress, has NO congressional support (except Kucinich) and ending welfare is up to Congress.
Maybe you haven't got to this post in the thread yet, but you're wrong.
Look! It only took two posts! ;^)
Facts are stupid things. ;-)
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.
There seem to have been several times this amendment was offered. Also as the Goode Amendment. What I don't understand is, if these amendments passed anyway, why they were voted on so many times.
Since it seems inconsistent with border control to vote against these amendments, why would Dr. Paul vote against them? Were there other elements expanding governmental powers, sacrificing individual liberties and responsibilities, increasing the tax burden, etc. that ultimately, in Dr. Paul's view, outweighed the benefits?
At any rate, to flat out say Dr. Paul is not interested in border security based on the records to which you refer is to misinterpret the evidence altogether.