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. It’s 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 don’t 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.
}:-)4
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.
ping
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:
Bob Barr
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.