United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The Ron Paul Mystique Part 1
Source:
federalobserver.com
URL Source: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11832
Published: Dec 19, 2009
Author: By S. J. Miller
Post Date: 2009-12-19 21:05:51 by WhiteSands
Keywords: Open Borders, Ron Paul, NoPath-Just Amnesty
Views: 3236
Comments: 42
By S. J. Miller Dust from the November 2006 election had barely settled when presidential candidates began assembling for the 2008 campaign. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), most were known quantities. Lots of "folklore" has been circulated about Congressman Paul, but how much is actually fact vs. "factoid?" Dr. Paul's distinction among Republican candidates is that he's the only one who opposes the War in Iraq. As an American who long ago realized that the US military is used as a corporate security force to protect globalist assets and interests overseas, and the "wars" and "police actions" are mounted whenever global capital interests are threatened, I felt Dr. Paul deserved further investigation as a viable candidate. Whether or not he actually emerges as the winning GOP candidate isn't as important as his forcing RNC recognition of opposition to the Iraq War among conservative voters. "Doing my homework" as an informed voter didn't mean I began with Ron Paul as a blank slate; an old family friend had told me of his Libertarian background, his unorthodox "Constitution-only" stands and her respect for him. Like most Southern Californians, she thoroughly disapproves of his "open borders" position and his past support for illegal alien amnesty, but she supports him because she knows of his love for America. Selecting the Immigration/Border Security issue as my yardstick for evaluating whether Congressman Paul's positions were well-founded and realistic doesn't make me a "one-issue" voter. I chose the issue that I'm most savvy on; many years as an activist on an issue that politicians don't want to discuss has given me valuable experience in recognizing evasion and "phony baloney." As of early 2007, Dr. Paul hadn't published his "official" position on Immigration/Border Security. His House of Representatives website (www.house.gov/paul) doesn't have an "issues" page, nor did I find anything on his Liberty Caucus site. The www.ronpaul.com site that his supporters claim gives a thorough explanation of all pertinent information and links was under construction, as was his "Exploratory Committee" website. So my only feasible starting point was the Libertarian Party website, where I found that I agree with many Libertarian views. I do join many Americans in the two I oppose strongly: "open borders" and "open access to drugs." Congressman Paul's campaign website agrees with these LP positions. Since reports that Dr. Paul supports legalizing prostitution lack substantiation, I discarded them as gossip. Mrs. Penny Langford Freeman came to town. A great "educational" opportunity arrived in February 2007 via a program with speakers opposing the North American Union, including Ms. Penny Langford Freeman, assistant to Congressman Ron Paul. I recognized a great opportunity to learn more about a Presidential candidate that held the promise of the new blood Americans are calling for the in the 2008 election. I was particularly interested in learning how Congressman Paul reconciles his opposition to NAU and NAFTA with his Libertarian Party's "open immigration" platform. When evaluating politicians' promises and "positions," I've adopted The Judge Judy Test: "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true." Not only is it easily understood by virtually everyone, but it's also been foolproof. Considering the current interest of Americans on the immigration issue, it wasn't easy to locate his position. Despite Mrs. Freeman's insistence that www.ronpaul.com and the "Exploratory Committee" websites answered all questions on Dr. Paul's position, they were still under construction. Just before the speech, I revisited the Libertarian Party website where its "Issues" page listed what the LP regarded at the time as "Hot Issues:" High Gas Prices, Corruption on Capitol Hill, the Iraq War. Neither the NAU/SPP nor Immigration/Border Security qualified as "hot issues!" Without the Dr. Paul's Immigration Report Card of his votes assembled by NumbersUSA, I'd have been sunk. Mrs. Freeman spoke on Congressman Paul's early recognition of the virus affecting America (erosion of US sovereignty). Hearing Mrs. Freeman tell us that Paul "always tells the truth, even when he knows it isn't what people want to hear" certainly sounded promising for hearing a candid and forthright statement on where Ron Paul really stands. When she called for audience questions, I lost no time in getting to the mike. Ron Paul's voting record (1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border: (3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359), (4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - "Enforcement Only" Bill). (5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners. What a surprise to hear Mrs. Freeman focus her reply not on the five items I'd presented, but instead on Congressman Paul's introduction of a bill banning "birthright citizenship" (actually one of several in the Congressional hopper). Was this another example of the politicians' shell game? I reminded her that my questions weren't about birthright citizenship, but instead about using the military on the border, opposing the border fence amendment to HR 4437, his support for several Section 245i amnesties for illegal aliens and increased guest-worker visas for jobs Americans want. She apparently realized that I wouldn't be blown off so easily and spoke to the questions presented. She said a border fence wasn't needed; sensors at the border would be enough. On the matter of the military on the border, she said it wasn't necessary--the Border Patrol should be fully empowered to do the job. She claimed that the job was done more effectively without the military when states patrolled their own borders, adding an anecdote about Texas Rangers' success in stopping diseased cattle from crossing the border. My genealogical research tells me this is baloney. My great-grandfather served on the southern border at Fort Ringgold, TX while in the US Army (Fifth Infantry, Company E) from 1885-1889. Post Returns and Annual reports filed by military commanders to their superiors telling their duties and activities make clear that the Army and Cavalry patrolled the southern border at the time during Arizona and New Mexico territorial days. These reports were published as leather-bound books, distributed to senators, congressmen and others who eventually donated their copies to public and private collections (the set I used is maintained at the University of Nevada Reno library). "Post Returns" are a land military base equivalent of a ship's log, and are maintained by the National Archives. She complimented the Minutemen on how effective their work has been, suggesting that she believes their mission is permanent. (Perhaps she hasn't heard Chris Simcox tell that the Minutemen eagerly await the day when the federal government will assume their constitutional duty and let the Minutemen go home.) When Mrs. Freeman insisted that Ron Paul has NEVER voted for illegal alien amnesties, I further questioned, "He's never voted to support amnesties under 8 USC Section 245i?" with the bill numbers above. After a slight hesitation, she repeated the denial. While the "Section 245i Amnesty" wasn't the same "path to citizenship" or "earned legalization" touted in "comprehensive immigration reform," it qualified as amnesty by "allowing an illegal alien to remain in the US legally"--the distinction is that 245i was for a temporary amnesty period rather than permanent. 245i was a loophole in the 1996 IRCA that barred illegal aliens from receiving visas for 10 years. By paying a "fee," illegal aliens who applied for legal status could remain in the US while their application was reviewed and evade the usual investigation done in their home countries. (This has a familiar ring!) The 245i program has since ended, but Ron Paul voted for its continuance in 1997, 2001 and 2002, and voted AGAINST ending it later. Because all illegal alien amnesty bills during the past 5 years have originated in the Senate rather than the House, Congressman Paul hasn't been put in a position of casting a publicly-recorded vote on illegal alien amnesty since 2002. It was obvious that Mrs. Freeman was not only unprepared but also unwilling to speak to Paul's voting record on immigration issues, which shocked me. Others in the audience apparently recognized Mrs. Freeman's evasions when they approached me afterward and inquired the source of my research. To encounter from the Ron Paul camp the same evasions characteristic of typical hack politicians was disappointing, but I knew other opportunities would be forthcoming as the presidential campaign continued. Directly from the Paul Campaign They were wrong. The 6 Points raised more questions than it answered; I was underwhelmed. So on July 8 2007, I e-mailed an inquiry to the Ron Paul campaign via its website, outlining specifics that I recognized were missing from the "6-Point Plan." Activists on the immigration issue have learned that what a politician DOESN'T say is just as important as what is acknowledged and it was clearly true of Ron Paul. The inquiry can be found HERE. Public posting not only shared awareness of how ambiguous was the "6-point Plan, but the current interest level in Ron Paul generated lots of speculation and postings even without the campaign's reply. It effectively "opened the public debate." My July 8 inquiry remains unreplied to this day. Not what I would have expected from a candidate claimed to tell the whole truth, even when it's not what people want to hear. On the other hand, it wasn't such a surprise after the February speech experience. 10 days later on July 18, I re-sent the inquiry and this time followed up with a phone call to the campaign. I did learn that the campaign staffers monitor phone calls much more conscientiously than e-mails when I received a call the following day from the campaign's "point-person on immigration," Don Rasmussen. He wanted me to go to RonPaul2008.com, where he would "walk me through" each point that would answer all my questions. "Not so fast, Mr. Rasmussen," I said. "I've read your 6-point plan and it's the result of the ambiguities it contains that I sent my inquiry. Since I've spent the time to organize the "action items," why don't you give me your e-mail address, I'll send you a copy of the inquiry and you can respond to that." That Mr. Rasmussen gave me his e-mail address @ronpaul2008.com told me he was a legitimate campaign spokesman. I was initially impressed that, true to his word, Mr. Rasmussen did reply within 24 hours. I would have been even more impressed had his reply actually addressed the items I presented rather than just offer a generic "one size fits all" evasion of hiding behind some nebulous definition of "we always follow the Constitution." Past emphasis on Congressman Paul's integrity led me to expect more than the standard evasion that I've heard from staffers of (for example) Senators John McCain or Jon Kyl. In the next installment, read Congressman Paul's positions on immigration, directly from the campaign's "point person on immigration," Mr. Don Rasmussen.
I'd collected Ron Paul's voting record on the very strategies urged that night to reverse the influence of "one-world government:" hiring Americans, no amnesty for illegal aliens and border security based on Paul's Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:
2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815
2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 258
6 2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.
And that's exactly what happened. As months passed, the Ron Paul Campaign website (www.ronpaul2008.com) was updated with his http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform on Immigration Reform / Border Security, and several Paul supporters assured me it would answer all my questions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: borntoweardiamonds (#1)
www.numbersusa.com/conten...hor-baby-citizenship.html H.J.Res. 46 - would propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution denying birthright citizenship to a child born to a mother and father, neither of whom are U.S. citizens. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the measure's main sponsor. ----------- www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm Ron Paul on Immigration Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view. A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007 Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship Q: You say you’re a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be US citizens. A: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What’s the contradiction there? Q: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend? A: Well, that’s constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn’t in the original Constitution. And there’s confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it’s still confusing because individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they’re under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it’s awfully, awfully confusing, and, matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007 Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language? A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. But when it comes to bilingualism in schools or the states, under our Constitution, it really is permissible. And the states can decide that. But under the conditions that we have today, I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level. But this doesn’t preclude bilingualism in private use or in education or in local government. Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007 No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals Q: Is it even practical to try to send 12 million illegal immigrants all home? A: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it’s pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded. And that would be the case. Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007 Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn’t be rewarded. That means you don’t give them citizenship. You can’t solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn’t be a threat to us. Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007 No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada? PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty. Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007 We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty. But we force our states and our local communities to pay for the health care and pay for the education. Why wouldn’t they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable. Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007 Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president Q: Should we change our Constitution to allow men like Mel Martinez, born in Cuba, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, to stand here some night as candidates for president? PAUL: I’m a no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent GIULIANI: When he called me up to endorse him, he got me on the phone, he said, “Will you endorse me?”, and I was too afraid to say no. I would say yes. TANCREDO: Intimidating as he might be, I’m saying no. Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007 End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants We haven’t talked about the economics of illegal immigration. You can’t solve this problem as long as you have a runaway welfare state & excessive spending & the wiping out of the middle class through inflation, because that’s what directs the hostility, is people are hurting. When we have all these mandates on hospitals and on schools. There’s an incentive for a lot of our people not to work, because they can get welfare. Then there’s a lot of incentive because they know they’re going to get amnesty. We gave it to the illegals in the ‘80s. Then, we put mandates on the states to compel them to have medical care. And you say, well, that’s compassionate. What happens if the hospital closes and then the people here in this country don’t get medical care? So you can’t divorce it from the economics. You’ve got to get rid of the incentives. No amnesty. No forced benefits. It just won’t work if you try to see this in a vacuum. You have to deal with it as a whole, as an economic issue as well. Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006 Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including: 1. systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and 2. physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband. Proponents support voting YES because: It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing, and for the rest of the border provides a virtual fence, via integrated surveillance technology. Opponents support voting NO because: Just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This bill contains no funding. This bill also ignores real enforcement measures, like hiring more Border Patrol personnel, and instead builds a Berlin Wall on our southern border. So long as employers need workers in this country, and while our immigration systems impede rather than facilitate timely access of willing workers to those opportunities, undocumented immigration will never be controlled. Walls, barriers, and military patrols will only force those immigrants to utilize ever more dangerous routes and increase the number of people who die in search of an opportunity to feed and clothe their families. Reference: Secure Fence Act; Bill H R 6061 ; vote number 2006-446 on Sep 14, 2006 Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. Voting YES on this amendment supports the Minuteman Project, a group of volunteers who have taken on surveillance of the Mexican border for illegal immigrants. The amendment states that US funds will not be used to tell the Mexican government about the whereabouts of the Minuteman Project volunteers. Proponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are volunteer citizens doing what the federal government SHOULD be doing, but has failed to do. Opponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are vigilantes at best and anti-Mexican racists at worst. The amendment states: None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty. * The amendment's sponsor said on its behalf:What this amendment does is it clarifies Congress' position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the US Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located. * As a response to the lawlessness along the Mexican border, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington DC. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill. * There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and their help has been productive and good. * What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice. Reference: Department of Homeland Security appropriations; Bill HR 5441 Amendment 968 ; vote number 2006-224 on Jun 6, 2006 Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. Vote to pass the bill that would require hospitals to gather and report information on possible illegal aliens before hospitals can be reimbursed for treating them. The bill would also make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention, unless the employer meets particular conditions for exemption. The bill would specify that hospitals aren't required to provide care to undocumented aliens if they can be transported to their home country without a significant chance of worsening their condition. Reference: Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments; Bill HR 3722 ; vote number 2004-182 on May 20, 2004 Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend by four months a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency. Reference: Motion sponsoerd by Gekas, R-PA; Bill HR1885 ; vote number 2001-127 on May 21, 2001 Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. Vote to pass a bill to increase the number of temporary visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000. Reference: Bill introduced by Smith, R-TX.; Bill HR 3736 ; vote number 1998-460 on Sep 24, 1998 Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. Paul sponsored against student visas from countries that support terrorism OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts. SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Rep. PAUL: The US remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks more than a year after the tragedy of 9/11. Our borders remain porous--a virtual revolving door and welcome mat for those who would seek to harm us. This was never more evident than when news broke some time ago that the INS had actually renewed the visas for several of the 9/11 hijackers after the attack had taken place. We cannot prevent terrorism if we cannot keep terrorists out of our country. This bill will deny student and "diversity" visas to anyone coming from a country currently on the State Department's list of terrorism-sponsoring countries. It may seem shocking that citizens from these countries can even still receive these visas, but it is true. We must put a lock on this revolving door if we are going to protect Americans from the continuing threat of terrorism on our soil. Further, it is time we face reality regarding Saudi Arabia. We must remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Also, when al-Qaeda supporters were rounded up from Afghanistan, reports showed that of the 158 prisoners, more than 100 were Saudi nationals. With such an evident level of involvement from Saudi nationals in these activities, it is quite obvious that the Saudi government is not doing all it can, or all it should, in resolving this urgent problem. Therefore, Saudi citizens will also be denied student and "diversity" visas to the United States under this bill. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to House Subcommittee on Immigration & Border Security; never came to a vote. Source: Terror Immigration Elimination Act (H.R.488) 03-HR0488 on Jan 29, 2003 Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. Paul scores 100% by FAIR on immigration issues The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, non-profit, public interest membership organization of concerned citizens united by their belief in the need for immigration reform. Founded in 1979, FAIR believes that the U.S. can and must have an immigration policy that is non-discriminatory and designed to serve the environmental, economic, and social needs of our country. FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year. With more than 70,000 members nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership runs the gamut from liberal to conservative. The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position. Source: FAIR website 03n-FAIR on Dec 31, 2003 Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. Paul scores 83% by USBC on immigration issues OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows: * 0%-30%: open-border stance (approx. 197 members) * 30%-70%: mixed record on open borders (approx. 70 members) * 70%-100%: sealed-border stance (approx. 202 members) About USBC (from their website, www.usbc.org): U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations. Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations. Source: USBC website 06n-USBC on Dec 31, 2006 Government services in English only. Paul co-sponsored bill requiring government services in English only A bill to provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes. Be it enacted that Executive Order 13166, 'Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency' (August 16, 2000), is null and void and shall have no force or effect. On August 11, 2000, the President signed Executive Order 13166. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. Source: S.2719/H.R.768 08-S2719 on Mar 5, 2008 Declare English as the official language of the US. Paul co-sponsored declaring English as the official language of the US This bill declares English as the official language of the United States, establishes a uniform English language rule for naturalization. 1. The United States is comprised of individuals from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, and continues to benefit from this rich diversity. 2. Throughout the history of the United States, the common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been the English language. 3. Federal Representatives of shall have an obligation to enhance the role of English as the official language of the Federal Government. 4. The official functions of the Government of the United States shall be conducted in English. 5. All citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the US. 6. All naturalization ceremonies shall be conducted in English.
Good try, but these Bush bots aren't fazed by facts or the truth.
Have either of you ever heard the term Posse Comitatus? Perhaps you should google 18 U.S.C. § 1385
Here, I'll do your legwork for you: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Perhaps you should google 18 U.S.C. § 1385 What a coward. We're being invaded and you don't even want to use all means to protect our nation. Typical Paultard. Markets and profits before citizenship.
That's a pretty dumb remark Neb. But, then again, why would I expect anything else? Maybe you should google the word 'Republic'. Reading is fundamental.
I have stated before that I would love to have the military on our border, IF Congress would declare war on Mexico. Anything short of that is illegal. You can't use the military for civilian law enforcement.
So is accuracy and knowledge of word meanings and definitions.
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
How do you propose that we round up tens of millions of illegals and remove them from the country?
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
How do you propose that we round up tens of millions of illegals and remove them from the country? Fund and man the USBP.
How much money, manpower, and equipment do you believe it would take to accomplish the task of finding, documenting and removing tens of millions of illegals?
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
I don't know, but you wouldn't have to find them all. Just start the process and many would self deport.
Military, State Militias, local police and a government volunteer police force of unemployed Americans could be used to round up Illegals. We essentially did a round up in the 1950s with Operation wetback. though it was only with a million illegals. But I think it could be done. But the fact of the matter is corporate anti american shills will never go for it under the guise of humanitarianism. While there are some nobley intentioned people who genuinely think it would be inhumane, most of the people that oppose it are in the pockets of Latino Lobby groups, the ADL, SPLC, and corporate America. They don't want their profits disturbed and their plans to turn America into a third world melting pot disturbed. What I don't understand is you attack Ron Paul for having the same position as Sarah Palin. Why won't you attack her? Interviewer: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported? Palin:There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration. http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
Just start the process and many would self deport. You have to have facts and information on which to base estimates. You don't seem to have any. That is theoretical. You can't rely on that.
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
Please then, outline your plan. Include all facts and estimates. Unless of course, your plan is a path to citizenship.
most of the people that oppose it are in the pockets of Latino Lobby groups, the ADL, SPLC, and corporate America. What I don't understand is you attack Ron Paul for having the same position as Sarah Palin. Interviewer: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported? Under what and whose authority? You don't believe the ACLU wouldn't have anything you suggest tied up in court for years, if not decades? Please provide a link to Palin's support of open borders. I fail to see any mention of Palin supporting amnesty or open borders.
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
You didn't answer my question. Why are you criticizing Paul for saying the same thing as Palin? Seems your agenda is Anti Paul, not anti illegal immigration. If you were anti illegal immigrant, you would critcize Palin for making a statement nearly identical to Paul. "I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case." "There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration." http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
Seems your agenda is Anti Paul, www.univision.com Where did Palin say she supports open borders? I never brought Paul into the discussion. I CCL about him, but you hold him up as a messiah. He is just as fallible and hypocritical as everyone else. What is univision? Why should I care, or why do you care?
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
You still aren't answering my question. You are the one holding up Palin a a messiah. yet she has the same exact view as Paul. You criticize Paul when he says it isn't plausible to round up all illegals yet when Palin says it you withdraw and change the subject. You and Whitesands are the ones obsessed with a guy who is no longer running for office, trying to derail for no reason. I am just putting things in perspective. "I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case." "There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration." http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
You should care because you claim to be for deporting illegal immigrants, and she isn't. I could care less, I am not a registered republican or a "conservative".
Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
You criticize Paul when he says it isn't plausible to round up all illegals univision No she doesn't. She does not support open borders. Where? Are you Mexican?
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
Hell, I doubt you are a US citizen.
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
We aren't talking about open borders. we are talking about your inconsistencies in criticizing Paul for having the same policy view as Palin. You criticize Paul for saying it isn't plausible to round up all illegals yet ignore Palin's exact same view on the subject. "I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case." "There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration." http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
You criticize Paul for saying it isn't plausible to round up all illegals univision. You're the one claiming Paul and Palin say and support the same thing. Where? Are you even a US citizen?
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
If I was an illegal latino immigrant Palin would certainly want me to become one. To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? Palin: "I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country. " Palin also said, " I will tell you, I wish that there were more hours in the day so that we can get out there and to more of the communities with such the strong Latino vote that is out there and really tell them that we desire to work for them. We are asking them to hire us and let us work for them." http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2 Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
"I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case."-Ron Paul "There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration."-Sarah Palin "I will tell you, I wish that there were more hours in the day so that we can get out there and to more of the communities with such the strong Latino vote that is out there and really tell them that we desire to work for them. We are asking them to hire us and let us work for them."-Sarah Palin Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? univision If I were, not was.......you even post like an ignoramus. Review my posts. If they aren't clear enough for you, you need remedial reading and comprehension courses. Your boys, eh?
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
Now that you lost the argument, you become a grammar nazi, typical. "I will tell you, I wish that there were more hours in the day so that we can get out there and to more of the communities with such the strong Latino vote that is out there and really tell them that we desire to work for them. We are asking them to hire us and let us work for them." -Sarah Palin Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
Careful, you're stepping in some pretty deep shit. Hispanics 4 Ron Paul (La Nueva Revolución) (David Beltran ...MySpace profile for David Beltran. Find friends, share photos, keep in touch with classmates, and meet new people on MySpace. Show map of 140 W 62 St, Manhattan, New York, NY 10023 www.myspace.com/hispanics4ronpaul axj.newsvine.com - AXJ-Latinos for Dr. Ron PaulAXJ supports Dr. Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a Republican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, ... axj.newsvine.com/ Latinos for Dr. Ron Paul « disinter Nov 26, 2007 ... Ron Paul has been in Congress for 8 years now. His South Texas District is heavily Hispanic. Some of the towns in his District have over 60% ... disinter.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/latinos-for-dr-ron-paul/ An Open Letter to Hispanics On Behalf of Ron Paul by Abelardo J ...Dec 17, 2007 ... Ten-term Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is the kind of politician that Hispanics in America desperately need to represent our true interests. ... www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/arias1.html
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
Thor, don't waste your time with "Iblewboys." He's sick, hell he even admits to blowing some guy name "afarsky".
Crawl back in your crack, pedophile. You fookin moron! It is quite evident you don't know shit about anything. What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
You realize this doesn't deflect from Palin, at all, and her heinous comments. She sounds like she is a member of La Raza. If I didn't put that name to her quote you would have figured Los Angles Mayor Villagarosa or Congressmen Guttierez said, " I will tell you, I wish that there were more hours in the day so that we can get out there and to more of the communities with such the strong Latino vote that is out there and really tell them that we desire to work for them. We are asking them to hire us and let us work for them." Stand Up, Men of the West!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgSdiX0kDI
You just keep digging yourself in deeper, fookin idiot! What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
Thor's quote is accurate Ibluaguy. The only idiot here is you. I notice you fight with everyone on Liberty's flame. Why is that? Are you some disruptor sent by the DNC?
Perhaps you should google 18 U.S.C. § 1385 The bots don't want you to know that a military or a fence was not needed in the past to keep out the illegals. All you needed was a President that was not a traitor and enforcement.
"She sounds like she is a member of La Raza." You and Thor are fookin morons. I doubt if either of you are US citizens. Hispanics 4 Ron Paul (La Nueva Revolución) (David Beltran ...MySpace profile for David Beltran. Find friends, share photos, keep in touch with classmates, and meet new people on MySpace. Show map of 140 W 62 St, Manhattan, New York, NY 10023 www.myspace.com/hispanics4ronpaul axj.newsvine.com - AXJ-Latinos for Dr. Ron PaulAXJ supports Dr. Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a Republican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, ... axj.newsvine.com/ Latinos for Dr. Ron Paul « disinter Nov 26, 2007 ... Ron Paul has been in Congress for 8 years now. His South Texas District is heavily Hispanic. Some of the towns in his District have over 60% ... disinter.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/latinos-for-dr-ron-paul/ An Open Letter to Hispanics On Behalf of Ron Paul by Abelardo J ...Dec 17, 2007 ... Ten-term Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is the kind of politician that Hispanics in America desperately need to represent our true interests. ... www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/arias1.html What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
Can't you disagree with out the name calling???? All you do here is name-call and disrupt.
There you go getting all emotional again. Are you male or female?
I call them as I see them.
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
What's the difference between Racism_Boot's mouth and anal pore? There isn't any, they both spew gas and feces.
Well, sometimes the hotline to Limbot and Hannity is down.
LOL That's all he has is "abiguities." He obviously supports open borders. His record at NUMBERSUSA proves it.
#3. To: Moderate Mammal (#2)
#4. To: WhiteSands, borntoweardiamonds (#0)
(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:
#5. To: WhiteSands (#0)
#6. To: We The People (#4)
(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border: Have either of you ever heard the term Posse Comitatus?
#7. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#6)
#8. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#6)
#9. To: We The People (#7)
Reading is fundamental.
#10. To: We The People (#8)
You can't use the military for civilian law enforcement.
#11. To: Ibluafartsky (#10)
You can't use the military for civilian law enforcement.
#12. To: We The People (#11)
Fund and man the USBP.
#13. To: Ibluafartsky (#12)
How much money, manpower, and equipment do you believe it would take to accomplish the task of finding, documenting and removing tens of millions of illegals?
#14. To: Ibluafartsky (#10)
(Edited)
#15. To: We The People (#13)
I don't know, but you wouldn't have to find them all.
#16. To: Ibluafartsky (#15)
You have to have facts and information on which to base estimates.
#17. To: Thor (#14)
Military, State Militias, local police and a government volunteer police force of unemployed Americans could be used to round up Illegals.
#18. To: Ibluafartsky (#17)
#19. To: Thor (#18)
Why are you criticizing Paul for saying the same thing as Palin?
#20. To: Ibluafartsky (#19)
#21. To: Ibluafartsky (#19)
#22. To: Thor (#20)
she has the same exact view as Paul.
#23. To: Thor (#21)
I am not a registered republican or a "conservative".
#24. To: Ibluafartsky (#22)
#25. To: Thor (#24)
We aren't talking about open borders.
#26. To: Ibluafartsky (#23)
#27. To: Ibluafartsky (#25)
(Edited)
#28. To: Thor (#26)
If I was an illegal latino immigrant Palin would certainly want me to become one
#29. To: Ibluafartsky (#28)
(Edited)
#30. To: Thor (#27)
#31. To: Ibluafartsky, Thor (#25)
#32. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#31)
Thor, don't waste your time
#33. To: Ibluafartsky (#30)
(Edited)
#34. To: Thor (#33)
She sounds like she is a member of La Raza.
#35. To: Ibluafartsky, thor (#34)
" I will tell you, I wish that there were more hours in the day so that we can get out there and to more of the communities with such the strong Latino vote that is out there and really tell them that we desire to work for them. We are asking them to hire us and let us work for them."
#36. To: We The People (#4)
Have either of you ever heard the term Posse Comitatus?
#37. To: Nebuchadnezzar, Thor (#35)
Thor's quote is accurate
#38. To: Ibluafartsky (#37)
You and Thor are fookin morons. I doubt if either of you are US citizens.
#39. To: Ibluafartsky (#37)
You and Thor are fookin morons.
#40. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#38)
Can't you disagree with out the name calling????
#41. To: We The People (#39)
There you go getting all emotional again.
#42. To: Abcdefg (#3)
Good try, but these Bush bots aren't fazed by facts or the truth.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]