Why I won't vote for Ron Paul - Part 3
- By Hal NetkinClick Here for Part 2
After receiving a second barrage of email from subscribers after posting Part 2 of why I won't vote for presidential candidate Ron Paul, I am posting this Part 3:

All but one email were very polite in trying to convince me that I was wrong about Ron Paul.

I would be receptive to changing my mind about Ron Paul if someone could effectively argue against the points I made as to why I wouldn't vote for him. But out of over 20 emails, not one person even attempted to rebut any of those points.

I got emails with general statements like: You're making a mistake, If you would have been at our meeting with Ron Paul, you would vote for him, Ron Paul is the best candidate, etc.

It's as if Ron Paul supporters don't care about the facts.

I won't go through my detailed list of Ron Paul's voting record that I commented on in part 2, I'll just present a few basic facts that anyone can understand. But before I do, let's examine what a president can or can't do about illegal immigration.

Presidents don't make laws -- they can only veto bills with laws they don't like. Presidents can only influence the legislature and the public with dynamic leadership to change laws -- something that President George Bush egregiously lacks.

But presidents don't need congressional permission to enforce existing laws. The various government departments such as the DHS, IRS, SSA report directly to the president -- he's the boss. As the president's subordinates they must carry out the president's orders.

One always hears the cliche: "Our immigration system is broken." But few ask why it is broken and who broke it. The answer is not complicated. The simple answer is that all the presidents since President Eisenhower chose not to do their constitutional duty to enforce our immigration laws. And Ron Paul won't be any different.

Ron Paul may think that some of our immigration laws are unconstitutional, but it's for the courts to decide what's constitutional or not. In the meantime, the president must enforce the law, whether he likes the law or not.

Let me break Ron Paul's won't-do list down to just two won't-dos that everyone can understand.

Ron Paul makes no bones about the fact that if he were President, he would NOT put military troops on the border. It's mind boggling that virtually every individual and group on Ron Paul's endorsement list has always been strong on putting troops on the border. Have they been hypnotized?

Border enforcement? So much for "What ever it takes."

Ron Paul claims that the constitution prohibits domestic deployment of the military on the border. Does Ron Paul consider military presence on the border to prevent unauthorized entry into the US domestic deployment? Moreover, neither Ron Paul nor any of his supporters can point specifically to the article, section, and verse where the Constitution prohibits the president from deploying the military to prevent unauthorized entry into the US.

Ron Paul avoids any mention of ending the job magnet that draws illegal aliens to the U.S nor does he mention anything about sanctioning employers who knowingly hire them. It is not disputed that he is opposed to the government's E-Verify Work Authorization program to identify illegal aliens who seek jobs -- but offers no alternative.

That is not to say that Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee would vigorously enforce our immigration laws. But they are more recently committed (if you believe them) to enforcement through attrition.

Am I missing something? Will some Ron Paul supporter out there please help me to understand why you would vote for someone who is opposed to putting troops on the border and who doesn't think eliminating the job market for illegal aliens is necessary?

Please reply here: [email protected]

NOTE: Your reply may be posted. All names of responders are not posted unless I am advised otherwise.