Why I won't vote for Ron Paul - Part 2
After receiving a barrage of email from subscribers regarding my Part 1 assessment of presidential candidate Ron Paul, I am posting this Part 2.
Most subscribers agreed with my assessment that Ron Paul would not be good on fixing the illegal immigration crisis, while a smaller, but significant number of subscribers who disagreed with me, gave irrelevent unimpressive rebuttals that did not address anything I said point by point. Before I reply to some of the chosen objections, I will present from my research, the basis from which I derived my conclusions.
It seems to me, that the majority of Ron Paul's supporters have jumped on his band wagon without really looking into his voting record.
The big red flag pops up immediately on Ron Paul's campaign website:
I don’t think the problem of illegal immigration will ever be solved until we have a healthy, thriving economy.
This statement is a Catch 22 non sequitur. To any reasonable thinking person, the economy has gone down the tubes largely due to illegal immigration. If achieving a healthy, thriving economy were a condition to fix the illegal immigration crisis, the open borders advocates would point out once the economy was fixed, that there was no illegal immigration crisis at all. In fact, they would say that the healthy, thriving economy was made possible by illegal immigration and that the more illegal aliens, the better the economy would be.
To my question of what Ron Paul would do to end illegal immigration, I am directed to his website where he gives his six point "plan" which, in my opinion is six blurred platitudes that sound good -- but while Ron Paul has a reputation for telling the truth, it's what he doesn't tell us that is revealing.
A classic example of what he isn't telling us is demonstrated in this video. The video points out that Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney both supported Amnesty before, but now are opposed to it. What the video doesn't say is that Ron Paul supported and voted for the 245(i) amnesty three times (See counter point three below). At least we know where Romney and Huckabee stand now. But no one knows if Ron Paul would still support 245(i).
Ron Paul supporter say that he (now) supports the border fence. But what Ron Paul doesn't tell his supporters is that he voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, to shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. (See counter point one below).
1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
- Ron Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens.
- Ron Paul voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005 (H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815). The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States.
- Ron Paul voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004 (Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions.
- Ron Paul voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003 (Goode Amendment H.R. 1588) to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions.
- Ron Paul voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control efforts in 2002 H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546) the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States.
- Ron Paul voted against authorizing the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties (Traficant amendment to HR 2586).
- Ron Paul voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border (Traficant amendment to H.R.4205) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.
Yeah, right. Whatever it takes.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
- Ron Paul cosponsored legislation (H.R. 793, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005) to increase H-2B visas for workers who were present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006.
- Ron Paul helped the House pass H.R.3736 nearly doubling H-1B visas for foreign high-tech workers in 1998. It increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Ron Paul voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.
- Ron Paul voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans (H.R.3736) to make room for foreign workers. Before this bill passed doubling H-1B visas, Ron Paul had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. The substitute bill which Paul voted against would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job.
- Ron Paul voted against the first Tancredo amendment to HR 2638, which would have prohibited funding to the bill from being used to fund the visa waiver program.
Yeah, right. Enforce visa rules. What rules?
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
- Ron Paul voted FOR Section 245(i) (H RES 365), a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i), a provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later without the necessity of the illegal aliens to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries.
- Ron Paul voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001 on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants. (two of my illegal alien brothers-in-law along with several thousand other Mexicans snuck into the U.S. to take advantage of passage of that 245(i). Here's a piece I wrote about one of my brothers-in-law without mentioning in the piece that he qualified for the 245(i))
- Ron Paul blew it earlier in 1997 when he Voted AGAINST killing the notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i). The Section 245(i) program allowed certain illegal aliens to eventually receive legal residency by provided them with a loophole in which they could pay a $1,000 fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. (NOTE: It's been seven years since my two brothers-in-law got in on the 245(i). To date, they have never been asked to pay the $1,000 fine).
Yeah, right. No amnesty
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Very good. But what Ron Paul makes absolutely no mention of, is the real Magnet that attracts illegal aliens -- jobs. In his Small Steps Toward Immigration Reform, Ron Paul totally disregards the universally-recognized "jobs magnet." The one thing agreed upon by virtually every major player on the issue (US and Mexican governments, business and employer lobbies, the pro-illegal alien ethnic lobby, most of their non-profit advocates and charities AS WELL AS anti-illegal migration opponents) is that "jobs" is the main driver in illegal migration. Yeah, right. Ron Paul will eliminate the magnet.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
This is good. Just how will Ron Paul do it and will it be done before we lose America?
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
I don't like the smell of "true immigration reform." We don't need any reform. The number of Ron Paul's supporters would be soaring if on his website he said simply: "As president, I will use all my power and leadership to vigorously enforce all EXISTING immigration laws." Problem is that Ron Paul doesn't think all our existing laws are constitutional.
Ron Paul is big on what the U.S. "shudda, cudda, wudda" have done or not have done, (most of which I agree with) in the areas of foreign policy -- everything from foreign aid to the Israeli Lobby. But none of that rhetoric has much to do with fixing our immigration crisis NOW.
Ron Paul supporters point out to me that he will save the constitution and save our sovereignty. Who would be against that? Certainly not me. But if our next president doesn't focus in on stopping the illegal immigration invasion NOW, neither Ron Paul nor any other president will be in a position to save our constitution and sovereignty. That's because illegal aliens and their U.S. citizen offspring are growing exponentially and will democratically vote our sovereignty away before Ron Paul is finished fixing it.
Let's not forget that Hitler was democratically voted into office, Hamas Palestinian terrorists were democratically voted into office, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was democratically voted into office, to name a few. And if illegal immigration isn't stopped NOW, our entire U.S.A. will be voted to become what California has already become.
For those of you who do not know what exponential growth is, let me give you an example: If the estimated 6 million illegal alien couples (12 million people) now in the U.S. each have four socialist voting U.S. citizen children, the next generation will yield 12 million socialist voting U.S. citizen couples (24 million people). If those 12 million couples each have four socialist voting U.S. citizen children, the next generation will yield 24 million socialist voting U.S. citizen couples (48 million people). If those 24 million couples each have four socialist voting U.S. citizen children, the next generation will yield 48 million socialist voting U.S. citizen couples (96 million people). In only three generations, the original 6 million illegal alien couples will have produced 96 million socialist voting U.S. citizens. Cumulatively that number would be much higher since not all of the earlier generations will have died off. (See Roy Beck's famous gum ball demonstration video by clicking here). If illegal immigration isn't halted during the term of the next presidency, Mexico is guaranteed to be on its way in its war to win back the U.S. Southwest (and maybe more) without having to fire a shot. And all the work that President Ron Paul would have done to protect our sovereignty and the constitution would be history.
The majority of those disagreeing with me presented arguments with no substance. Without mentioning names (you know who you are), here are some.
Why you won't vote for Ron Paul......then who do you like, Bloomberg?
As I am a Jew as is Bloomberg, I can only conclude that this writer's meritless comment smacks of anti-Semitism.
Not supporting the REAL-ID act is not (Libertarian) baggage in the White House its a breath of Fresh Air. I look at a lot of these measures like Gun Control. Criminal will get the guns, what do they care about laws, but law abiding Americans have to suffer the consequences of not being able to protect ourselves.
I made a general statement in Part 1 that Ron Paul would bring Libertarian baggage to the White House, and used the REAL ID as an example. Yes, criminals already get guns -- ID or not -- but law enforcement has to be able to identify who is a criminal and who is not if they are lucky to catch them before they commit a crime -- like before they board airplanes. Yeah, I know, Ron Paul is opposed to Matricula Cards, another one of his platitudes. Without the Real ID, Illegals and terrorists won't need a Matricula. A forged driver's license will do. Here in Arizona where I now live, citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons if they can prove they are not criminals and can prove they are U.S. Citizens. Next Saturday, I am going to a class to get my CWP (Concealed Weapon Permit). I will have to prove that I am a U.S. Citizen. If Ron Paul had his way, the guy who just crossed the border could be attending that class with me.
...Its the same idiotic mentality on the approach to fighting illegal immigration and terrorism issues. We obey these dumb laws at our own detriment, so government can appear to the media like they are doing something. Most of these laws are a redundant joke. What, we can't muster enough security with the laws we already have on books but don't enforce.
It isn't those laws that are dumb. It's the past and preent presidents who are dumb for not enforcing those laws. But I don't see anything on Ron Paul website that says he will enforce those laws. I see just see the opposite. He doesn't like those laws just on the face of them because they represents "big governent."
As far as terrorism is concerned Hal I believe its about 20% real and 80% political opportunism.
Remember the old saying that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- then it must be a duck. Terrorism is real, not because of conspirators' propaganda, but because it's right their under our noses. But even if it were only 20 percent of the percieved duck, it doesn't change anything.
...the REAL-ID I understand will be one stop shopping for Identity theft. Great.
Wrong, it will be easier to control ID Theft. The only argument of any validity to the REAL-ID is the Big-Brother argument. That's a good "give me liberty or give me death" argument, but my work isn't finished just yet.
I like Paul's ideas regarding welfare state. That is there will be no welfare state for non citizens. That will get more Americans into the work force with low skill, low paying jobs with opportunity to move up the economic ladder while discouraging non citizens to take up residency.
And just how will Ron Paul know who is a citizen and who isn't if he is opposed to "big brother" IDs and the federal government's mandatory E-Verify work authorization provision of the SAVE Act. Libertarians don't believe that anyone should have to carry "papers."
So Hal, who do you support if not Ron Paul? McAmnesty, the Huckster, or CFR hacks Romney & Thompson. With Tancredo and Hunter out and no commitment on a Dobbs run, are you not going to vote? As usual, many in the movement see immigration as this countries only problem. Not so to many Americans in our movement. We see Iraq, outsourcing of jobs, the deficit, corruption, economy, dollar devaluation as well as illegal immigration as problems. While no candidate is perfect, RP certainly is inline with our views on illegal immigration.
Assuming you speak for the "many Americans in our movement," I have to conclude that you all don't consider that we have an illegal immigration crisis -- that the illegal immigration "issue" should take its place in the back seat while Ron Paul fixes our constitutional and sovereignty woes. But like I said above, we'll lose the war before Ron Paul would go for his second term. Moreover, almost all of issues you bring up are linked to illegal immigration. Funny you should mention Lou Dobbs. All of your movement must be in a deep dilemma over Lou Dobbs. Many of my email shows a love for both Ron Paul and Lou Dobbs. One Ron Paul subscriber even has a kudos in the footer of every email praising Lou Dobbs as an American Hero. The irony here is that Ron Paul and Lou Dobbs are diametrically opposed on some issues. For example, Lou Dobbs is big on national education. He's also big on total and unequivocal enforcement of our existing laws. BTW, I believe that Lou Dobbs has a better chance at winning the presidency than Ron Paul. While Ron Paul's supporters often criticize "elites" they should take note that Ron Paul is also an elite. That is, he wouldn't do what the majority of the people want -- end illegal immigration now. On the other hand Lou Dobbs would be a populous president who would do what the majority of the people want him to do -- end illegal immigration.
SO WHO WOULD I VOTE FOR?
Let me start out with who I would NOT vote for:
Ron Paul (you already knew that)
Lou Dobbs (if he gets on the Ballot)
No 1 Choice: Lou Dobbs (I would vote for him in a heart beat)
No 2 Choice: Mitt Romney (Not a perfect choice, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must be stopped)
Thanks go out to S. J. Miller with whom I consulted in doing my research. See Miller's piece here.