William Gheen of ALIPAC had the chance to interview presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul on illegal immigration while in Iowa a few weeks ago. Below is the video of the interview.
I would like to point out a few things about what Ron Paul said, and the manner in which he said it, that have me a little concerned regarding his tough stance on illegal immigration. In my overview of Ron Paul's immigration stance, I noted that Ron Paul voted against the implementation of the Basic Pilot Program (now E-VERIFY), which would allow employers to check with the federal government to ensure that a worker is legally allowed to work in this country. Looking at Ron Paul's record, I believe this vote against E-VERIFY was made because of his privacy concerns in relation to the Constitution, however there is really no excuse for voting against this program when you say that you believe employers who hire illegal aliens should be prosecuted. There is simply no other way for an employer to know that a worker is legal. The current I-9 form is weak and ineffective.
So while you watch the interview below you will see Paul hesitate when asked whether employers should be prosecuted if they hire illegal aliens. Paul says in effect "only if it can be proven that an employer knowingly hired them". Well that is the way things are currently run and as we can see, by the lack of prosecution of employers hiring illegal aliens, it is very hard to prove that they "knowingly" did so. So how does Ron Paul suggest that employers make sure that the person they are hiring is legal if he opposes things like E-VERIFY?
I would like Ron Paul to answer that question, because I really see no other way to tackle that side of the illegal immigration problem. Without cutting off employers who not only knowingly hire illegal aliens, but are engaged in; unfair business practices, unfair competition, tax evasion and in many cases helping potential workers commit identity fraud or even sneak across the border, the flow of illegal aliens will continue.
I have been for anyone who walks the walk on stopping illegal immigration. According to wikipedia Mitt Romney made a deal with ICE "that would have allowed Massachusetts State Police troopers to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal immigrants they encounter over the course of their normal duties." And vetoed in-state tuition for illegals.
Ron Paul has made some bold and great pledges. He has said that he would end birthright citizenship and welfare for illegals. I believe he would quickly secure the border. I think he is serious about ending and reversing illegal immigration, though - as digger pointed out - also concerned about extending government.
The problem now is that Paul will not win. If Paul's vote is counted as anti-immigrant - a big plank for him - then his vote might have gone to Romney in New Hampshire. Strategically, I think, if we want an anti-Amnesty nominee we have to ask Paul to get out and endorse Romney. He has brought up what real the real conservative views are; he has mentioned that were previously against nation building and big spending. He has done a great service. It is unlikely that Paul would ever - due to Iraq and healthcare - endorse Romney. But, we now need him to be practical and bow out so that we can have a hope of getting an anti-immigration nominee.
What cha'll think?
Posted by: John Press on January 10, 2008 11:09 PM
The problem I have with Romney is that his actions against illegal immigration came at the end of his term. He signed local enforcement legislation a few weeks before leaving office knowing full well his predecessor would repeal them. It smacks to me of disingenuous action. If he were truly concerned, wouldn't he have put forth this stuff at the beginning of his term as governor?
so do you wont to send the mexicans home or what, we dont need a wall we need more troops on the border to stop them comeing in to are country
Posted by: scott on February 27, 2008 10:05 AM
Nobody has said anything about "sending the Mexican's home". There are plenty of law abiding legal residents and American citizens of Mexican decent here. This is entirely about illegal aliens from any country.
Distorting it by making it about people of one race is false and is what the illegal alien supporters would have you believe.
We have laws in this country and limits on immigration because it needs to be orderly and done in a way that allows our infrastructure to absorb the new influx of people.
Destroying the health care, welfare, education and other systems we have in place - and driving down wages of people - by allowing a massive influx of those coming here illegally is simply unacceptable and impacts all of the people of this country that are already here legally.
Mexico is brought up again and again - by those on both sides of the debate - simply because statistically, by a huge margin, the current wave of illegal aliens are coming here from Mexico.
This has nothing to do with race however. Mexican does not equal illegal.
I don't think Romney can be trusted to do anything he says. He is a politician who will say and do anything to get elected. When pushed he capitulates or mitigates which would mean amnesty, cracking down on employers, another costly useless government program that produces nothing and accomplishes nothing at great cost. And since this issue seems to be controlled by the courts anyway such as the courts requirement to give illegals medical care, education and other benefits even when states like California vote to eliminate benefits, Romney's views mean nothing because he would appoint mitigated judges who make the same insane decisions. Newt's the same. At least Paul doesn't spend a lot of useless money to accomplish nothing.