Roy Beck on Ron Paul: Abysmal On Immigration Overpopulation Crime : FAIL
Ron Paul Wrote The Book To Show How He Would Handle Issues As President (we didn’t make up his quotes)
By Roy Beck, Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 3:02 PM EDT – posted on NumbersUSA
Some of our best friends have suggested to me that my blog and email on Ron Paul’s immigration statements in his new book seemed a little too aggressive and that maybe I should have allowed Dr. Paul a chance to improve on his statements before downgrading his Presidential Hopefuls’ immigration grade to an “F.”
And some Paul supporters have been furious with me, accusing me of distortion, lies and conspiracy.
I am sorry that I conveyed the impression to some that I was out to punish Rep. Paul or that I would not be happy to have him “clarify” and “revise” the stances he takes in his book. So, here we go . . .
This blog will highlight direct quotes from Congressman Ron Paul’s new book, Liberty Defined.
We didn’t write these quotes. We aren’t paraphrasing them. This is what Dr. Paul wrote. He wanted the book published and released to the public now to showcase his policy views — including the ones he wrote about immigration.
MOST PAUL SUPPORTERS SEE BOOK AS REASON TO PRESS PAUL TO MODIFY HIS IMMIGRATION POSITIONS
First, though, I want to emphasize that most Ron Paul supporters have reacted like the supporters of other Hopefuls who have earned low immigration grades; they have expressed disappointment with their candidate and pledged to work to get the candidate to do better.
Below, you will see a snapshot of our entire Presidential Grades Grid. You will see that most Hopefuls have awful grades. I can assure you that we do everything we can to grade each Hopeful by the same standards. And our desire is to see each one of them improve his/her grade.
We know that Americans support political candidates for all kinds of reasons. We want them to know the true immigration stances of the candidates they like best so they can work to influence their favorite candidate to take better immigration actions.
AMNESTY? OPPOSES THE WORD BUT SUPPORTS MAJOR LEGALIZATION
Rep. Paul repeatedly says in public that he opposes “amnesty.” So, how can we rate him as BAD on “Amnesty/Legalization” for illegal aliens?
The problem is that saying you oppose amnesty doesn’t mean you oppose letting illegal aliens remain in the U.S. and hold U.S. jobs.
Nearly all the major supporters of mass amnesty — Pres. Obama, former Pres. Bush, Sen. Reid — say they oppose “amnesty.” You have to ask for more details.
In his new book, Ron Paul indicates that he doesn’t think the goal for most illegal aliens should be that they go back home:
. . . sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home… isn’t going to happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.”– Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Page 153.
Paul provides further disconcerting details about what he considers amnesty and what he doesn’t consider amnesty:
. . . immigrants that can’t be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship — no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk should be issued…. It could be argued that [this system[ may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits — a much better option than deportation.– Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Page 156.
We could perhaps say that Dr. Paul favors an “amnesty with an asterisk.” Many people who have criticized our grading of Paul have noted that he would take away all taxpayer-supported benefits from illegal aliens and the right to ever be citizens.
But illegal aliens with the asterisk would still get the two things they want far more than citizenship and welfare. They would get to live in the U.S. and to keep their U.S. jobs. And millions of unemployed Americans looking for jobs in those occupations would remain unemployed.
Because Paul limits his amnesty somewhat by denying illegal aliens citizenship and welfare benefits and because he has rarely voted for an amnesty in the past, we spare him an ABYSMAL rating on “Amnesty/Legalization.”
WHY A PRESIDENTIAL RATING IS DIFFERENT FROM A CONGRESSIONAL ONE
The spirited dialogue over this has contained strong disagreement with the BAD rating we give Dr. Paul because our CONGRESSIONAL Report Cards give him a Career grade of “A-minus” on amnesty.
How can somebody with an A-minus career grade on amnesty be rated BAD as a Presidential Hopeful?
The answer is that we grade Hopefuls differently than Members of Congress. Our congressional Report Cards are based entirely on actions and never on promises or statements.
But when a person runs for President, that person begins to tell us what he/she would do with the special powers invested in that office. Past actions count, but we have to also consider what they say they prefer.
We believe that when a past and potential Presidential candidate publishes a book in the early part of the campaign season, he/she intends for people to get a view of what he/she would do in the White House.
Dr. Paul’s new book suggests to us that he has voted against most amnesties in the past because they weren’t narrow enough (didn’t deny welfare and voting rights). We know that he DID vote three different years for a smaller and narrower amnesty known as the 245(i) amnesty. You will find these votes in his Report Card.
END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP? GOOD
In his new book and in other public venues, Congressman Paul has stated that:
(The United States should) not grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.– Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Page 155.
Five times, Paul has co-sponsored legislation to end this practice.
However, he has refrained from co-sponsoring any of the bills offered on this since 2006. Our rating rules prohibit us from granting an EXCELLENT to a sitting Member of Congress if he/she has failed to support current legislation that would carry out his/her publicly stated preference.
MANDATE E-VERIFY? BAD
Some attacks on me have contended that I downgraded Dr. Paul because he wouldn’t go along with my SUPPOSED insistence on a national ID card. But NumbersUSA has never advocated a national ID card.
More criticism of our grading has been that our overall grade is based mainly on E-Verify. In fact, though, it is only 1/12th of the weight in our overall grade.
Nonetheless, Rep. Paul appears to be in substantial opposition to the majority of the Members of his Party about the necessity of turning off the jobs magnet at the workplace in order to stop illegal immigration and cause current illegal aliens to go home.
Dr. Paul has never co-sponsored a bill mandating E-Verify.
He philosophically opposes having businesses involved in keeping illegal foreign workers from getting jobs.
And in his book, he says:
(We shouldn’t) punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, possibly with a counterfeit identification, strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the Constitution. Determining who is legal or not is a police and court function, not a responsibility of private business.”– Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Page 155.
REDUCE OVERALL IMMIGRATION? FAVORS HIGHER IMMIGRATION
Rep. Paul has never indicated there is any problem with the federal government using immigration policy to drive the largest population explosion in U.S. history. He generally supports increasing immigration as high as businesses might want it to go, although he seems to prefer temporary over permanent immigration. But his actions in Congress tend to be less geared toward increasing immigration than his pronouncements, saving him from an Abysmal rating.
In his new, Rep. Paul notes that:
. . . (if government-mandated free services and the government-created unemployed crisis were) fixed, (then the resulting) free and prosperous economy (would look for labor and) immigrant workers would be needed and welcomed. This need could be managed by a generous guest worker program. . . . (We should) restore our economy to a healthy free market with sound money and eliminate deficit-financed government. A vibrant economy will minimize the problems and produce a high demand for both domestic and immigrant labor . . . with free markets and private property, a need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Make it easy and legal with a generous visitor worker program.– Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Pages 153-154.
It seems pretty clear that Rep. Paul regards more and more immigrant labor and the resulting population growth to be a goal to pursue.
ENDING CHAIN MIGRATION & THE LOTTERY? UNHELPFUL
While these two categories engorge the lines of foreign workers competing with unemployed Americans for jobs each year, Rep. Paul has never done anything to limit chain migration and has done nothing since 2004 to stop the lottery.
He doesn’t discuss the categories in his book.
LIMIT FOREIGN WORKER COMPETITION? ENERGETIC FOREIGN WORKERS OUT-COMPETE UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS
As can be ascertained in quotes above and below, Rep. Paul espouses a largely unfettered business philosophy of allowing employers to import far more foreign labor than they do now. And he does so even in the midst of 22 million Americans currently unable to find a full-time job.
Rep. Paul states in his new book that
. . .many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they ‘take’ are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered. Rarely is this even minimum wage; it’s usually higher. . . . (most immigrants) have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens.”– Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Page 154.
SECURE BORDERS & FENCE? MIXED SIGNALS
Rep. Paul talks about the need for border security and supports more Border Patrol and rights for border land owners to protect themselves. But he has consistently voted against other tougher measures to secure the border such as building a fence and using the military.
His career record in Congress earns a C-minus on his NumbersUSA grade on Borders. Only one Republican in Congress has a worse grade.
Overall, we rate him UNHELPFUL on the borders issue, but you readers may find some evidence for us that his promises are better than his past actions.
IMPLEMENT ENTRY/EXIT? BAD
Although several years ago he voted for an amendment that would have implemented the Entry/Exit system so that we can keep track of visitors, his new book expresses opposition to requring U.S. citizens to go through the same procedures when leaving and entering the country. But the only way to ensure that foreign citizens leave when they are supposed to — and are entered into our system when they come into the country — is to require all travelers to be checked in and out.
In his book, Rep. Paul expresses his consternation with efforts to control border traffic:
Another concern I have with the immigration issue is that the strong border protection proponents are as interested in regulating our right to freely exit the country as they are in preventing illegal entry. No longer can we travel even to Canada or Mexico without a U.S. passport. Our government keeps tabs on our every move, which involves a lot more than looking for drug dealers, illegal immigrants, or stopping a potential terrorist…. A tight border policy to keep certain people out is one thing, but tight border control to limit our ability to leave when we please is something else.– Source: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Pages 157-158.
The limitation on Americans leaving the country would merely be that they have to have documentation that can prove they belong in the U.S. when they try to get back in. Most people who travel internationally are quite comfortable with carrying proper identification. It seems a small price to pay for the ability to prevent millions of unauthorized people from coming into the country.
SUPPORT LOCAL ENFORCEMENT? UNHELPFUL
In his new book, Rep. Paul expresses support for local enforcement of immigration laws while stopping short of supporting Arizona’s interior enforcement law, SB 1070. He says,
. . . permit states to enforce [immigration] laws (but) Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous.
Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Pages 155, 158.
PUNISH BUSINESS VIOLATORS? ABYSMAL
In his new book, Rep. Paul says,
(We shouldn’t) punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, possibly with a counterfeit identification, strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the Constitution. Determining who is legal or not is a police and court function, not a responsibility of private business.– Source: Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Page 155.
EVERY CANDIDATE IS RATED & GRADED WITH THE SAME TOUGH STANDARDS
What every supporter of Obama, Paul, Gingrich, Trump, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Cain, Pawlenty and Bachmann has to keep in mind is that however tough we are on your favorite candidate, we use the same criteria for all.
We grade immigration stances as if millions of Americans’ well-being depends on politicians who will act boldly. We know that platitudes about “securing the border” and “opposing amnesty” and “fixing the immigration system” mean exactly nothing in and of themselves.
Our pledge to all Americans is that we will track down the specifics that will tell you what you really can expect out of a candidate.
The grid below rates all the politicians both (1) who are expressing interest in running for President and (2) who have shown at least some ability to attract public support to make a showing in the Primaries.
If you have a favorite among this list (including Rep. Paul), you all have a lot of work to do to help them see that reducing immigration and the foreign-labor competition is something that deserves their detailed support.
Click on the grid to see it in an enlarged a more readable form. You can then click on any photo to see the full explanations of all of their ratings.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA