questions on paul's Congressional record

[fj45lvr]

this was posted on another site, does anyone know specifically about these votes and the opinion this person has based on these??

It would be nice to know why certain votes are taken. I think I know why paul is against using the military to patrol the border....I don't know about the other issues.

EVIDENTLY, YOU HAVE NOT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. HERE ARE MANY REASON'S I WILL NOT SUPPORT RON PAUL BELOW:

Ron Paul has voted FOUR TIMES against militarizing the border, most recently in 2005 with a NO vote on Amendment 206 to HR1815, in 2004 Ron Paul voted NO on the Goode Amendment to HR4200, in 2003 Ron Paul voted NO on the Goode Amendment to HR1588, in 2003 Ron Paul voted AGAINST HR2359, in 2002 Ron Paul voted NO on Amendment 479 to HR4546, and in 1999, Ron Paul voted NO on the Trafficant Amendment to HR1401.

Ron Paul voted AGAINST the HR4437 Hunter Amendment, which provided 800-plus miles of security fence on the US-Mexico border.

In 2002, Ron Paul voted YES on HR365, this amnesty passed Congress.

In 2002, Ron Paul voted YES on HR1885, extending an illegal alien amnesty for 4 months.

In 1997, Ron Paul voted NO on ending the Section 245(i) amnesty.

In 2006, Ron Paul co-sponsored HR793 with a loophole that would TRIPLE the number of H2-B (unskilled non-agricultural) visas present in the USA.

In 1998, Ron Paul voted YES on HR3736, allowing 150,000 more H-1B workers into the USA.

In 1998, Ron Paul voted NO on an alternate bill to HR3736 that would have prevented hiring temporary foreign H-1B's to replace Americans laid off.

Now, go do your homework and you will find the rest of the story on Ron Paul, LMAO... ​

 

[Vvick727]

wow, i keep seeing this one

well for one thing, he voted FOR the Hunter Amendment, not AGAINST
don't know about the rest, but if that person is so sure of their lie, it invalidates the rest to me

 

[jpa]

In 1998, Ron Paul voted YES on HR3736, allowing 150,000 more H-1B workers into the USA.

That one has nothing to do with illegal immigration. We need more legal, high tech workers in the US.

 

[ItsTime]

who did they say they would support?

 

[derdy]

In 1998, Ron Paul voted YES on HR3736, allowing 150,000 more H-1B workers into the USA.

That one has nothing to do with illegal immigration. We need more legal, high tech workers in the US.

That was in 98 during the dot.com boom. I definitely don't support an abundance of H-1Bs now. Especially since some companies are outsourcing their entire IT Depts out to them to save on payroll.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

http://www.progressivepunch.org/vote.jsp?member=TX14&issue=W4&year=2005&num=222&district=14

Here's a link to the provisision of H.R. 1815 that Paul voted against. Once you see the words "additional spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" you know why he voted against it. I'm guessing the HB visas he is for because we need workers. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong. I'm currently looking at the amnesty bills he voted for and trying to figure out why he voted for them.

 

[derdy]

and so my point is that something that he voted in favor of in '98 has nothing to do with right now.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/653703/posts

Discussion on why he voted for H.R 1885 amnesty bill including an explanation from Congressman Paul.

 

[bbachtung]

this was posted on another site, does anyone know specifically about these votes and the opinion this person has based on these??

It would be nice to know why certain votes are taken. I think I know why paul is against using the military to patrol the border....I don't know about the other issues.

EVIDENTLY, YOU HAVE NOT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. HERE ARE MANY REASON'S I WILL NOT SUPPORT RON PAUL BELOW:

Ron Paul has voted FOUR TIMES against militarizing the border, most recently in 2005 with a NO vote on Amendment 206 to HR1815, in 2004 Ron Paul voted NO on the Goode Amendment to HR4200, in 2003 Ron Paul voted NO on the Goode Amendment to HR1588, in 2003 Ron Paul voted AGAINST HR2359, in 2002 Ron Paul voted NO on Amendment 479 to HR4546, and in 1999, Ron Paul voted NO on the Trafficant Amendment to HR1401.

Ron Paul voted AGAINST the HR4437 Hunter Amendment, which provided 800-plus miles of security fence on the US-Mexico border.

In 2002, Ron Paul voted YES on HR365, this amnesty passed Congress.

In 2002, Ron Paul voted YES on HR1885, extending an illegal alien amnesty for 4 months.

In 1997, Ron Paul voted NO on ending the Section 245(i) amnesty.

In 2006, Ron Paul co-sponsored HR793 with a loophole that would TRIPLE the number of H2-B (unskilled non-agricultural) visas present in the USA.

In 1998, Ron Paul voted YES on HR3736, allowing 150,000 more H-1B workers into the USA.

In 1998, Ron Paul voted NO on an alternate bill to HR3736 that would have prevented hiring temporary foreign H-1B's to replace Americans laid off.

Now, go do your homework and you will find the rest of the story on Ron Paul, LMAO... ​

As was already noted, Ron Paul voted FOR HR 4437 (the border fence), as did Rep. Hunter and Rep. Tancredo (click here to see the final vote results).

As for H. Res. 365, I am unable to see what is "wrong" with it as far as illegal immigration opponents go. Here's a link to the text of the bill as passed by the House (Paul voted yes, Hunter and Tancredo voted no); it includes things like a requirement that reports be filed for any student visa holder who fails to register and enroll in school (many of the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 had entered the U.S. on student visas and overstayed those visas) and increased the number of INS inspectors.

As for H.R. 1885, it morphed into H. Res. 365 (see above).

 

[trispear]

Ron Paul voted AGAINST the HR4437 Hunter Amendment, which provided 800-plus miles of security fence on the US-Mexico border.

No he didn't.
The Bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4437
The votes:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-661

In 2002, Ron Paul voted YES on HR365, this amnesty passed Congress.

I see nothing about amnesty here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr107-365

In 2002, Ron Paul voted YES on HR1885, extending an illegal alien amnesty for 4 months.

In 2006, Ron Paul co-sponsored HR793 with a loophole that would TRIPLE the number of H2-B (unskilled non-agricultural) visas present in the USA.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-793
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-793&tab=summary

In 1998, Ron Paul voted YES on HR3736, allowing 150,000 more H-1B workers into the USA.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr105-513

In 1998, Ron Paul voted NO on an alternate bill to HR3736 that would have prevented hiring temporary foreign H-1B's to replace Americans laid off.

Sorry, what was the number on that alternate bill? It would be better not to be so vague.

 

[fj45lvr]

I am only relaying this info and am eager to find out the facts and nothing but the facts.

clearly it was WRONG about the vote for the Hunter ammendment for border security hr4437

the link posted in regards to Paul's answer concerning the "pseudo amnesty" in HR 1885 is VERY SHAKY at best and VIOLATES common sense....as someone noted in the comments below this allowed illegals to sign up even though they were illegal (this is WRONG....no spin can save him on this). I am pretty disappointed in him in this regard.


I will continue to try to search out the rest of the claims in these votes as stated.


To answer someone as to why the "past" matters....the answer should be obvious.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

Yeah, his explanation for H.R. 1885 was a little questionable. I'm not quite sure why he voted for it, but in his explanation he did say the same thing he has been saying about immigration- that we need to get rid of the incentives for them to come here illegaly to really fix the problem. His support for this and opposition to the REAL ID act are probably why he gets a B rating from immigration sites who give grades. Anyway, the good news is that the extremely tough immigration folks are probably currently supporting Tancredo or Hunter. Once they drop out of the race though, Ron Paul is the best on border security so theoretically we would gain those people because none of the other candidates are a good option on this issue.

 

[cjhowe]

That was in 98 during the dot.com boom. I definitely don't support an abundance of H-1Bs now. Especially since some companies are outsourcing their entire IT Depts out to them to save on payroll.

Wouldn't companies outsourcing their entire IT Depts to India be a reason to increase H-1Bs? We want those IT jobs in America, where an American is at least able to compete for it.

 

[fj45lvr]

Yeah, his explanation for H.R. 1885 was a little questionable. I'm not quite sure why he voted for it, but in his explanation he did say the same thing he has been saying about immigration- that we need to get rid of the incentives for them to come here illegaly to really fix the problem. His support for this and opposition to the REAL ID act are probably why he gets a B rating from immigration sites who give grades. Anyway, the good news is that the extremely tough immigration folks are probably currently supporting Tancredo or Hunter. Once they drop out of the race though, Ron Paul is the best on border security so theoretically we would gain those people because none of the other candidates are a good option on this issue.

yes...I agree with you on this. Disappointing that Paul would go for these types of amnesty for illegals. In spite of this his position on the other issues puts him ahead for me but this is some DAMAGING INFO used by the Hunter Tancredo and the like......the source who parrotted this info to me is a FRED supporter...

up until today I found nothing to disagree with Paul on.

 

[trispear]

I don't find the answer questionable. I would just like to know the guideline of who is eligible as a legal alien though (back then).

 

[derdy]

Wouldn't companies outsourcing their entire IT Depts to India be a reason to increase H-1Bs? We want those IT jobs in America, where an American is at least able to compete for it.

No, offshoring would be sending the jobs to India.

Outsourcing:
verb (used with object) 1. (of a company or organization) to purchase (goods) or subcontract (services) from an outside supplier or source.
2. to contract out (jobs, services, etc.): a small business that outsources bookkeeping to an accounting firm.
–verb (used without object) 3. to obtain goods or services from an outside source: U.S. companies who outsource from China.


They bring the guys over on H-1B visas from India and elsewhere and pay them much less. Like I said, I'm not opposed to H-1B visas, I'm just opposed to increasing it when the market has an abundance of American IT professinoals that don't have a job in the field.

At the time when Paul voted for this, the dot.com bubble was booming, so it's not like there was a shortage of IT jobs.

 

[rodent]

That was in 98 during the dot.com boom. I definitely don't support an abundance of H-1Bs now. Especially since some companies are outsourcing their entire IT Depts out to them to save on payroll.

Well, in some areas. American students have a severe distaste for math and where I am, it's very difficult to find Americans to do the work. The candidates get the market rate, and don't undercut Americans.

I guess grunt-work software developers can be outsourced, but hardcore quantitative work in my area almost never performed by white Americans -- unless they happened to have been naturalized Eastern Europeans.

 

[bdmarti]

At a glance, I don't care for his vote here either, however I laugh if that's the most questionable vote people can come up with from 10 terms in congress.

Since all politicians don't agree, and they don't all share the same "principles" some compromise has to be made to get anything done. If everyone refused to vote all the time on principle, there would almost never be a bill passed (which isn't so bad sounding really).

If you want 200 more border guards, but you can't get the bill passed unless you allow certain aliens to pay a fine and stay in line for visas...one must ask if it's worth it?

I think Paul makes the right principled stands when he refuses to vote for tax increases, unbalanced budgets, and congressional pay raises, and when he refuses tens of thousands of easy money from the congressional pension plan.

You can check any politicians record and find a place where they compromised.

So, while it may tarnish a "perfect" record on immegration (and I think there is some wiggle room on the vote), his principled stands on the budget and money issues show him to be a better man than any of the other candidates can claim to be.

Not only that, but Paul is right when he points out voting against this bill is the wrong way to fight the problem. Paul introduces and supports many bills attempting to end the welfare state and the incentives that cause the illegal immegration.

In a way, I find criticizing him on the matter to be like saying "Paul voted against nuking Iran, therefore he's against stopping terrorists!" Sure, nuking Iran might kill some real or potential terrorists, but it's a piss poor way to deal the problem.

 

[bbachtung]

Since a Fred Thompson supporter passed it along to you, you can let him know that Fred either didn't vote on H.R. 1885 / H. Res. 365 (a distinct possibility, considering Fred's work ethic in the Senate) or voted for it (it passed the Senate by unanimous consent on 9/6/01):