This information provided by The Federal Observer, http://www.federalobserver.com
By S. J. Miller
|
Previously on The Federal Observer: Part I: What's so different about Ron Paul?
To review Ron Paul's "6-Point-Plan" on Immigration & Border Security, click on http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
To review my inquiry sent to the Paul Campaign at mail@ronpaul2008.com for clarification, CLICK HERE.
Believing that effort in preparing the inquiry would enable the campaign to easily provide clear answers with one or at most two exchanges, I was glad to invest the time and energy. The written response requested would leave no room for miscommunications or be garbled in the telling. The July 8 transmittal received no answer; I re-sent on July 18 and followed up with a phone message left at the Ron Paul Campaign HQ.
On Thursday afternoon July 19, Mr. Don Rasmussen (Special Assistant to Ron Paul 2008) called and identified himself as the Campaign "point person on immigration." He was answering voicemail messages rather than reading campaign e-mail so he didn't have either of my e-mail inquiries but I re-sent a copy directly to his campaign e-mail address.
Friday, July 20 at 2:18pm:
Hey Sandra - I have thoroughly read through this e-mail and noted your concerns. It strikes me that. more than anything else, you should understand about Dr. Paul is that he never votes for any legislation that is not EXPRESSLY authorized by a LITERAL reading of the Constitution. This is the Congressman's consistent, overriding philosophy about government. It is limited in scope and the rule of law originates from the Constitution. Therefore, if there is a bill that has nine points which you and I agree are necessary aspects of border security, but also infringes on the Constitution, Natural Rights, in a 10th, unrelated provision, the Congressman's philosophy requires him to oppose it no matter how much he agrees with the border security provisions. This is called principled governance and it is admirable.
Therefore, where you point out that the Congressman voted against border security measures, it was not out of opposition to those measures, but rather opposition to other aspects of the bill that exceeded the federal government's authority under the Constitution. You may or may not agree with this philosophical principle, but that is how one rectifies Dr. Paul's stand on border security, which is as tough as Tancredo's or Hunter's, with his votes which reflect this larger principle. As president, Dr. Paul will have the bully pulpit from which to demand clean bills that address border security while avoiding the infringement on Constitutional liberties of Americans like you and I. Dr. Paul remains the strongest candidate with a strong border enforcement agenda.
As to the questions of militarization, Dr. Paul has stated publicly that he wants to withdraw the United States from the 130 countries to which we are currently deployed so that we can defend our borders effectively and without the massive drain on financial and human resources under which we currently suffer. He has been very critical of the Bush Administration for pulling border guards from the southern frontier in order to send them to Iraq to train Iraqi border security.
I hope this helps clarify Dr. Paul's position on this very important issue. If you have further inquiries, my door is open. Feel free to e-mail me and I will do my best to get you the answers you seek.
Yours in Liberty – Don
I could barely believe what I was reading. How could a campaign "point person" believe that such a generic comment replied to the specific questions I'd presented?
Sighing, I concluded that this process wasn't going to be easy or straightforward, and I' d be well advised to adopt the techniques used by our "congressional visiting team" with politicians like John McCain and Jon Kyl and their staffers during our 2006 visits to their Phoenix offices. We didn't assume anything that they didn't specify outright, and questioned any point that either wasn't clear or had "missing pieces."
(That our stategy was successful became clear in the spring of 2007 during the Senate Amnesty debate; unlike other Arizona conservatives, members of our team expected Senator Jon Kyl to wholeheartedly support amnesty. Those who believed Kyl's 2006 campaign promises of "I oppose amnesty" remembered our warnings during the campaign that Jon Kyl would support amnesty despite his promises, and we were right.)
My reply at 3:30pm on 7/20/2007:
Don,
This doesn't even begin to answer the items I raised. I'm pretty disappointed in your reply; I expected more than just a generic "it's unconstitutional" answer.
"Constitutional Authority" only excuses his voting record. What he includes and/or excludes in his 6 points doesn't offer that shield because his campaign position is standalone.
Like most Americans (especially on the issue of illegal immigration), I conclude that if Dr. Paul specifically excludes identifying an "Action Item" it's because he doesn't want to address it.
hat includes Employer Sanctions, the Border Fence and military on the border. He specifically excludes them from his 6 points; the question is why?
Am I to believe that these three items (especially) are totally omitted from the 6 points because Dr. Paul believes the Constitutional Authority isn't given to Congress?
My question of "What does Congressman Paul include in "whatever it takes" that he WILL do to secure our borders and stop illegal migration?" gave you and Dr. Paul a blank check to list items he WILL do that fall within his parameters of Constitutional Authority, yet nothing is offered. Just telling me that as President he will have a bully pulpit to achieve what he wants ("clean bills") means nothing if I have no idea what his position is. I had the same difficulty in February with Penny Langford Freeman.
What provision of the constitution does Congressman Paul claim gives Congress the authority to grant illegal alien amnesty as he voted to do several times and voted against abolishing?
Does Congressman Paul even want to stop illegal migration? Does he want to enforce current laws and deport illegal aliens or (as I suspect) does he want to vote for some 245(i)-type measure on the premise that "they're already here." When he appeared on the Terry Anderson Show and claimed he couldn't remember voting for three 245(i) illegal alien amnesties, no one believed that.
Mr. Rasmussen, I really am disappointed in your reply. If I chose, I could also be outraged at the implied insult to my intelligence that you even believe I'd regard it as a valid answer to specific questions I've raised.
I'm willing to offer one more opportunity to reply to questions I've presented.
Sandra Miller
Phoenix
Concluding that researching past bills for "un-constitutionality" would not only go nowhere but would distract the focus, I gave Congressman Paul a pass on questions of his past voting record. I emphasized that his campaign platform was his "wish list" that needn't consider other legislators' earmarks or pork legislation.
The only exception was on topics that showed consistency between his past voting record and current campaign positions from the "6-Point-Plan" or Mr. Rasmussen's comments.
Even after I removed this additional hurdle, the "ping-pong interview" continued for another 2-1/2 rounds:
My inquiry #2 to Rasmussen at 3:30 p.m. (above) E-mail response #2 from Rasmussen at 4:45pm My inquiry #3 to Rasmussen at 6:00pm E-mail response #3 from Rasmussen at 7:21pm My fourth AND FINAL inquiry to Rasmussen at 8:13 p.m., making clear to Rasmussen it was the last opportunity to provide clear and definitive answers (i.e. "Speak now or forever hold your peace.")
In presenting the exchanges, I've reorganized the comments by topic (without changing the responses themselves) so as to remain focused on one topic at a time.
For any skeptics out there (of which I would be one) who want a copy of the original e-mail exchange, just ask. Remember that your e-mail software should be html rather than text format to properly display the varied color and font styles it contains.
Topics addressed in the "Ping-Pong Interview:"
(1) Actions Against Employers
(2) Guest Worker Plans
(3) Ron Paul's two "illegal migration magnets" - citizenship & welfare
(4) Illegal Alien Amnesties
(5) Use of the military on the border
(6) Border Fence
(7) Reducing the US illegal alien population.
(1) Actions against Employers
Rasmussen, 4:45 p.m.: Employer sanctions - No, Dr. Paul does not want to turn private employers in to federal agents. With a responsible policy in place, this is also unnecessary.
(2) "Guest Worker Plans"
I didn't raise the question of "legal worker plans," but since Mr. Rasmussen did his comment is included for review and evaluation.
Rasmussen, 4:45 p.m.: Legal worker programs - Yes. Employers need workers, as long as they are here legally, through a normalized and vetted process, sure.
(3) Ron Paul's "illegal migration magnets" - citizenship & welfare
Ron Paul's December 19, 2005 Straight Talk article Small Steps Toward Immigration Reform outlines Congressman Paul's beliefs that two main magnets attract illegal aliens to the US: the welfare magnet and the citizenship magnet.
That he totally disregards the universally-recognized "jobs magnet" virtually isolates him on the topic. The one thing agreed 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.
Miller, 6:00 p.m.:
In his 2005 remarks, he mentions only the "welfare magnet" and "citizenship magnet." Is it correct that Dr. Paul rejects the "jobs magnet" concept as a driver in illegal migration?
No reply from Rasmussen.
(4) Illegal Alien Amnesties
Rasmussen 4:45 p.m.: Amnesty – No
Miller, 6:00 p.m.:
You say "Amnesty - No," but admitting that illegal aliens already here won't be deported IS amnesty. (I don't know how Dr. Paul defines amnesty (and this year there have been more "redefinitions" than you could shake a stick at) but AMNESTY is anything that allows an illegal alien to remain in the US - citizenship or lack thereof is irrelevant. It can't be both ways, Don.
That Congressman Paul supports illegal alien amnesty is no surprise with his voting record of supporting the Section 245(i) amnesty in the past. The punch line to the old joke seems to apply here: "We've already established what he is, we're just arguing about the price." It's not the PRINCIPLE of amnesty to which he objects, just the numbers involved.
It seems plain that Congressman Paul will do nothing to stop illegal aliens from coming here and nothing to stop employers from hiring them. His position seems to be that if they can get here illegally, they get to stay despite having broken the law to do it.
How is this position not amnesty? Not just a "one-time amnesty," but a continuing amnesty.
Rasmussen, 7:21 p.m.:
If I get caught violating the law and plea bargain a lesser punishment then the maximum allowed by law, did I receive amnesty? Deportation is not the only punishment for violating immigration laws, nor should it be. If you believe anything short of that is amnesty then we should put all murders to death regardless of the circumstances.
(5) Use of the military to secure the borders.
Rasmussen, 4:45 p.m.:
Military on the border - no, massively beefed up border security guards - yes. Constitution prohibits domestic deployment of the military but that doesn't mean we can't apply the necessary resources to creating an effective border security force with the training and the equipment to do the job.
Miller, 6:00 p.m.:
Military presence on the border to prevent unauthorized entry into the US isn't "domestic deployment of the military." We hear this excuse repeatedly, but no one is able to point to anything specific (and that included Penny McFarland during her February speech here in Phoenix). Please specify by article, section, and verse where the Constitution prohibits deployment of the military to prevent unauthorized entry into the US.
 |
Rasmussen, 7:21 p.m.: Military Deployment on the border - Does it really matter who has the guns and the authority so long as they effectively do the job?
Miller, 8:13 p.m. (FINAL):
Seems that you're 'muddying the waters' here. You claim the Constitution forbids deploying the military on the border to guard against unauthorized entry into the US. I ask that you identify the section of the Constitution with that prohibition, and you now change the subject to "who is on the border?" If your claim is true, you should have no difficulty in identifying the section of the Constitution that you repeatedly cite. Why do you continue to evade a direct answer to this?
No reply from Rasmussen.
(6) Border Fence
Rasmussen, 4:45 p.m: Border Fence – Yes!
(7) Reducing the US illegal alien population
Rasmussen, 4:45 p.m.: Deporting 10 million people isn't going to happen. Dr. Paul is realistic about this and knows that America is compassionate and is not going to try a policy that would lead to horrific human rights abuses on the scale of Bosnia or Ottoman Turkey.
Miller, 6:00 p.m.:
The conclusion that "10 million people are too many to deport so...." is what we heard ad nauseum from Senators to justify their supporting illegal alien amnesty. You say "Amnety - No," but admitting that illegal aliens already here won't be deported IS AMNESTY. (I don't know what Dr. Paul's definition of amnesty is - and this year there have been more "redefinitions" than you could shake a stick at - but AMNESTY is anything that allows an illegal alien to remain in the US - citizenship or lack thereof is irrelevant. It can't be both ways, Don.
That Congressman Paul supports illegal alien amnesty is no surprise with his voting record of supporting the Section 245(i) amnesty in the past. The punch line to the old joke seems to apply here: "We've already established what he is, we're just arguing about the price." It's not the PRINCIPLE of amnesty to which he objects, just the numbers involved.
It seems plain that Congressman Paul will do nothing to stop illegal aliens from coming here and nothing to stop employers from hiring them. His position seems to be that if they can get here illegally, they get to stay despite having broken the law to do it.
How is this position not amnesty? Not just a "one-time amnesty," but a continuing amnesty.
It seems obvious that Congressman Paul rejects the "Attrition through Enforcement" strategy which would reduce the illegal alien population through enforcement of current laws. Would he do just as George Bush does now - totally ignore current laws requiring prosecution of employers who hire illegals?
Rasmussen, 7:21 p.m.: Deportation - If you advocate rounding up 10-20 million people and all of the mass human suffering and rights' abuses that would accompany such an effort, then no Dr. Paul is probably not your candidate. He has a Christian soul and believes, as I do, that we are all God's creatures.
Miller, 8:13 p.m. (FINAL):
Nowhere have I advocated what you cite as "rounding up 10-20 million people and all of the mass human suffering and rights' abuses that would accompany such an effort." Nor does the Attrition through Enforcement strategy employ such methods.
Please be aware that your tactic is an old trick by the pro-amnesty crowd, led by Senator John McCain. The bill of goods they try to peddle is that there are only two possible solutions: (1) Allow illegal aliens to remain in the US, which is amnesty or (2) "Mass Roundups," invoking Gestapo-like tactics with railroad cars.
Just as does Senator McCain, you refuse to recognize a third possibility that HAS been effective - Attrition through Enforcement. The most obvious reason for your refusal is that Dr. Paul really doesn't want to rid the US of illegal aliens - he wants to keep them here. That's called amnesty, plain and simple.
Rasmussen, 7:21 p.m.: No candidate is advocating the kind of strategy that you seem to favor. If this is your litmus test for support, I find it unlikely that you will find any candidate that meets with your approval.
Miller, 8:13 p.m. (FINAL):
Your claim that "No candidate is advocating the kind of strategy that you seem to favor" is just plain wrong. Both Congressmen Tancredo and Hunter advocate such a strategy. By doing you the favor of concluding that you're simply uninformed rather than that you're intentionally lying to me, I'm demonstrating that I too have a Christian soul.
Rasmussen, 7:21 p.m.: What I don't see is any viable candidate willing to do as much or more than Dr. Paul to solve the problem consistent with our Constitution and our shared values.
Miller, 8:13 p.m.: You repeatedly cite the Constitution, but also repeatedly evade specifying where in the Constitution I may look to substantiate your claims.
Rasmussen, 7:21 p.m.: Either that is enough for you, or it isn't. Only you can make that decision.
Miller, 8:13 p.m. (FINAL)
You're entirely right; each American must make that decision. But it must be an informed decision, based on facts and a clear and non-evasive statement of Dr. Paul's position.
Obtaining it has become a monumental (and I suspect impossible) achievement. I could have immediately drawn the obvious conclusions, but instead I've offered the opportunity to make his positions clear.
Rasmussen's fabricated accusation that I've advocated "mass roundups" signaled that productive discussion was over. Those who engage in constructive discussions stick to ISSUES rather than conduct personal attacks. Using distortions or (ahem) lies to put someone on the defensive to evade answering the question is an old and transparent tactic, and made clear that no further clarification would be forthcoming.
Veterans of the anti-illegal migration issue have an old adage that "When they resort to calling you a racist, it's the signal that they've exhausted all their facts and persuasions and are now playing the race card because they have nothing left." I wonder if Mr. Rasmussen realizes just how transparent his tactic was, as well as the damage he did to the credibility of the campaign position.
At this point, I drew a line in the sand with a variation of Regis Philbin's question from his popular …..Millionaire TV show: "Is THAT your Final Answer?"
----- Original Message -----
From: S. J. Miller
To: Don Rasmussen
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: Congressman Paul's Immigration Position on ... ? - I think we're almost there.
Mr. Rasmussen,
The following questions remain unanswered. I ask that you address them, as well as the comments below that I've interspersed.(1) What section of the Constitution forbids deployment of the US military on the border?
(2) Does Dr. Paul reject the "jobs magnet" as a driver of illegal immigration, as his 2005 article states?
(3) Your analogy to convicted murders fails. If illegal aliens aren't to be deported but allowed to remain in the US, what punishment will Dr. Paul apply that he doesn't regard as amnesty?
This will be my last attempt. I've spent far more time trying to circumvent evasions and to obtain facts that a candidate should readily disclose to voters. The answers you provide now will be the last opportunity offered for you (and Congressman Paul) to provide definitive answers.
S. J. Miller
Phoenix
After 24 hours with no reply, it was clear I wouldn't hear further from Mr. Rasmussen. With that, the conclusions I drew for Part 3 were based on Mr. Rasmussen's replies, his non-replies and the portions of the 6-Point-Plan that were clear without further clarification.
Conclusions drawn from the project are outlined in Part 3 - the only conclusions presented here in Part 2 are those presented for Mr. Rasmussen's verification based on his comments.
COMING NEXT: Part III: Ron Paul - What Do I See?
August 11, 2007
© S. J. Miller, 2007. All Rights Reserved
~ The Author ~
S. J. Miller is a veteran activist against illegal migration who joined the exodus from California and now resides in Arizona. Twenty-seven years' experience designing and maintaining computer applications was excellent training for pressing politicians for their positions on an issue they preferred to avoid recognizing.
Growing up in Southern California provided the best classroom for learning about illegal migration, with the further experience as a lifetime border state resident of California, Texas and Arizona.
She participated in Arizona's 2003 ballot initiative for Prop 200, and organized "Congressional Visiting Teams" to face Phoenix-area congressional staffers with citizens opposed to illegal migration. IT engineering experience in "reading between the lines" has served well in determining Ron Paul's position on immigration & border security for the 2008 Presidential campaign.
Miller can be reached for comment at sjm20727@qwest.net
"Published originally at FederalObserver.com: republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."